A NO-LICENSE LIBEL

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1544, 28 August 1905, Page 3

A NO-LICENSE LIBEL

■ defendants climb down. An action in which Thomas Molison Smith, journalist, ol Karaka Bay, Wellington, sued Robert Wilson. Methodist minister, and Frederick Ernest McKenzie, printer, both of Dannevirke, claiming £IOOO for damages for libel, was called on before his Honor the Chief Justice on the opening of the civil sitting of the Supreme Court on Monday morningMr Hindmarsh appeared for the plaintiff and Mr A. R. Atkinson for the defendan „ This case had been, provisionally, fixed for Friday, but .it was brought on on Monday morning in order to announce to the Court that a settlement had been arrived at The claim was for damages for a libel pubished by defendants—who were editor and printer respectively —in a no-license journal called Liberty, at Dannevirke, on August 24th, last year. It appears that the plaintiff, Mr Smith, was an anti-prohibitionist, while the defendant Mr Wilson is the secretary of the NoLicense League at Waipawa. On August Bth, 1904, Mr Smith delivered a public address at Dannevirke and in commenting upon his remarks m the paper named, Mr Wilson wrote “Mr Smith did not tell his hearers why his name does not appear on the rolls of the 'legal profession m the Home Land, nor why, after application, it has not been inserted on the rolls of the profession in this co.ony. Mr Atkinson on Monday informed his Honor that his client had entered a plea of justification as an answer to the charge of libel. According to the findings of the Incorporated Law Society of England the plaintiff m this case had received certain sums of money in England for the settlement of a case on behalf of a client, and he failed to account for them,, on an order of the Court of the King s Bench, in pursuance of that report of the Incorporated Law Society, his name was struck off the rolls. On subsequent investigation, however, the defendants had found that plaintiff b statement as to the manner in which this order was obtained was correct, viz., that he was struck off the rolls without having been given any notice of the proceedings either before the Incorporated Law Society or before the Court of King’s Bench. Under the circumstances, the defendants freely admitted that the charges should not have been made, and would not have been made if they had known the truth of the matter. They had, been advised that they had had a technical defence open to them, but ou the circumstances they had decided not to take advantage of it. They,, therefore j asked leave to withdraw their plea of justification, express regret that they lad made any such charge against Mr Smith, and pay his costs. - Mr Hindmarsh said his client only wished to add to what Mrr Atkinson had said,'that a man named Hall, on whose complaint proceedings against Mr Smith were taken in England before the Incorporated Law -ociety, was examined on commission from this colony, and his evidence was before th/court. Mr Attamou bad f““ M? Smith °£l pdd ibe money in dispute twl»-ar,U» one Jones, who was Hall s agent, an since that to Hall direct. Tk o evidence of Hall could not substantiate any of tbe charges against Mr omith, and, indeed, it looked very much as if there had been a conspiracy between Hall and Jones to extraot money from Mr Smith in some way. Mr Atkinson had also said he would use his influence to prevent these slanderous statements being repeated by the prohibitionist party. Mr Atkinson:. I don’t know that that would he professional. (Laughtof* • -Mr Hindmarsh: Well, Mr Smith has suffered enough over it. He hud beep in this colony for some months, and passed fils examination for admission to the New Zealand legal profession, and was then—and not until then—informed that he had been struck off tho rolls m England. And that was the first he had heard of it. It came upon him like a thunder-clap. ' The case was then struck out.— N, jS. Times.