ALLEGED LIBELLOUS CARTOON.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1053, 16 February 1911, Page 6

ALLEGED LIBELLOUS CARTOON.

! —♦—, f'MR. MASSEY V. »N.Z. TIMES." J THE VERDICT. ,• » [jury finds for defendantNotice OF APPEAL. I ■ ' —- "-. J The nctioii tor.£2ooo damages fornl- , leged libel, W. F. Massey, Lender of tho (Opposition, v. the New Zealand Times i Company, Ltd.,-was continued in the J Supremo Court yesterday morning, beiforo Mr. Justico Chapman. l< Mr. 11. D. Bell, K.C., with him Mr. [!A, Gray, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. S. Solomon, K.Q., with him Mr. A. Blair, nor the defendant ■ company. ■" ," v Viowiof an Artist. In continuation of tho evidence ineup/port'of the plaintiff's case. Mr. Gray called: W. A. Bowring, artist, Gisborne, who said hb had contributed cartoons and I illustrated drawings to various papers, [including London "Punch." Ho was , familiar with tho stylo, of tho artist who I drew, the cartoon ill question. Hβ took ■tho central figure in the'cartoon to repre-" {sent Mr. Massey, because of its similarity ;to previous cartoons, and its rcsemblanca 'to Mr. Masscy, Tho idea ho took from [Iho cartoon was that it was "getting at" ftfr. Mascey. Tho words'.''pamphlcts free , ! convoyed tho idea that Mr. Massey was distributing,tho.pamph]ct frce v ~,,.,., i To Mr. Solomon: Ho took it"'that' Mr. '; illassey was responsible for everything in tho'cartoon. ■ ■ \Did not the cartoon represent that the perty adopted the policy indicated?— .'•Possibly* .;.■ ~.; ■ *~ , ■ .'■""-''-' ; '; Mr/Maitey Givci Evidtnct. i Wm.'! Ferguson Slassey, farmer, Manferp, and member of Parliament for 'ranklyn, said he had boon in tho House, (for nearly 17 years. He saw tho cartoon {•when it camo out. lie had been tho subject of "innumerable cartoons, during his [jolitical. career, and had nover brought [an • action for libel in respect of . any [cartoon- before. '.' , ■ ,■' •. I Mr. Bell; This cartoon represents a cart (.■with the words'on it,-'■'Wβ nro the Parry." )The contents contained- packages labelled ("Dead \ -,Men's ; Characters," "Private (Calumny," etc. What impression, asked jllr. Bell, did they cause on the mind.of iTritnoss? f Mr. Massey:. "My idea was this; That the cart was made up with a,itumber of packets, labelled, Tamnhlets Free,' /Dead Men's .Characters,' etc./and , my impres(ion was, nnd is, that the idea intended (to bo conveyed was that this is the stock-tiri-trado which I in my capacity as Leader of 'the Opposition am supposed to hawk [round the country." -.-.,..■ ' „ \ Mr. Bell: Thcro is "stock-in-trado" and itho individual. Do you recognise tho Sindividual?-. •.. ■'■ - - | Mr. Massey: "I have'not tho faintest jdoubt-that,the. figure in tho cartoon is [intended fto' represent me." . I : Mr.' Bell t You \ .werq represented •as teitchittg your wagon to a he ? i< Mr.Massev: "Yes. That is tho lino'of [the.cartoon. .'. , ..'-..,- . . f,, Mr.-Bell:• Is the party'• indicated as jrell as yourself? . .'. . • • ■ ' ■■ ■ . f -Mr. To a certain extent,. Yes. 1 am the individual represented as hitching the/i>srty'waeqn"tqVa lie. Anything .which injured him reflected ito a certain jwtent on.the party. In answer to another, question, . witness said he had heard.a good deal of tho pamphlet rejilcctingon Sir Joseph AVard. (• Mr.TBoll: I propose to ask you whether you had any connection' directly or indirectly witn the dissemination or pubpamphlet. ... ' ; -.'■

k'■;'•.'■• An Offer In the House, r Mr. Massey:.lt, is.not necessary for mo to say very much.- I will ; simply m.v that neither directly. or indirectly had I anything to do with the publication or circulation of- tho. pamphlet. • • ..Witness ndded that he made an oner in tho House when the/'matter' was' under discussion that if, , any member of tho Government inside or 'outside the House could prove that he had eren known of tho publication of tho pamphlet before it was circulated, in the cities he would hand in' his resignation at once. Ho would still etand.by that offer. .; . *'■ '.

; •Mr.-.Bclh.ls.thpro a .word of. truth in the suggestion 'that you hitched your .waßOffto.'a.lie? .■•■' • .'• - . ; i Mr. 1 Solomon objected to tho question, g His Honour: Surely Mr. Massey's prevent disclaimer'covers tho whole ground. It isn't a.matter that is disputed, f Mr. Bell, addressing witness, said,there had been some vosue statements in .the Court as to the Opposition. There aro a number' of persons throughout tho Dominion who vote afearnst" tho Government. . Do you. ho asked fitness, assume responsibility for every 'such individual? 1 Mr. Massey: "I certainly do not." !'Mr. Bell: But'you do assume •responsibility.'for thoofflcial Opposition? . ;; Mr. Solomon' objected to tho t question pot being'relevant.

f His? Honour said-it might bo necessary to explain what Mr. Massey objected to. He was complaining of a personal libel of himself, and could refer to his position with tho official or, recognised Opposition. Mr.' Solomon's Rueuestion was that it,was not a personal libel of.hinitelf, but that, it was-in indictment of the political party.' Plaintiff was entitled to dissect tho libel, and show in evidence in what- way he proposed to say' it was I personal libel on himself.

[Mr. , ' urged' that it was not ppen for plaintiff to go into'the question Of what he was responsible for in regard to the Opposition. ■ -His Honour: Surely it .is a> start by Mr., Bell /before asking more relevant juostjons. ■ ' ■ ' ' ■ , ; Mr. Bell: Who has llio Sircction of the methods and action of tho official Opposition ? . v Mr, Massey: Mostly myself. Tho initiative, and genera] direction rests with' Die.,:' ■ "' . '~ ' .. ■ ",

'•Mr.yßcll: What you havo said as to your absolute, disassociation t from the pamphlet and its dissemination, .does'that •apply equally to yourself as head and tiirector of (his organisation as well as to.your self personally? . • Mr. Masscy was understood to reply "Yes,", but Mr. Solomon protested against the question.. He took the opportunity of saying that tho head and front of defendant's answer to this case was that they did.not suggest that Mr. Massey had any connection with it, and.that they had never expressly'stated that they sver believed he had anything to do with

i .Mr. Bell (to witness): You took part in. the. debate in the House on November 30?—" Yes." ■ •

I-.Mr. Bell: It. has been suggested in. varions questions put to witnesses that the Prime Minister and members; exonerated yon in that debate from any complicity in tho matter. Is that the case? I Mr. 'Massey: No, it is not tho case. I tan explain if necessary just what took place. "Of course," he ndded, "when I speak of members I speak of members »nd supporters of the Government."

; , Why the Action Was Brouflht. f In the. course of further examination witness was asked to state why ho thought it necessary to bring this action. ! Mr. Massey said he thought the carloon in question contained a cold-blooded ind deliberate.libcl'on himself. 'Ho took the words, "hitch your wagon to a lie" to imply that ho was a liar. The cartoon also -suggested that ho took , - tho Jther. parcels in the cart, which were labelled "Dead Men's Characters," "Calaiuny," etc., round the country for tho purposes of injuring tho Government and Benefiting the party ho was connected r 11h. In his opinion a, libel by means, of i cartoon was a thousand times worso ihan a libel in letterpress. Peoplo who »w and understood the libel in a cartoon would not see a libel in an article tn .the "New Zealand Times" or. in any >ther paper.- ■ ' . /

; ; Mr. Massey Crott-Examlned.. '> Cross-examined by Mr.-Solomon: You jay that you thought it was a very atrorious libel that was published against rou?.vYou noticed it ou-tho morning of December 3?—" Yes," ......

You went straight away and issued a writ, served , on the samo day?—"lt was served the same daj I understand."

. iDiil you consult anyone?—"ln such a cape i>9 this you cauld not expect mo tu act without consulting my legal advisor."

'Anyone el<o?—"No; it was mentioned to mo by scores of people, but I consulted no one." Did you sco tho , statement of claim made on your behalf?—" Later onj it may be two or three weeks." And you think it was a shocking thing that it should bo suggested you wero a liar?—"l do." And you think you ought to get damnges for being called a linr—"Yes." That is what you are suing for?—"I am doing it to clear my character- of this imputation, not for dnmnges." . The Word Uar. 'Well, how do you account for, the fact that when your original writ was issued not a word was said about your!being a liar. How do you account for , that?— "That is a matter for my legal adviser." His Honour: Did you notice that tho word "liar" was omitted from the original statement ?—"No, your nonour." .. Mr. Solomon: It was only in the last few days that a word was «aid about it? Mr. Bell hero explained that tho point referred to was contained in, • "Hitch your wagon to a lie." ' ' Mr. Solomon (to witness): "When this .claim was' originally made, you cloimid .£2OOO entirely bocaufo you said it was suggested you wero connected with tho distribution of the "black" pamphlet?— Not eimply nnd solely. The writ mentioned that amongst other things.' 'He-thought the writ had better bo produced; Mr. Solomon (reading from tho writ): "That tho defendant company meant by ■the cartoon that tho plaintiff, who was depicted in tho said cartoon as-"hitching a wagon,' was responsible for the free distribution of the pamphlet, etc." For that .publication, then, witness .-.'claimed .£2OOO. ■ Did :ho think it a fair remunera-tion?.--Witness .did not think Jt half enough." ' •' ■"■ ■• Mr. Solomon: And then you fcnew tho ;. word-l.iar-wo9-a«ld*il.-«fYoiijdidn-t-'claim any more for" that". "You throw r "th<S 'liar in?. You don't make any other claim. Answer this point: How does it coino that if you thought this pamphlet meant you disturbed this mud about dead mens characters thero is no claim in respect to that matter now? Witness said ho did not pretend to explain it? ' Mr. Solomon went on to ask had witness noticed that Mr.-T..E. Taylor in Christchnrch had said, that when_ witness made a certain statement about him in the House ho had lied.

'Mr. Bell objected. ' _ His. Honour said..that Sir., Taylor may not bo a member of tho Opposition and therefore not under >Mr. ■ Massey's control; (Laughter.) . . <../.,--, Mr. Solomon said tho point he wished to put when interrupted was: Was it a serious matter for ik politician to be termed a liar politically. Ho contended that Mr. Taylor had so characterised Mr. Massey in plain- English. Mr. Massey: Will you- produce tho statement? ■ Mr. Solomon: Have seen it. Witness said he had not seen it. .Ho did not believo Mr. Taylor had said jt. Mr. Solomon said if no put it to witness that ho'had.said it,.would witness take, action? Witness: I won't Bay that. Hβ was ouito capable of dealing l with Mr. Taylor. • . Mr..Solomon: And I am quito capable of dealing with you. • ■ ■■■: v. Witness: Perhaps. ' The Cartoon. ' Mr. Solomon: Does it iiot. occur to you that this cartoon was intended as a pictorial representation of .the wrangling that was going on between tho Opposition nnd the liovemnient about that timo?— "It is not a pictorial representative of what was going on." .The Hine charges-.were, occupying a lot of tho timo of tho Houso at tho time?—" Yes." ' . , ..- And it was suggested that matter involved something improper on tho part of tho Government?—Ye?, to a certain extent, but tho charges wero not against the Government. Tho Government was involved only to a cortain.cxtcnt. Tho Opposition said; . In a' polite way, that tho Government had not behaved 'us they should. —"Quito so." In effect it was suggested' that the Hino matter involved a question of Tammany? —"Yes." , ' , ' . ~ ■ ■ < • . .Tammany meaus corruption, doesn't it? —"Yes." ■.;•. •• ■ ' Doesn't that mean that tho Government was guilty of corruption?—"Do you-ask for a definition of Tammany?" You told mo that it meant corruption, and yon/thcreforo nccusedtho Government of corruption intho House.—"lmproper practice." •..-,••.•• When you accused tho'Government of Tammanyism (which you say is corrupt practice), did you mean to ;say that - individual members of "tho '. -Government were personally guilty of corrupt practices?—" What I said was this,"and the reference was made bn n public, platform, that I had seen more indications of Tammanyism during tho preceding session than during all I had been in Parliament."

■ Did you mean that tho ■ individual members wero corrupt?—" Perhaps I had better explain." .••-.- Will you say "yes" or no"? . Directed by the Judge, witness replied that what ho intended to say was that the Government had been guilty of improper practices in connection with tho administration of tho country. Mrv Solomon: That is not an answer to my question. Do you. intend to say that individual members of tho Government .wcro personally corrupt?—"l was referring to tho Government as a whole, and I say that they wero guilty of principles of improper practice." But still they individually were honest men?—"l have nothing to say against them." '

!And thus when you say-the Government is corrupt you don't mean to libel the members of the-Government? You don't mean that?—"l, havo, uevsr said orie-tcnth as much r.s appeared in' the cartoon." , ■ « • . -i ' Mr. Solomon repeated his question, and asked why, then, when'the newspapers said tho Opposition, was corrupt, did it mean to libel him. What was'sauco for tho gooso was surely sauce for tho gander. —"But this paper goes much farther than that." . ■ •■■■-..,■■...

Mr. Solomon ventured to' speak about tho love politicians had for one another, Mr. Massey suggested that perhaps coun. Tel was qualifying himself for a'position in the i Government. (Laughter.) Mr. • Solomon referred to Mr. Massey's Whancarci speech. Ho had said there that the difference between the policy of the Opposition and,that of-tho Government was that the nolicy of tho".Opposition was honest.— I remember .that I said tho policy of the Opposition was a policy of honest} - , and tho policy of tho Government was a policy, of ' humlnig." (■Laughter.) ■ . ' , t Did you mean by that , ' that tlio members' of the Government, personally were humbugs?—" Politically, not'- per'sonally." ■-•■.-- :i You would not suggest that Sir.'Joseph Ward was a political humbug, would you? (Laughter.) Mr. Solomon: Is it i>. fair thins that you should be able to criticise the policy of tho Government or tho Opposition without making any reflection on tho constituent parts?—"l have never attacked any member in tho House in his privato ennacity." ■ , ~ ■ ■ • . • You have even gone so far as to say that what you term spoils to the victors is political robbery—"l have never used those words." ..no you deny it?—"l will not say that individual members of the Government are robbers." • ' • Then you don't attack their individual characters ?-I never hit below tho belt. • Not For Gain. ■ "•-■ . It wae suggested during tho discussion in tho 'House, yeas it not, that this pamphlet which reflected on Sir Joseph Word must have been published with a view to injure him, and not for tho nur» poso of gain?—"l havo heard that stated. ■And it was stated in proof of this that the person who would publish' this for sain would not ■distribute it free?—"l heard that stated." Then yon take Hint to mean that the members of the party woro responsible for this freo. distribution ?—"That was implied." Was it said?—" That was tho meaning intended to be conveyed by a number of epcaJcers." You jump to toe conclusion that a reflection - was , cast upon you and your party?—"C«rfainly.'?

Not on'you personally?—" Yes," on -me, as tho head of tho party." You don't think it meant that you personally distributed them to the party lor them to distribute them?—"Tho question was that tho party was responsible." Did not tho Prime Minister fay in debate that lie made ro reflections ngninst you?—" Not in tho wny yoii are putting it." Did ho not use theso words: that I make no reflections on tho lion, geutlem an? The point' «s to the exact words was further argued, nnd finally counsel asked if when the Premier had said ho lnndo no reflections on him did he believo it?— "Yea, in speaking of that particular point." Mr. Solomon also introduced tho statements in. the House of Messrs. M'Laren nnd Duncan. Did witness not accept tho statement of Mr. M'Laren \cheu ho said he believed tho Opposition were not concerned in tho distribution of the pamphlet?—" Yes, up to that extent." Didu't Mr. Taylor say tho same thing? —"No, ho didn't." Counsel produced tho Hansard, and read from Mr. Taylor's speech. Ho said, ''I made, no such charge." Did witness believo it?—" No."About Sympathy. You say your sympathy went out. to tho Prime' Minister.' When did it commence to go out?—"lt would go out to you, even, if you were attacked in this way." Thank you, I am dealing with the Prime Minister. "No,' you nro dealing wiith itho Leader of the Opposition." (Laughter.) When did your sympathy commence to go out ? —"lt commenced to go out at the time when Mr. Solomon, of Duuediu, had him on the rack for examination and cross-examination." I thought you would say that. I have been waiting for that for twentyfour hours.—"And now you have got it." And now you haw got it off your chest let us get on. Counsel said n leader had appeared in the "Times" the morning after , tho dehato in tho House (December 1), in which was said that th-e Opposition hnd declared that they had no hand at all in it, and wero not responsible for tho publi-. cation of the pamphlet. Did the paper not say they accepted tho statement as unreservedly ns it wiis mado?—"Something liko that." Did you believo at that'time that tho "Times" intended to suggest that you had any connection with the pamphlet? /-"Not then, but two days afterwards." Then you suggest tlify mado a complete change of front?—" Yes." You suggest that they led on. the people to believe that you were innocent, and yet, by an ,obscuro publication on December 8, they completely changed round?—" Yes, I say that, on December 1 they said we had nothing to do with it, and on December 3 we had.".

Iu reply to further questioning, witness said ho thought somo subtle, influence had been at work between tho two dates mentioned above to cause the change of front, of which he was not aware, and had not been able to understand. . . '

I ask you, with your knowledge of tho facts, did nothing happen in the Houses of Legislature to chango tho facts?— "Yes, a great speech bv tho Hon. Dr. Findlay." I. • . Dr. Findlay's Speech. Did Dr. Findlay in the House suggest in any way any misconduct on your part?—"lt is not in order for a member of the Legislative. Council to icfcr to a member of the Lower House." .Did yon say that ho suggested any personal misconduct on your part?—"Ho used tho words contained in tho cartoon: 'Hitch your wagon to a lie;"' Is it not a fact that when he used these words ho was not speaking of you personally?—"l s . took it to myself and others." !•■•>!«," • Did he directly or indirectly refer 'to yon?—"I was ono of those he referred to." : ' Mr. Solomon .went on to refer to Mr. Massey's speech at Tauinaranui, in which ho mado his charges of Tammanyism; also, to tho Hon. T. Mackenzie having brought the matter up in the House, and having asked of, the",;- ppposition to define what'Tam'm'ariyisni'meant. Was it not asked if tho term did not seriously reflect ou members of. tho House, thn and tho people who sent them there, tho' judges, etc.? ■ _ Witness: "I don't believe, those words were, used." Did Tammany mean all this?—"l am not going lo answer a question, that I don't believe was nsked in Parliament." Do you remember saying, "I use the term nnd I would use- it on every platform"?—" Yes." . , ; And yet you heard the definition of the word?—" Yes; but I don't accept Mr. Mackenzie's definition. Witness had said that tho withdrawal ,of> Government advertisements f rom ■•• papers - that • opposed them, nnd the spending of Government money in tho way the Government had done, savoured of Tammanyism, and ho would say so still. Ho had said-they wero guilty of improper practices, and ho said so still. And you still say that thoy aro guilty of this torriblo Tammanyism ?—"Yes, as I understand it." . . : . And yet, though you make theso statements, you want JC2OOO from the "Now Zealand Times" Company for saying what they did? Tammany Defined, Mr. Massey said that his definition o , Tammany was tho expenditure of money for party purpose, the rewarding of papers that supported tho Government by giving them advertisements, and tho punishing of those who criticised tho Government by withholding advertisements; there was the appointing of men to tho Tipper House not on account of fitness or becauso they possessed tho confidence of tho people, but because they wcro largo-shareholders of the papers that supported tho Government and its policy; there was the influencing of tho votes at election timo by public expenditure.

Mr. Solomon: You still say that the individual members of tho Government

didn't do anything wrong. . Can'tho Govornment do as you suggest without them doing any wrong? You think anyone-is justified in kicking out, so long as he doesn't mnko any attack on the individual?—"So long as it is a public mat-' tier." He-examined by Mr. Bell, witness said tho man Black was not an.Oppositionist in tho ordinary senso of tho word. He had nothing to do with the Opposition party. Sir Joseph Ward never exonerated witness from being connected with tho publication and circulation of the pamphlet. This closed tho plaintiff's case. air. Solomon stated that it was not tho intention of, tho defendants to call.evidence. V Mr. Bell's Address,

In his address to tho jury Mr. Bell condemned the suggestion that witnesses for plaintiff bud been influenced by their politics. Ho asked if any man on the jury would say that tho cartoon which connected Mr. Massey with detestable lies was not a direct slander ou the plaintiff. What defendants said and what they would prove was that it was never intended that plaintiff was in any way responsible for the pamphlet referred to or wns ho connected with tho issue and distribution of tho pamphlet. Thenthey denied that the pictorial representation and tho words printed were published of and concerning' tho plaintiff. That was the case they canio here to put before the jury. Of course, they could still ask the jury to disbelieve every onij of tho witnesses called, and could ask tho jury to say that all the witnesses for tho plaintiff had told them what was not true. They could (.till ask tho jury to say that tho figure was not a representation of Mr. Massey.'but they could not protend to say that they could bring any m«n in tho city to take his oath on statcmonls made in tho defence, flofendants said tho figure was not intended to resemble plaintiff, fted that it did not in fact resemble him. In this connection Mr. Bell remarked that he did not want to waste timo on a mailer which appeared to him absolutely too clear to stressing. The figm-o at the cart aid represent Mr. Massey, or at all events perfectly honest fellow citizens caino to the Court nnd expressed their opinion. Thcro was no answer to this, that it did represent Mr. Masssy engaged in hitching tho cart to a load of filthy and dcspicablo lies. The intention of tho 'defendants was not a necessary clement in plaintiff's success. Even , if they did not intend to represent Mr. Massey, but if they did present a figure that reasonable men .would' take to represent Mj^

Massey that was enough. Ho-would, go further.' If it happened accidentally and if they had used tho figure, that intention which reasonable men thought was Mr. MnsFoy was surely enough, Mr. Bell submitted witli confidence that not only him , plaintiff proved that (his did convey to reasonable mm a gross and.foul imnutation on plaintiff, but that it had bean proved that it was obvious to men of common emsc that the figure was deliberately and intentionally adopted for. the purpose of conveying that imprecsion. If tins was so they would .leal with defendonts in a very diflerent way to what they would if •no publication was to somo extent a misfortune. It had been suggested in.n question put that the, figure represented . ila **?i' tJPically as tho Opposition .am-, ot course, said Mr. Bell, no one in his coimnonsenso could deny that the attack was on the Opposition party ns well ns on Mr. Massey. Tho other side liad suggested that- this v;as a libel on the Opposition. Of course it was. It was a hbi'l also as plaiu as figures and words could speak on Mr. Massey personally. Mr. Bellthen proceeded to examine tho history, of tho trouble. On November 31 a debate took placo in tho House, and in tho course of it references were mado to the "Black" pamphlet. On December 1, the "Xw Zealand Times" published n leading article, which defendants set out in their defence, and in this article, they said that the official Opposition vehemently denied any connection with this matter.- They went on jo say that they accepted the disclaimer, but that what tho Opposition could not deny was that supporters of the party were; usiiij the pamphlet. All tho ofucial organisation could do was to denounce it and say they had nothing to do with it. This was done, and it' was accepted by the "New Zealand Times." Up to December 1 tho "Times" had done itself credit by occepting iho word of Mr. Massey. On tho evening of that day, the matter was transferred from the House of Representatives to tho Legislative Council, and there Dr. Findlay made a speech, nhich the jury had not tho advantage of having before them. Ho (Mr. Bel!) had called it "an epochmaking" speech, and had been accused of sneering at, it, but he said it becauso it was common ground that it made an almost extraordinary change in the law of libel. '

On December 3 the "Times" published tho cartoon in question. They had- got themselves into a mess with the article, and so they turned round and said as plainly ns they could, wo to recall everything wo, said before. If tho article of tho first had appeared after tho cartoon it would have been different, but the cartoon appeared after the article, and mndo the position worse. Tho piib-. lication of tho cartoon after the. article, ho urged, amounted to a withdrawal of the acccptanco in tho article. Could there bo any other interpretation, ho asked? Ho hnd ondeavonred to present tho case to the jury as it seemed to him it must present, itself to reasonable men. If ho hod exceeded tho lines of fair and sober.argument, he asked them to discard any expression of tho kind which mig'it seem to.have that meaning. Thero had been tbo usual contemptuous refcrenco to; the amount of damages claimed, but "he quoted cases where far moro had been claimed and given by juries. Onn caso quoted was that of a New Zealand paper, admittedly of different standing from tho defendant, against which a verdict of .£2OOO ' had been awarded for slander. In no Fonse, ho contended, had they, asked for any exaggerated amount. The jury could express in tho only way it could express it, tho contempt' which he felt suro they must feel for tho method of attack adopted against Mr. Massey. Tho only way this could bo shown was by. n verdiot carrying such damnges as would not only show the jury's sense of the wrong that Mr. Massey had suffered, but would bo n warning.that such practices would, not bo affirmed by juries. It_ was in tho power of the jury to do simple justico between the parties, and do a great public service. •■•■••.■ ' •-.•-.

Mr. Solomon Replies.' 'Mr. Solomon, in his address to' the jury, said a political cartoon had bojn published in a local newspaper, and plaintiff said that that cartoon referred to him in a particular way. ' That was tho only way in which plaintiff had a right to succeed. . Ho had to prove beyond doubt that the nrticlo meant what ho said it meant. If it meant something different to what he said.it meant, some .criticism of his party, a moaning dther than that ho had chosen to attnch : to it,; and ho (counsel) thought tho Court would support him when ho said that if tho meaning was other than what plaintiff said, the jury must find for the defondant compnny. It wns important at tho outset to seo what it was that plaintiff claimed. It was the duty of'tho jury to find out what tho thing meant and what the claim was mnilo up of. Plaintiff's solicitor, according to Mr. Solomon, admitted that this was a criticism of tho Opposition and thereby a criticism-6f Mr. Massoy the head of tho party. ,,, MrV Bell admitted that it was. a political cartoon. Plaintiff could have besought a'ri action saying that tho Opposition had been maligned and asked as one of tho Opposition for damages. This was not nn nttack on Mr. Masscy as leader of the Opposition. This thing Mr. Masscy said ho is accused. of wns something outsido of politics. .It was a personal matter. Here was a'pamphlet reflecting on tho Primo Minister issued by sorao person obviously for private spite. It had been characterised as disgraceful throughout tho Dominion. Yet in Mr. Massey's statement of claim ho wanted tho jury to believe that he, as a man, was alleged to have assisted- out of his own pocket in tho distribution of tho pamphlet. It was an outrage to. suggest such a thing. He hod every pleasure in saying, that the "Times" had always treated Mr. Massey as an honest man, and ho challenged anyone to say defendants had ever treated him as anything but an honest man. Mr. Solomon contended the action was entirely a private one. Neither Mr. , Massey nor his henchman, Mr. Frascr. had said it wns nn attack upon Mr. Massey personally. They both had said it was a charge'against the Opposition generally. Ho did not propose to say much' about the refcrenco to Mr. Massey being n noliticnl liar. If what they had heard from Mr. Masscy that tho floor of the House is scattered with lies as freely as blackberries on a West Coast road'is true—that if a politician is only charged with being a. liar—it was rather to bo considered complimentary than otherwise. The jury must: not bo actuated by any political feeling in the matter. They could not give damages to show that Mr. Mnssey had no connection with the .distribution of the pamphlets. Tho cartoon was undoubtedly : to illustrate what had been going on in the House and was not an attack on Mr. Masscy. Looking nt the surrounding circumstances at tho timo of the publication they saw that Dr. Findlay had deplored tho state of things concerning politics and wns Dot this the meaning of the cartoon. The picture, therefore, was merely a charge against the Opposition and not aeninst Mr, Mnssey personally. .•Hβ pointed out that, the paper in a leader had absolved Mr. Massi>y. nnd was it reasonable to believe that it would roakj this sudden ohnn»e of front? As to the cartoon, they did not say it did not refer to Mr. Massoy.ibut not as a member of tho Opposition, which was tho real reason of the action? Wns it not that iu k few months them would be a general elerlion? Mr. Massoy know thai Sir Joseph Wnrd had received a larnn amount of svmpotbv in tho attack made upon him. Would-it not be an advantage to the Opposition, too, if he could sny before the election , .that Sir Joseph Ward was not tho only man deserving of sympathy?. His Honour's Address.

In summing up. his Honour said.that he need only bo brief, because there was really no actual dispute about the factsonly about the interpretation of those facts. A libol had been found to bo anything, published in writing or printing or a picture, calculated to bring a person into ridicule, hatred, or contempt. An action for libel could bo brought whether tho libel v;cre intended or not. Ho cited the famous case in England, of Artomus Jones, a barrister, who complained that a newspaper published a comic article reflecting on his moral character. It was admitted by tho plaintiff that the writer had never heard of the barrister. It was put to the jury by tho'Judge that if the persons publishing tho libellous nutter had in effect .so described nn imaginary person that they were writing nbout e as to hurt tho plaintiff the jury woro entitled to give a verdict for him. This had been done, and upheld by the House of Lords. If this cartoon, therefore, was not designed with the intention of describing Mr. Masscy, but was so drawn that a number of people reason, ably in£cr. that it jvas iaUniti for-kba.

then it wes open for tho jury to 60 decide. Ho understood that it was not disputed that tho figure was capable of being taken for Mr. Mnssoy. Suppose Ihp figure was placed there as typical of tho Opposition, could it bo taken for Ifr. Massey by the way it was drawn? If jo, it was open to tho jury to accept the case as a parallel ono to tho case he had cited. Was it a libel on Mr. Masscy, tending to bring him into contempt? If so, was this a representation that Mr. Mtissey was responsible for tho frco distribution of Uic pamphlet? The plaintiff suggested tho imputation was a personal one. If 60, it was n serious allegation. Tho jury must, bear in mind that the enso mado out in tho claim was not proved, unless they thought it imputed to Sir. Masscy that ho had willingly and actually taken an active part in the distribution of. this iscurrilous pamphlet. If that was meant, it was a serious imputation against a man, but a case was i;ot made but for plaintiff unless the jury thought Mr. Massey had done this. Mr. Solomon's answer to this was that it was a mistake. That tho interpretations of the cartoon was that th«o was a great deal of inud-slinging going on in and out of Parliament, and that the Opposition' had a hand in that as well ns other politicians, and also that the Opposition and its members- wero not abovo mud-slinging. If tho infenfion of the article was merely to illustrate Dr. Findlay's speech then the jury might find- that tho suggestion mado by counsel for the defenco was an answer to this complaint—that it never was intended to impute anything disgraceful to Mr. Massoy personally. Continuing, his Honour said it was often said, as the jury would know very well, that politicians ought not to bo too sensitive about even, libellous matter aimed at themselves as politicians, and still less sensitive about matter even of a defamatory kind aimed at the party of which they might be the leader or members. .It 'was suggested that not only was thero no intention to impute anything between Mr. Massey and the publication of tho pamphlet, but that this cartoon was not capable of being so interpreted. Tho suggestion was that it was an ordinary political cartoon, and that it was in no way distinguishable from the ordinary run-of cartoons which hnd imputed to plaintiff's party as not being above dealing with tho .particular political coinage piled up on the cart, llis Honour asked the jury to give its attention to the way in which counsel for the parties had put thd matter before them, and asked them to test for themselves which version was tho proper one or whether plaintiff had not been oversensitive about an attack upon his politics. If the jury thought this was a libel on Mr. Mtussey in that tho figure pointedly charged him with hitchine the party wagon to n lie, and with utilising the free circulation of the pamphlet that would.entitle h,im to a verdict. If it did not, and it was a mere political cartoon not pointin? to Mr. Masscy personally it was not a libel. If the jury found that tho cartoon imputed to Mr. Massey this act, and connected him with the circulation of the- pamphlet, and that it was not a justifiable piece of criticism it'was for them to consider what damages ought to ensue. Plaintiff, was entitled to a verdict if ho had been libelled, even though thero ivas no intention to libel, hut thero was a great difference between libelling a man unintentionally and libelling him intentionally.' If tho jury had to consider the question of damages they would havo to consider whether this was a wilful act or an act which in fact made tho kind of reflection and imputation moant by tho seventh paragraph in tho statement of claim.

The Issues. His Honour put the following issues to tho jury:— 1. Whether Mr. Mnssey was described in this cartoon. • 2. Whether the cartoon imputed to him that he had been; despito his disclaimer, connected with tho distribution of this scurrilous pamphlet, , 3. If they' found "that "plaintiff had made out his case, whether ho was ' entitled to damages on the ono foot or the other. There was, said his Honour, very, little in the ovidence. It was a question of interpretation and for that reason he asked the jury to consider tho arguments of counsel rather than the evidence, Tho evidence in th'js,'.<&s'o'canib to "bo" of'less importance than in tho ordinary case, as, practically speaking,; the jury wero converted into witnesses themselves. Tho jury,-ho said in conclusion, would have to rely on its own judgment. ' Tho jury retired at 1.20 p.m. ( The Verdict. , • '■ Tho jury returned at 3.45 p.m., when the foreman announced tho verdict as follows:— (1) Wo aro of opinion that tho figure represents Mr. Massey.- ■ ' (2) We aro of opinion that this; is a political cartoon puro and simple, and is not libellous. ■ • His Honour Faid that on'.this finding he'directed a verdict for tho defendant. "If you wish to question that,",he added, addressing Mr. Bell; "I will take down the exact words." The jury was then directed to return a verdict for defendant. ' Mr. Bell gave notice to movo for leave to set asido tho judgment, or to apply for a new trial. Mr. Solomon: Does your Honour enter judgment? His.Honour: "Oh, yes." His Honour added that the leave he had given necessarily moved for leave to set the judgment aside. Mr. Bell: And for a new trial, of course, your Honour? His Honour: "Yes." Judgment was accordingly entered for defendant with costs as per scale, second day £15 155., second counsel Bs. per day, witnesses' expenses to be fixed by tho Registrar. Appeal to bo Lodged. It is understood that the plaintiff will appeal against \ tho verdict, on the grounds that tho jury was misdirected, and' that . tho verdict was against tho weight of evidence. ...