THE ATTACK ON THE “LIBERTY” OFFICE.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2306, 25 August 1881, Page 3

THE ATTACK ON THE “LIBERTY” OFFICE.

Yesterday morning at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, before Messrs J. N. Wood and J. Beswick, R.M.'s, J. E. Parker and J. Ollivier, J. P.’s, Henry Blackett, John Hossack, and John Sanson were charged with having, on August 18tb, maliciously broken and damaged certain type, As., at the “Liberty” office, in Christchurch. Mrßroham, Superintendent of Police, prosecuted, Mr Stringer appeared for the defence. Mr Stringer asked for a short adjournment, as an arrangement was pending. The Bench agreed to this, but subsequently it was found that terms between the parties could not be come to, and at 3 p.m., the case proceeded. Without comment, Mr Broham then called, James Dunlop, part proprietor of the “ Liberty” newspaper, who deposed that on Thursday, August 18th, the three defendants came into the office of the paper named about 3 p.m., and they enquired for the editor, saying they wished to see him about some paragraphs which had appeared in the paper. Finding the editor absent they said they did not mind waiting for some time. Defendants then walked into the composing room. Mr Mosley (the editor) not putting in an appearance witness told them he did not think he would turn up. Mr Hossack said he must have satisfaction, deliberately walked up to the “bulk,” and upset some “galleys” of matter which were lying ready for the making up of the paper. Witness then sent for the police, and had Hossack arrested. There were eight large galleys upset in all, but witness could not say how many Hossack upset. He did, see any of the other defendants upset any galleys. Witness estimated the damage done to be of the value of £ls 11s fid. James Willis and James Parry and witness are the proprietors of the newspaper. The plant belongs to Willis and Dunlop (witness) only. Cross-examined The damage was as follows: —Cost of labor of setting up the type which had been made “ pye 15 of £4 2s fid; breakage of type, 15s. Some of the employes of the office might, in endeavoring to prevent the damage, have destroyed some of the type. Sorting and distributing type which had been mixed, £4 I 0». There were three different kinds of type. It would take a man a week of forty-eight hours, or a boy a fortnight, to distribute it. For scattering type into wrong "cases,” £1 2s; one galley smashed, 4« fid ; cost of borrowing type, carriage, extra labor, &c., £4 17i fid. Total, £ls lls fid. To the Bench—The employes trampled on the type in the endeavor to prevent further destruction.

James Willis, George Garrard, Fred. C. Gerrard, and Joidan Thomas repeated in substance the evidence of Mr Dunlop. Mr Stringer, addressing the Bench for the defence, said be was conscious that he labored under a certain disadvantage. It was the fact that an action that was hardly defensible had been committed by the defendants. This much he was constrained to admit, and he felt that it would have an adverse influence on his case. But though this was so he submitted that bis clients had received great provocation. Their private actions, their domestic relations, the doings of themselves and of their female friends, had been discussed in the most indelicate manner by the print which defiled the the distinguishing name that had been chosen for it, a paper which never contained anything that was good except that which had been pirated from other newspapers, and which for the remainder was nothing leas than a vehicle for foul slander. The “ Liberty " was, indeed, the scavenger of newspapers. The prosecution had been brought under the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, section 51 or section 52. Under the former clause the wilful and malicious damaging of property causing a loss of over £5 was made an indictable offence; and under clause 52 of the the same Act, causing a loss of under £5 was made summarily punishable by that Court, the penalty being a maximum fine of £5, and an award of damages up to the same amount. Now as to the graver offence, or rather the graver penalty, there was no proof that any actual damage to the extent specified by the Act had been done. What were the facts ? Type had been displaced, and it had cost so much to replace it. Very well. But if if they examined the claim made on this account, it would be found that what the prosecutors wanted was to be twice paid for the work that was, for its first setting up, and for its second setting up, not to speak of what was charged for “ distribution ” Now this property, this typo, though scattered, made into a pie, cr into pye, as the case might be, had suffered no damage as type ; it was available for use at the next moment, and had, in fact, been made use of shortly afterwards, therefore any damage that had resulted from the scattering had been consequential, not actual damage. On this point he wished to direct the attention of the Bench to a case reported in Archbold’s Criminal Pleadings, page 395. They would there find a ruling by one of the first Judges in England, which would effectually convince them that the Act was drawn to punish the perpetrators of actual, not consequential, damage. He thought, in the face of what he had said, the Bench would pause before saying that an indictable offence had been committed. Then, es to the minor offence, that which should be dealt with by clause 52 of the Act, ho had to convince the Bench that damage, actual damage, mmd, had not been done to the extent of £3. Why, all the damage that had been done, as assessed by the prosecution, was “ breakage, Ac., of type,” 15e, and one galley injures, fid. Not one tittle of evidence had been produced as to who had broken the type —or the galleys. Nobody did it; or, at least, it could not be proved that anybody in particular had done it. What he had said as to the difference between actual and consequential damage, referring to clause 51, need not be repeated against the minor possibility, and surely it could not bo contended that whatever actual damage had been done had been “ wilfully and maliciously " done. The aim of the defendants had been to upset the galleys, and they had done so ; in that operation a scuffle had occurred, and s icnsb'dy nsd broken some typo and c. galley. In the first place defendants had to say that they had not done it, or, secondly, if they had done it, it was an accident and not the result of malice. In conclusion Mr Stringer contended that f ne accused were entitled to dismictal with ->t

most a very light penalty. After a few remarks from Mr Broham, air Wood sa'd the Bench were unanimously of opinion that the accused had done actual damage to property. The Bench had uo sympathy with the publishers of the “Liberty,” but people must not be allowed to wreak their private vengeance with impunity. The law must be vindicated. Tne accused would bo dealt with summa'-ily. Hossack would bo fined £5, Sar.som ai d Blackett, £3 each, with damages, £4 4.. 6i. The judgment was received by a crowded court with applause, which was promptly repressed.