CRIMINAL LIBEL.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2031, 27 August 1880, Page 2

CRIMINAL LIBEL.

This Day. [Before G. L. Mellieh, Esq, E.M., and G. L. Lee, B. WesUnra, ana J. E. Parker, Eaqa., J.P’a. George Ccygill, William White Eraser, Joseph Carnahan, and Samuel Johnston, proprietors of the “ Echo” newspaper, were charged, on the information of James Izstt, with having on the 12th July, at Christchurch, maliciously written, published, and caused and procured to be written and published, a certain false, scandalous and defamatory libel of and concerning the informant, well knowing it to bo false. Mr Harper appeared for the prosecution; Mr Loughrey for the defence. The libel consisted of a paragraph which appeared in the “Echo” of that date, named under the heading of “Notice to Correspondents,” as follows :—" Is it. —Yes it is. Ha served four years in Pentridge for forgery We shall be happy to furnish particulars in a future issue from the ‘Police Gazette.’ ” Mr Loughrey caked for a further adjournment of the case, on the ground that the information was so vague that the defendant* did not know what the information said—- “ That the defendants had caused to be printed and published a certain false, scandalous, and defamatory libel, As.” He would quote from Archbold, 18th edition, pages 113, 806, 64 and 58, as follows :—“ In the information the facts and circumstances should be stated with the same certainty and precision as in the indictment and in the same form according to the same rule All the facts and circumstances must be stated with precision, so that the defendants may be enabled to determine the species of offence they constitute Where words are the gist of the offence they must be set forth particularly in the indictment. and besides setting out the liiellous passages of the publication the indictment should also contain such averments snd innendoes as may be necessary to render it intelligible,” In Mr Johnston’s “ Justice of the Peace,” page 660. it was also laid down that the libel must be so stated as the defendant should know what the charge was. The information did not say where the libel appeared, or what it comprised; for these reasons he should ask for an adjournment, so that the defendants might know what to meet. Mr Harper submitted that his learned friend had no ground whatever for adjournment, aa

stated. The information strictly followed the role laid down in Johnston’* “Justice of the Peace,” and Oke’s “ Magisterial formula.” His Worship said the information was regular according to the text-books, and the case must proceed. On the application of Mr Loughrey, all witnesses were ordered out of Court. Mr Harper stated that the information charged the defendants with unlawfully libelling the informant, James Izett, on 12ch July. The informant was the editor of the evening journal known as “ The Star,” and the libel was the following:—“ 18 it. Yes it is. He served four years in Pentridge for forgery. We shall be happy to furnish particulars in a future issue extracted from the ‘Police Gazette.’ ” As the

“ Echo ” was not registered under the Printers’ and Publishers’ Act, they would be

obliged to prove Ihe publication of the paper. The affidavit put in by the defendants was not ■Efficient, as it had not been sworn before a solicitor or Registrar, but only before a Justice of the Peace. A disclaimer had been put in on behalf of James Oaygill, who was in the original notice put forward as the publisher and printer. The affidavit of the name of publisher and printer now being upset by the affidavit of disclaimer, they would have to go to work to prove the publisher in the ordinary way. He should offer no evidence against George Oaygill, and he would ask his Worship to acquit him. His Worship acceded to the request. Mr Harper then called evidence.

George Oaygill—l am one of the proprietors of the “ Echo.” Wm, White Fraser, Joseph Carnahan, and Samuel Johnston, are also proprietors. The printer of the “ Echo ”is Wm, White Fraser.

James Izett—l am the editor of tho " Star ” newspaper published in Christchurch. I saw a copy of the issue of tho “ Echo ” of Monday, July 12th, in High street. It was brought under my notice by a young friend of mine. I obtained a copy of it next day at the “Echo ” office, Gloucester street. I bought two copies of it. I believe this one now produced is the one I bought. This is a similar copy to one of those I now hold. I put a mark on one. I see the following in the “Notices to Correspondents”—[The witness here quoted the alleged libel ] I purchased the paper containing the above on the 13th July. Tho first “Notice to Correspondents ” which I have referred to have reference to me. That part beginning •* Is IT ”is what I refer to. Ido not know any of the proprietors of the “Echo ” but Fraser, who sold me the papers. Cross-examined by Mr Loughrey—l had not noticed the paragraph until the young friend called my attention to it. My name is apelt Izett, and I consider the word “ Is-it” is a play on my name. My name is pronounced Isitt. I have never been in Pentridge, never accused of forgery, never convicted of forgery, or ever inside a gaol in my life except to take evidence. This, I feel certain, refers to me, because it is the way my name is pronounced. Thomas Merson—l am a storekeeper residing in LyMelton. I read the notice to correspondents in the “ Echo,” of July 12th, headed “Is it.” I took it to apply to Mr Izett, whom I know. Prom what I read in the paper I thought it referred to Mr Izett. I wrote a letter of sympathy to Mr Izett the following day, asking him to take no notice of it.

Cross-examined by Mr Loughrey I thought it applied to Mr Izett because his name was pronounced like Is it, and I addressed a letter to him like that till I knew the proper pronunciation of his name. I take it that the “ Is it ” in the “ Echo " is a clumsy attempt to avoid punishment. I have addressed a letter to newspapers under a nom de plume. There could be no mistake about this. It was not written by any one. My letter to Mr Izatt was one of sympathy, asking him not to take any notice of the attack. I did not write to ask Mr Izatt if he had written to the “Echo” for information. I do not think it is likely Mr Izatt would write to the “Echo” asking for information[Laughter.] Ido not wish to speculate on the subject of whether the information was asked for by Mr Izett or not. I have a very high opinion of Hr Izatt. Thomas Nicholson—l am a traveller. I read a notice to correspondents in the “Echo.” I thought it applied to Mr Izett. I only know Mr Izatt by sight. I saw the notice to correspondents about the 12tb of July. Cross-examined [by Mr Loughrey—l told some one that I thought this notice to correspondents referred to Mr Izett. I told Mr Jacobsen I thought it did. I had seen Mr Jacobsen before I read the paragraph. Mr Jacobsen asked me to read the paragraph, and I said, “This reflects very greatly on your friend.” I know that Mr Izatt and Mr Jacobsen are very great friends.

Peter Franck Jacobsen —I am on architect in Christchurch. I saw a paragraph in the paper produced (“Echo,” July 12lh). I thought it referred to Mr Izstt. I knew him when I read it. The paper was handed to me by Mr Izott to read the column in which the paragraph appeared. I commenced to read the advertisements, as I thought, perhaps, he wanted to call my attention to the advertisement of the Exhibition for the purpose of going to the Exhibition. Mr Izett said, “ How far have you read,” and 1 told him. He said, “ Bead on,” and I did so, and my eye detectad the paragraph in question. We then went to the “ Echo ” office, where Mr Izett purchased some papers. I noticed that the papers were the same as the one now produced. Mr Izstt gave me a paper. Cross-examined by Mr Loughrey—l did not draw the attention of Mr liett’s friends particularly to the paragraph. I asked them to read the column, as I hud done. I did it to see whether others considered it reflected on Mr Izstt, as I had done. X did not ask Mr Nicholson if be knew to whom it referred. Mi- Nicholson opjke at once, saying, “ This reflects very greatly on your friend.” I know that Mr Izstt is called Isitt very often. I know that so far as my own feelings go that Mr Izett could not be guilty of forgery. I should take the construction of the paragraph to mean that Izett had served four years for forgery in Pont ridge. The nom de plume la it is rare, and might have assisted me to arrive at the idea that Mr Tzett was the person meant. I certainly felt at ouce that the paragraph was a serious reflection on Mr Izett. I stud, “My dear fellow, this is a very serious reflection on you.” 'Bo-examined —The nom de plume in the paragraph further down “yea-ett,” I take to refer to Mr Izett.

W. T. Grinst. ad—l read the psragraphnow before me in the “ Echo ” of July X2tn. It took me some five or seven minutes to consider to whom it referred, and I came ultimately to the conclusion that it referred to Mr Izett. He came to me, and Mr Jacobsen handed the paper to me. The fact of his being present aided mo to come to the conclusion that he was meant. I came to the conclusion that it referred to Mr Izett. Cross-examined by Mr Loughrey—l traced the connection by Mr Jacobsen bringing the paper to me. If Mr Jacobsen had not brought the paper I should not have seen it. Aaron Ayers—l saw the paper now produced hut I do not remember the date. I saw a paragraph in that paper under the heading of “ Notice to Correspondents.” [The witness read the paragraph.] I asked the question at the time X read it of the gentleman who showed it mo, “Is that our friend of the “ Star ? ” I was asked to read that column, and I made the remark when I came to the paragraph, and also said “ Is there anything in it," meaning was there any truth in it. Cross-examined by Mr Loughrey—lt was Mr Jacobsen who showed me the paper. I know Mr Izett and Mr Jacobsen are friends. I was not lead to the conclusion that Mr Izett was referred to by the fact of Mr Jacobson coming to me with the paper. John T. Lucas—l am a teacher, living at Southbridge. I saw a copy of the paper now produced, and saw a notice to correspondents which attracted my attention. The two first words attracted my attention. I concluded that they referred to a person named Izett. I knew the informant at the time, aud concluded they referred to him. I saw him afterwards, and spoke of the matter in course of conversation. Cross-examined by Mr Loughrey—l wa> alone when I purchased the paper. I usually read the whole of the paper. I read the notices to correspondents. 1 have written to the newspaper, and have done so under my own name. If I had written and was expecting an answer in the columns of a newspaper, I should look to the notices to correspondents.

If I saw a notice bearing the name I had used, I should know that it referred to me. I

simply bought the paper as a stranger, and my attention was directed to the paragraph by references to Melbourne. I read it through twice, and came to the conclusion that there was something in it and that it referred to Mr Izett. The way the answer was put was a play on words to direct attention to a special individual. I knew Mr Izett in Victoria, and

I knew that ha had not been convicted of forgery. George Harper —I am a hamster and solicitor of the Supreme Court. Shortly after 12th July, Mr Izett, in company with Mr Beeves, brought me this paper, and the paper has never been out of my possession since. [Paper produced, “ Eoho,” 12th July.] Mr Harper said that was the case. It was brought under that part of the law of libel which provided that the libelled party could apply it to himself even where the name of the party calumniated was left in blank. He did not intend now to go into the law, but he would state briefly that the law was that the libelled party could give evidence as to the connection with him, so as to show he was the party meant. He submitted that there is sufficient prima facie case of publication, which is all their Worships had to do with.

Mr Loughrey contended that there was nothing in the paragraph to connect Mr Izott, as he was not mentioned either by name or otherwise. He thought Mr Izett wag endeavoring to repel a charge which had never been made. The fact was that Mr Izett could have taken his stand in his position here and never taken any notice of it. But Mr Izett had an injudicious friend going about asking tho friends of Mr Izett whether it was not applying to him. Of course Mr Izett had a very high opinion of the position of an editor, and doubtless thought that, like Csesar’s wife, ho should be above suspicion, but he (Mr Loughrey) contended that he had gone out of his way to conneot himself with this paragraph, mainly because of the action of his injudicious friend. It was well known that there were persons of an inquisitive turn of mind who were continually writing to editors of newspapers desiring to get information as regarded celebrated persons. This was noticeable with regard to the Kellys, Butler, and others. He must say that he could not eee how Mr Izett, well knowing that he had never been charged with forgery, could apply the notice to correspondents to himself. He submitted to the Bench that there was no case to go for trial. His Worship said the Bench were of opinion that a prima facie case had been made out, and the defendants would be committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supremo Court at Christchurch. Mr Loughrey applied for bail, and asked, as defencants had a considerable stake in the country, that it might be fixed at a light sum.

Mr Harper, in answer to the Bench, stated that he bad no objection to the recognisances of the defendants being accepted. His Worship fixed the bail at £IOO each on tho personal recognisances of defendants.