THE STEAD LIBEL CASE.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1901, 29 March 1880, Page 3

THE STEAD LIBEL CASE.

The following lefctere, which were referred to in the recent trial, appeared in the “ Daily Times ” of Thursday last: — “ Montecillo, near Dunedin, “ 19th March, 1880. “ W. H. Wynn Williams, Esq., “ Barrister, &0., Christchurch. “Sir, —I have just received a telegram from Mr George Fenwick, managing director of the ‘ Otago Daily Times ’ and ‘ Witness ’ Newspaper Company (Limited), informing me that unless I appear at the adjourned case of Stead y the ‘Daily Times,’ ‘a warrant will issue.’ I deem it but right to inform you that in the event of my being arrested, I will hold your client responsible for heavy damages. “ I am, &c., “ William H. Reynolds.” “ Dunedin, 19th March, 1880. “To the Resident Magistrate, Christchurch. “ Sir, —The peculiar situation in which I am placed will, I trust, sufficiently excuse the liberty I take in addressing you with reference to a matter which is before you officially —I mean the prosecution instituted by Mr Stead against the directors of the ‘Otago Daily Times ’ and ‘ Witness ’ Company (Limited), of whom I am one. I received to-day a telegram from Mr George Fenwick, the managing director (who appeared before you to-dsy), to the effect that the case stood adjourned until Monday to procure the attendance of the other directors. I presume you are aware that in the case of alleged misdemeanors (such as libel) it is not necessary for the accused to appear personally : it is sufficient for them to be represented by counsel, as they are in the present case. Mr Fenwick attended because he was subpccnccd as a witness. You are also, no doubt, aware that it is most unusual for J usticos to investigate offences alleged to have been committed outside of their own district. Indeed, the case of Regina v Strode, reported at page 928 of ‘ Macassey’s Reports,’ shows that it is very doubtful whether they have authority to do so. In conformity with that case, you might very properly have declined to hear the case, and referred the prosecutor to the Resident Magistrate of Dunedin. But having, in your discretion, thought proper to hear the case, I respectfully submit that it is only plain justice that you should not permit the proceedings to be made unnecessarily oppressive. It is possible that you may be asked to issue warrants to compel the attendance of my co directors and myself. I venture to express my conviction that you would not listen to such a monstrous application. Even wore there grounds for the prosecution, there is absolutely no necessity, no advantage whatever to be gained by the presence of the accused. But, as I presume you will have already learnt from the evidence of Mr Fenwick, neither he nor any of his co-directors were cognisant of or gave any authority whatever for the insertion of the matter of which Mr Stead complains. The editor alone was cognisant of and responsible for the admission of the article. That being so, you will find, upon referring to the Queen v Holbrook, 48 Law Journal (Com. Law), page 113, that the directors are protected by section 7 of Lord Campbell’s Act from any criminal prosecution. If Mr Stead thinks himself aggrieved, ho has his remedy against the company by civil suit. At all events, I trust that you, sir, will not countenance any attempt to induce you to strain your jurisdiction by permitting the oppressive proceeding above referred to. I need scarcely assure you that it is from no want of respect to your magisterial authority that I have not attended before you. Considering that all the directors wore represented by counsel, and that the managing director was to be personally present, I thought sufficient respect would be shown to the Court, and that the ends or justice would be fully served. It is only right that you should know that Mr Joynt, who is now here, and is counsel to Mr Stead, has telegraphed to Messrs Wynn Williams and Deacon (Mr Stead’s solicitors) that, in hi; opinion, there is no ground for the prosecution, resting his opinion upon the above-mentioned case of the Queen v Holbrook.—l am, &c. “James Smith.”