THE 'STAR'S' LIBEL ACTION.

Evening Star, Issue 4176, 15 July 1876, Page 2

THE 'STAR'S' LIBEL ACTION.

criminal prosecution. The hearing of the action brought by Bishop Moran against George Bell, of the Star, for republishing an alleged libellous statement from the ‘ Tutvpeka Times, was continued in the Resident Magistrate s Court to-day; Mr Bathgate, R.M., alone occupying the Beneh. The case was adjourned on Tuesday alter the case for the prosecution had closed. Before the defence was gone into His Worship said: Before resuming the proceedings in this ease I have a single remark to make. I notice that three of the daily papers have published very full reports of the proceedings upon the last occasion of my sitting. As the case will, I hare no doubt, excite a good deal of interest I wish to send this caution along with any further reports; that these reports are not to be taken as strictly accurate in every particular as containing in all of them a correct account of what I stated in the course of the proceedings. I will allude lu point to one of the reports. The following statement occurs in the Evening Star. It says that in answer to Mr Howorth, pointing out the matter of the * Tablet, ’ 1 made the following observation : —“ 1 am, strictly speaking, sitting as a Court of Justices of the Peace to inquire whether a primd facie case has been made out.” In the other two papers there is an accurate statement of what I did say. It is to the following effect I said quite the opposite. I observed “I am sitting here to make inquiry whether there is a primd facie case against the party accused.” You will see the distinction I allude to. I want to guard myself against saying that I am sitting here as a Court at all. The fact is that it is not an open Court. The error consisted in the omission of the word “not.” It should have been “I am not sitting.” Mr Howorth : I am instructed to say that it is a printer’s error in the report of the Evening Star.

His Worship i There is another material error I will only allude to to put myself right. There are one or two errors, but not of any great importance. In one report I am made to speak quite the opposite to what I did say, therefore I will just allude to it. It is again in regard to the article of the 1 Tablet. In the report of the ‘Guardian’ the following is stated as what I said : “ I do not think I can load the depositions with anything which took place after the date of the alleged libel.” That is what I did say, but the other two papei's make it before the date of the alleged libel. That is nonsense. There are one or two minor inaccuracies which it is unnecessary to allude to, but I have put the matter right in one or two of the principal parts. I have further to say I observed a paragraph in the Evening Star of July 13 to the effect “ We have received letters bearing upon the prosecution of the Editor of this Journal which, according to the decision of the Resident Magistrate, we should be justified in publishing, as, being only a Court of Inquiry, no contempt could be alleged. The writers must however accept our apology for not publishing them at present as we will not do anything that shall in any way prejudice the case directly or remotely.” I wish to put the writer of the paragraph right. I gave no decision to the effect here mentioned. I did not say that any paper was justified, or would be justified, in pub lishing anything concerning this case ; and what I stated was this—that a Justice has no power to punish for any contempt out of Court. The functions of a Justice are clearly defined by statute—he cannot go beyond the four corners of the Act, and the only power conferred upon him is to punish for contempt in his presence. If a newspaper make remarks on a case when it is in dependence I may express my opinion that I think it is wrong; and I appeal to the counsel for the accused to point out whether I have power to punish for contempt beyond the walls of the Court. I have no power to do so, for where a wrong is done there is a leading principle in law which says where thero is a wrong there is a remedy. There are repeated cases where newspapers have been prosecuted for libel for publishing the depositions in such circumstances as these in which I have been engaged. It is libellous and a misdemeanour to publish in a newspaper the depositions taken before Justices of the Peace in a crimninal charge before the party is tried (Rex v. Lee, 5, Aspiuall; Rex v. Fisher, 2, Campbell.) His Wot ship then proceeded to read the usual caution to defendant, when Mr Howorth submitted that it was not the proper stage at which defendant should be charged. The Comt had only heard the prosecution, and he (the learned counsel)

submitted tbat tbe practice of the Court was for him to address the Court, the defendant to call his witnesses, and then for his Worship to call on the defendant. His Worship called counsel’s attention to the 52nd section of the Act, where the form to be followed was prescribed. After considerable argument, it was decided that Mr Bell should make any explanation, and tbat counsel should then be heard.

The challenge was then read, and in reply, Mr Bell said 1 admit lam the proprietor and editor of the Evening Star newspaper. I .did not write the alleged libel, nor was I personally concerned in the publication of it. The first time I saw it was when reading the STAR at my residence on the evening of 3rd July. Since the publication I have not acquiesced in it, no one has asked me to publish a contradiction or refutation of it,~ and until the proceedings in Court I did not know that the matters alleged were false. The columns of the Evening Star have at all times been open to Bishop Moran and to the members ot his Church, and whenever the Bishop has : favored me with any letter or other communication it has invariably received prompt attention ; and I absolutely deny that he has any just reason for stating that he had serious doubts that I would have published a refutation if requested so to do. The ‘ Tuapeka Times’ has never on any previous occasion, so far as I am aware of, published a false statement, or one that would give offence to any body of persons. Mr Howorth having addressed the Bench, called

Frederic George Whetham : lam repoiter on the Evening Star, and am now temporarily acting as sub-editor. I was so employed on July 3. Mr Howorth told the witness he need not commit himself by any Answer he might give

Witness i I have read the paragraph com-: plained of. Mr Bell was not consulted as to its publication. To my knowledge he has never acquiesced in, or consented to its publication* The paragraph was out out of the ‘Tuapeka Times.’ It was there I first saw It. _ Cross examined; 'When I say that Mr Bell did not acquiesce in its publication I mean that Mr Bell did not see it before, and neither expressed approval or disapproval after its publication. No ex ' preasiOn df regret has appeared in the Evening Star concerning the publication of that paragraph. I have been connected with newspapers for upwards of three years. Benders of newspapers are supposed to be fond of “spicy mor;cla.” When I saw the paragraph it did not strike < me that it would cause a great sensation— l looked upon it OS an ordinary paragraph. I know that the reference to Father Hyacinthe had relation to the marriage of a Catholic priest, and that it caused a great sensation ; but 1 was of opinion that after the example set by Pere Hyacinthe the sensation caused by the marriage of a Catholic priest would not be so great. I saw that the event forming the subject of this charge was stated to have occurred in Dunsdin, or referred to a Catholic clergyman residing in Dunedin ; but it was not importing Dunedin news from Tuapeka as a thing might be known in Tuapeka and not in Dunedin. I first saw the paragraph on the morning of the 3rd in the ‘Tuapeka Times,’ which is published on Friday or Saturday. The supplement of the ‘ Tuapeka Times ’ is published in the Star Office, and consists of telegraphic, Parliamentary, and other matter reprinted from the Star. I am positive I did not see the paragraph before it was published in the * Tuapeka Times.’ The local was cut from the body of the paper and not from the supplement. I know who inserted the paragraph in the Star. I will not say who inserted it because I may criminate myself. I made no inquiry as to the truth of the statement before I saw the paragraph in the Star— l thought if it were untrue it would be contradicted. I have been on the Star abont three years and a-half, and am acquainted with the spirit and style of the paper. Ido not think Bishop iVf oran is one of the Deities the Star worships. The Bishop is often hit pretty hard by the Star —blows are freely exchanged. I don’t think the Star usually exercises an editor’s privilege of having the last word, though some papers do. The attitude of the Btar has not been generally hostile to Bishop Moran—there have been differences of opinion between the editor and Bishop Moran on certain matters, but I do not know that the tone of the Star has been hostile to Bishop Moran personally. I don’t know that this paragraph has been telegraphed from the Star office to any other paper. Re-examined : Neither Bishop Moran nor anyone else asked that this paragraph might b“ contradicted. If I had received a letter asking that it might be contradicted, it would have been inserted. Bishop Moran's letters have always received attention and been published in the Star. The Magistrate did not comment upon the evidence, but explained that taking into consideration the fact that the matter had been deemed of sufficient importance to justify the assistance of counsel on both s : des, he did not feel justified in giving a verdict, but felt it his duty to remit it to the Supreme Court for enquiry. The defendant was committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court, and admitted to bail, himself in LIOO and two sureties of LSO each.