ALLEGED LIBELLOUS CARTOON.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1177, 12 July 1911, Page 9

ALLEGED LIBELLOUS CARTOON.

MASHEY V. "N.Z. TIMi;S." An appeal nnaiii>l the decision of the Chief .lu.-tice ami Mr. Justice Chapman in iho ca.-f rf Win. Ferguson Mn.->ey v. the New Zealand Times Company, Ltd., whs commenced yesterday afternoon before Kir .Inshmi ■William.- ami Justices Detinistnn, IM'wanls and Sim. .Mr. 11. }). \M\, K.C., with him Mr. A. Oray, appenrpd for appellant, and Mr. S. Soloinon. K.C., with him Mr. A. Fair, for Hie respondent company. In the original action Mr. Mn«sey claimed .£-2000 il.nmagcs in reaped »f n cartoon published in the "New Zealand Times" of. .December 3. 1010, in which cartoon, ainonjpt other things, were the words "I'aihphlets Tree , ' and"intcli your Waggon to a Lie." The cart son was a representation of a cart containing packages labelled as above, the cart being drawn by a donkey on which was the name "Ananias." Mr. Massey claimed that the publication was false and malicious, and was intended by tho "New Zealand Times" to have reference to himself. Defendants contended that the cartoon and words were fair comment, made in good faith, and without malice, upon a matter of public interest. The finding of the jury had b?en as follows:— We are of opinion that the figure represents Mr. Massey. We are of opinion that this is a political cartoon pure and simple, and is not libellous. The plaintiff then moved for a new trial on tho following grounds:— (1) That the special verdict or finding of the jury is so defective that, judgment cannot be entered upon it. (2) That tho learned judge misdirected the jury in tho following matters:— (a) By directing them that they might disregard the evidence of tho witnesses as to the interpretation by such witnesses of the cartoon and words which form the libel. (b) By directing them that, even if they found that the plaintiff was represented by the figure hitching the waggon, they might properly find that the cartoon and words were a mere political skit, and therefore did not attribute personal misconduct to the plaintiff. (c) By directing them that their special finding was a verdict for the defendant company, aud that they, upon such special finding, should give their verdict for tho defendant company. (3) That the verdict is against the weight of evidence. (4) That the finding of the jury v# not a verdict for the defendant company. , (5) That the learned judge admitted improper evidence, to winch the plaintiff objected distinctly at the trial, namely evidence of the memory of witnesses of reports of what was said by members of Parliament, in a. debate in the House of Kepresentatives on November 30. 11)10. and in a debate in the Legislative Council on December 1, 11)10. . , •;-

Ihfi Chief Justice in his judgment stated that he was of opinion that nono of the grounds for a. new trial were valid, and that the motion must lie dismissed. Mr. Justice Chapman .v;reed with the judgment of the Chief Justice. It seemed to him that there was really only one substantial question, viz., whether the verdict was against the weight of evidence. His Honour did not think that this had been proved. Plaintiff now appealed against the whole of the judgment delivered by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice. Chapman upon the ground that the judgment upon the motion was erroneous in-its findings of fact, and its determination of law. ./» outlining his caw at pome length, Mr. Bell MihmUtcd that Mr. Justice Chapman had left the jury to accept the view that, if one slandered a political pnrty and a politician together, that was not. slander on the politician. Appellant submitted that the Court should find that, that was rho result, of what took' place nt the-triifl. The cartoon represented a figure hitching an a.=s labelled "Ananias" to a waggon, and. underneath the cartoon, were the words, "Hitch your waggon to a lie.' They (appellants) submitted that it was not open to any twelve reasonable, men to 1 find.other than that this indicated that appellant was a liar. Mr. He!) proceeded to deal at. length with tho question of the adniissibility of certain evidence at the. trial, stressing particulnrly certam ovidonce adduced iu> tho cross-ex-amination of Mr. Von Haast. The Court rose for tho day -when Mr Bell was still reviewing H» case.