RONALD-HARPER CASE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1669, 8 February 1913, Page 5

RONALD-HARPER CASE.

MORE LITIGATION.

By Tfllcarasli-Preiß .AHOolation-Oopyrtirht

; Melbourne, February 7. Tho Rev. Jamas Ronald has issued a writ against Mr. Robert Harper, olaiming <610,000 damages for fraudulently procuring a vcrdiot in the action Ronald versus Harper, heard) in May, 1009.

Tho Ronald-Harper case began with a libel action in 1909, in which Mr; Robert Harper, n well-known Melbourne morchant and a member of tho Federal Parliament, was tho defendant, and tho R«v. J. B. Ronald, formerly a tnember of tho Labour party in tho Federal Houso of Representatives, was the prosecutor. Mr. Roiiold claimed X3OOO damages, and set out in his statement of claim that tho alleged slandor was uttered by defendant at tho Presbyterian Church, Toorak, in presence of Frederick Stocks, and that the words complained of were; "I have rebuked Ronald at Parliament Houm for low or improper or bad language, and also I havo heard it stated at Parliament House that some of his colleagues of tho Labour party disapproved of his conduct, and that some otthem had gone eo far'as to rcprovo Mr. Ronald for using improper language," Tho alleged libel was written by defendant and sent to the committee of tho Presbytery of Melbourno South, in November, 1907. Tho defence, as amended, was, that if tlio words alleged were uttered or written, they wore used on privileged occasions, and without malice, and wero confidential and substantially true. It was also 6et out in justification that on different occasions plaintiff had told improper stories and used improper language. Tho jury, found for tho defendant. In tho following year Robert Harper, W. C. Harper, P. llill, J. Huxley, W. 'Kemp, and W. Brocket wero tried in the Criminal Court on charges of conspiracy. In opening the case for the Crown, Mr. Purvos said it was contended that Hill was employed by Robert Harper to collect evidence supporting a plea of justification which had been set up by tho defendant during the course of the Ronald v. Harper libel notion, It might bo possible for It. Harper to provo that he believed nill was nil honest man. But evidence would bo forthcoming against siicli a belief, There could l>o no question of mistake. It was as n matter of 'deliberate purI»so that Hill had set out practically to ruin Mr. Ronald by procuring witnesses who would swear diabolical falsehoods against liiui. Tho trial ended in the conviction of lliil and tho discharge of tho other accused, . ■ ■ A serica of (subornation and perjury charges wero oko heard in connection with, th« am.