THE WAKATIP ELECTION.

Evening Star, Issue 2813, 23 February 1872, Page 2

THE WAKATIP ELECTION.

CHA.RGE.OF LIBEL AGAINST THE “MAIL.” The R.M. at Queenstown was occupied on the 17th in hearing the case Beg. (on the information of Mr Macassey) v. W. Wan\n, proprietor of the Wakatip Mail, who was criminally charged with publishing a libel concerning Mr Macassey. From the repoit in the Cromwell Argus we take the following :—i he prosecutor appeared personally' in support of the information, and said that the defendant had published m the Wakatip Mail of February' 14 an article containing an imputation which, were it proved, would render him (the prosecutor) liable to serious penal consequences 'the particular portion of the article referred to was as ft Hows : “ It is currently reported that Mp Miller has for a consideration—retired iu favor of Mr Maccassey.” The publication of such a rumor was likely to expose him (the prosecutor) to public contempt, and he could not allow' the rumor to go forth t) the public without calling it in question. He had told the defendant there was not the slightest tittle or shadow of foundation for (he statement made, and had given him amp e opportunity to apologise or to duclwe the name of his authority, but the defendant had refused to do either. Mr Macassey, iu his evidence, after producing a copy of the paper with the article complained of, the sting of w'hich lay iu the words-“It is currently reported that Mr Miller has—for a consideration—retired in favor of Mr Macassey ” —said :—I take that statement to. mean that Miller w as induced to retire iu my favor for come pecuniary consideration, or some other benefit given to him by me. I beg to say there is not a tittle or shadow of foundation for the assertion. I never made any overture, directly or indirectly, to Mr Milter to retire in my favor. I never held out to him any money or any other inducement to withdraw' in my interest. Previous to my seeing Mr Miller, a Mr rildrcth W'aited up.u me in Queenstown, and offered, in the name of Mr Miller, that he should retire iu my' favor—he suggesting that I should pay Mr Miller’s expeusea as an inducement to him to reti e. I absolutely declined to entertain the proposal in any shape or form. I said that had I been asked to contribute to the funds of somft public institution, such as the Hospital, I might not have objected. But to pay Mr Miller—either directly- or indirectly—any money as a consideration for him to withdraw, was something which I could not for a moment entertain. On Friday, the 9th instant, in accoi dance with an arrangement made with Hildreth, I went to the Arrow, expecting to see Mr Miller himself. He was not there; but a Mr Symonds waited on me, telling me lie was instructed to see me on Miller’s behalf. Mr Symonds also gave me to understand that Miller was prepared to reti’ e in my favour, on payment of his expenses. 1 told him this was a proposal I could not for a moment entertain, and that he must tell Mr Miller so. On the following day, I again saw Mr Symonds at the Arrow, and he then told me that he had seen Miller, who would have retired in my favour had 1 agreed to pay his expenses. I si;id there was an end of it, as I was not going to treat with Miller on any such footing. On the following Monday, Miller waited upon me at Arrowtown, and asserted that neither Hildreth nor Symonds w r as authorised to treat with me on his behalf. This was after I told him of the proposals made to me by thew'. 1 told Miller that to pay him money as an inducement to retire would in my opinion be bribery ; and would unseat me if returned. The interview closed by Mr Miller stating he would retire in my favour if his own requisitionists requested him to do so. . . . My object in prosecuting the defendant is to vindicate my character against the foul aspersion sought to be cast upon it. The prosecution has not been instituted for political purposes. I have only further to say that this statement is calculated to do me serious damage in the minds cf people who are unacquainted with me. Jas. Miller said Mr Macassey' offered him no consideration to retire. He told him he could not pay him anything, but to the best of his belief he said he would have no objections to give LSO to the hospital (Mr Maccassey here said this was incorrect. What he said was, that in order to show that he did not wish to take advantage of Miller’s canvass, ho might give an amount to the hospital, equal to the expenses incur cd by Miller.) He saw Mr Macassey at the Arrow in order to put a stop to the rumor that was going about that he was abo it to retire. lie did not authorise Symonds to tell Mr Macassey he would retire if his expenses were paid. His Worship delivered a lengthened judgment There was not, iu the opinion of the Court, sufficient evidence upon which to send the case for trial. The sentence iu the article refen ed to—“ It is currently reported that Mr Miller has—for a consideration—retired in favor of Mr Macassey ’’—was hardly libellous, though it approached, in tjie opinion of the Court, very closely to a libel. Tl;ere was no d°ubt'that the latter part qf the article was highly spiced, and contained the sting; hut no libel bad hem proved. The Court deferred to Mr Macassey’s knowledge of the law of libel; for, during the ten years he (Mr Beeiham) had sat upon the 8.-nch, no similar case had come u&dcr his notice. He would, however, express an opinion that the article was un ecessarily written and unwarranted. The case was dismissed. Mr Macassey applied that the depositions

be forwarded to tbe Supreme Court, Dunedin, as lie intended to take other proceedrequest was granted.