THE DUNEDIN LIBEL CASE.— VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3833, 29 October 1883, Page 3

THE DUNEDIN LIBEL CASE.— VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT.

Du.n'edin, October 25

The liljc-1 ease, Denuiston v. Otago Daily Times and Witness Company, Avas commenced before Judge Williams and a special jury. The plaintiff claimed jCGOO damages for a libel contained in a passage of "Notes," published on September 15th, over the signature of " Civis," in which it was .stated that Mr Dcnniston Avas actuated by strange fits, for Avhich lie was surely irresponsible in his appearances as solicitor in the lower Courts. He could not help snapping at tlio Resident Magistrate or Ids fellow-counsel. His attacks Avero pure fron/.y, and, just us a mad dog snapped at whatever comes in its way, so did Mr Dennl.ston. He avus tlic subject or victim of a kind of intellectual rabies. Tlio defendants pleaded in effect that they woro comments justified, not only Mr Denniston's conduct in the particular Court case which gave rise to the "Passing Notes," but in other cases previously in which his conduct had been of a similar character. For t\io prosecution the only evidence* adduced (publication of the article being admitted) was that of Mr Gordon, Registrar of the Supremo Court, Avho proved that Mr Denniston was on the roll of barristers, and that lie believed the article to refer to him. For tho defence the first Avitncss was a solicitor named McDonald, Avith Avhom Mr Denniston had tho sccno in Court upon Avhich tho article was founded. He stated, amongst other evidence, that on one occasion he had called Mr Donniston his learned friend, but Mr Donniston said ho regarded that as an insult. Witness proceeded : I called him. '' he,'' and he objected to "being culled "ho." I then said that I would call him " she," but he Avould not have that, so I offered to call him " my learned friend," but he would not be so called, and finally I called him " Mr Denniston." He did not seem much pleased then. The other cvidenco was given by Mr Baron's reporters, who gave evidence as to scenes at various times in which Mr Denniston had been concerned. The reading of these frequently caused laughter, as in some cases the altercations had taken place Avith Mr Stout, who now appeared on behalf of Mr Denniston. In cross-examina-tion of the Daily Times questions were sought to bo put by Mr Stout Avith the view of "eliciting Avho'Avas the writer of the "passing note," but in conneotion with this point the Judge ruled that if a witness was asked if he Avrote any particular " passing note " Avhich might be said to bo libellous ho Avould consider it his duty to protect the witness, and toll him thathoAvas privileged, as he might criminato himself. The direct question " Who wrote the passing note ? being put by Mr Stont to the sub-editor, a long argument occurred. The Judge hold it to bo assumed to be law (though ho know of no caso in Avhich it had been directly decided) that if the publisher or proprietor of a newspaper elected to take tlio responsibility of a letter or contribution the writer need not bo divulged, oven if it Avero intended to show that such writer had been actuated by malice. Ho disallowed the question therefore. October 2G.

In the libel case to-day the only witness examined was tho prosecutor, Mr J. 0. Dcnniston, who was called to give rebutting evidence. He denied the accuracy of theTrcports which had been put in of scones in. Avhich he had been concerned. In crossexamination lie complained of the whole tenor of tho "passing note " in question, which was obviously of a malicious nature, lie said:—"My first objection is to its generally offensive tone, and I venture to say that anyone who has known me sinco I havo been practising in Dunedin, could

not honestly write that of mo. It must have been written by sonic person actuated by personal malice." Mr Smith and Mr Stout having addressed the jury, his Honor summed npi Tlio following is an extract, probably the most important, from Ins add s .« re :—" If the proprietors of a newspaper are culled upon to give up the name of the writer of a letter or article which appears in their paper, and if upon mature consideration they think that the writer has been indulging in personalities that ought not to be indulged in, or has gono beyond the limits of legitimate criticism, I agree with Lord Chief Justice Cockburn that it is a moral duty on their part to give up the name of the writer. If, however, upon mature consideration they think that what the writer has written is justifiable, then I a.arrco with tho expression of opinion of another learned Judge, Baron Martin, in another case that the "editor would be little short of mad to give up the name of tho writer." The jury were out a quarter of an hour, and returned with a verdict for defendants with costs, £33. Mr Stout intimated that lie would move for a new trial. i