The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, MAY 20, 1903. NAPIER LIBEL CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 896, 20 May 1903, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, MAY 20, 1903. NAPIER LIBEL CASE.

The Chief .Justice's summing up in the Napier libel case is of special in I crest in these days when newspapers have to he. so guarded in their communis.- The verdict certainly gives a somewhat, wide scope to journalists. From the morning journal we give a full text of the Chief Justice’s address to the jury. His Honor, in summing up, explained to tho jury the definition cf libel—some writing which held any man up to contompt or ridicule -but our law provided that if tho writing was true, then it was not a libel, if it was in the public interest. Having read the first letter to tho jury, His Honor pointed out that it did not charge plaintiff with any crime or immorality or directly with any misconduct. Plaintiff had put forward tho innuendo on the letter that it moant that he had been guilty of acts of misconduct which had rendered him unfit to tako a prominent part in the local affairs of the town of Napier. It was for the jury to say if they could take that meaning out of it. The only export witness who hud been called on this hoad was Mr Northoy, and ho did not seem to have any literary education to enable him to understand the letter any better than any other others in the community. Mr Northoy said it meant something bad, and when asked whether he knew plaintiff kept a betting shop, he

said yes, that it was a well-known fac

and ho did not think that was misconduct, and that the letters might have referred to something else. Other witnesses said that it reforred to something well known to a large number—possibly the majority —of the citizens, that plaintiff was a man who had gambled aud kept a “ tote ” betting shop, and that suedi a man was not fit to take a prominent part in local affairs. If they, took that meaning from the Jotter, then they could not say the letter was false. As to the second letter, His Honor had a doubt whether he should allow it even to go to tno jury, but no motion had been mado to him in regard to it, and therefore ho allowed it to go to the jury. Before they found that the letter was a libel they must find that it was a false statement about the man. Supposing tho newspaper had stated that ho had been guilty of keeping a gaming house, and supposing that he had been found guilty of that, well it was true. And supposing that it had been said he had been “ tote ” betting, even with infants, that was true also. It was only an expression of opinion, and were they to say that a uewspaper was debarred from giving expression to an opinion like that '? It would surely he a peculiar state of society if a man could come forward for a public position, and a newspaper, in the face of such facts, could not say that he was not a proper person to take part in public affairs. It was an expression of opinion. The newspaper did not make an untrue statement. The facts wero true.

It was only when there was something untrue said about a man that it constituted libel. It must be a direct charge of misconduct—not simply that there were reasons why he was UGt fit to take part in public life. " The jury must take it as true, theD, that Mr Eaglc-tou had been betting, and if the law had been properly carried out in Napier—his Honor did not blame the police, for perhaps they had not been able to obtain the necessary information —then the plaintiff ought to be in gaol ; he was liable to three months’ imprisonment for each oilence. If so, was a man who ought to be in gaol, according to the Statute law, fit to take a prominent part in public affairs? And were they to say that a newspaper ought to be punished for expressing that opinion ? Ono of the greatest German writers had said that any man who seeks to fill a public position ought to have the whole of his past life laid open, and ought not to

be ashamed of it, while an English writer had spoken of the “ fierce light that beats upon a throne.” A man who came forward and sought a public position ought not to be afraid of criticism, and ought not to bring a libel action if the opinions expressed about his conduct- were based upon facts. And here there was no doubt about the facts. Hero was a man who ought to be in gaol for a long term, because the facts showed that he kept a gamiog-bouse. Was that a Loan who ought to take a prominent part in public affairs'? It was for the jury to answer that question. The newspaper had taken the responsibility of the letter, and they must therefore regard it as though it were written by the newspaper. The writer had simply said that MrEagleton was un-

ll’tfd for a public position. That was not libel: it wax only an expression of opinion c and lair comment upon the candidate, it i had been said bv plaintiffs counsel that although he hau offended against the law c yet he had done nothing wrong, because s people broke all sorts of law, and the case of the Prime Minister of England in breaking the motor-ear laws—laws of his own making—had been cited. Well, that 1 was a matter of opinion. Our statutes ; were based upon the statutes of England, in this country gaming was placed under certain restrictions. It was not for his Honor to express an opinion upon that, but they could not say there was no moral side to this question when they knew tiie history of what gambling had done. They knew hundreds of youths who were ruined by thus *• burning the candle." They saw them often coming for sentence. He put it to the jury as fathers —would they like to see their sous going into a “ tote ” shop ? And if there was nothing morally wrong about it, why should not their daughters and their sous go in there'? And did they mean to say that a man who offended against the law as the plaintiff had done—who ought to have been in gaol—was a man fit to take a prominent part in local affairs in Napier'.'

I; was not necessary for him to say more than this : If they found that this man had been wronged, that he was tit to take a prominent part in local allairs, and that the newspaper ought not to have criticised him in the manner it had done ; and if the letter was false, and the justiGcation had not been ample, then, of course, it was for the jury to consider the question of damages, though ho reminded them that they must not give vindictive damages. The jury, concluded his Honor, hail a duty to perform, not only to the plaintifl, but to the community, because ’f newspapers were not to be allowed to criticise candidates for public positions, and to express an opinion as to whether certain persons wore tit people for public life, then his Honor was afraid it would be putting such a muzzle on the public press as to render it of very little value. The jury found for the defendant on all the issues.