An Election Slander Case.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 122, 3 June 1901, Page 3

An Election Slander Case.

A curious action for slander' arising out of the recent Victorian elections was heard in Melbourne the other day, and resulted in a way that must have been extremely unpleasant for the gentleman who instituted the proceedings. The case has attracted a great deal of attention in Australia, and possesses one or two peculiar features that are of interest even in this colony. During the early part of the election campaign it was expected that Mr Frank Madden, the former member, would be unopposed for the Eastern Suburbs seat, but almost at the last moment a Mr Kemp was induced to offer his services to the constituency. For a

few days he made very excellent progress, but then strange stories were circulated concerning bis antecedents, and finally these were traced to Mr Madden's com-mittee-rooms. A little further inquiry, revealed the fact that Mr Madden, when asked to give his opinion of his opponent, had roundly declared that Mr Kemp was “not a very reputable person,” that he had prepared a fictitious account to mislead one of his customers,” and that after misappropriating LBO belonging to one of his former employers he bad paid £&0 to save himself from criminal proceedings. Since the time to which these unpleasant stories referred, Mr Kemp had been elected Mayor of St. Kilda, and had obtained

quite an enviable social position, but under the circumstances he was bound either to retire from the contest or to take proceedings for slander against Mr Madden. Unfortunately for himself, and in a lesser degree for the party with which he was associated, he adopted the latter course, and though defeated at tho polls was compelled to go on with his action. The result, as we have just indicated, was by- no means what he could have wished. Tho case was tried before Mr Justice A’Beckett and a jury of six, and the latter found, with the evident concurrence of tho Judge, that the more serious allegation made by Mr Madden was “ true in substance and in fact.” That part of the

verdict seemed inevitable from tho evidence, but the jury also found that the statements were made without legal malice. We confess that we should have found some difficulty- ourselves in taking this view—that tho allegations were made for the public good and not for electioneering purposes—but the Melbourne “Argus ” professes to believe that Mr Madden was animated solely by an honest public indignation which was justified by Mr Kemp’s impudence in seeking the suffrage of the eloction. The precedent established by the case is, we suppose, that a candidate for Parliament may abuse his opponent as much as ho lilies without any fear of being held guilty of personal enmity.—Press.