WELLINGTON.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume IV, Issue 192, 16 September 1864, Page 1 (Supplement)

WELLINGTON.

THE LIBEL CASE. At the Criminal Sittings of the Supreme Court, Wellington, on the 13th inst., before his Honor Mr. Justice Johnson, Joseph Bull, proprietor of the New Zealand Advertiser, was indicted for having published on the 23rd July, a false and defamatory libel against prosecutor, Charles William Schultze, Speaker of the Provincial Council. Tin’s was a Special Jury case. Mr. Brandon conducted the prosecution, and Messrs. Hart and Borlase appeared for the defendant. There were five pleadings submitted in defence : Ist, that the defendant was not guilty in manner and form alleged; 2nd, that the alleged libel appeared in a public newspaper without actual malice or gross negligence ; Oil* O O G 3 3rd, that it was a fair comment on the acts of the plaintiff as a public man; 4th, that there was no imputation of corrupt motives; sth, and generally, that the libel was justified. Mr. Brandon demurred to the pleadings. After argument being heard, Mr. Hart on behalf of the defendant, admitted the pleas demurred to to be bad, and applied to the Court to amend the fifth plea, and abandoned the others. Mr. Brandon then addressed the jury at some length, and called evidence in support of the case. In consequence of Mr. Hart feeling unwell, and being unable to proceed with the case, Mr. Borlase addressed the Jury in his place. His Honor then pointed out to the Jury the law of libel. The jury then retired, and after an absence of half-an-hour, returned with a verdict of guilty, expressing their regret that the action had been brought criminally. His Honor said he did not feel quite sure that he could agree with the expression of regret made by the jury, because he thought it was important that the public should he made aware that the publication of such libels is a punishable offence. But probably*the course winch he proposed to adopt would he such as to diminish the regret of the jury, although he thought the libel was a very vulgar and foolish production ; and the pleading a plea of justification was a circumstance in aggravation, yet he was of opinion that the interests of society might be protected, without any substantial punishment being inflicted upon the defendant. Having ascertained that no previous change of libel had been preferred against the publisher of the newspaper, he said he would permit the defendant to be discharged on his entering into recognizances himself for £2OO and three sureties for ATOO eacli; and with the condition to come up for judgment when called upon, it being understood that lie would not he brought up, unless he, directly or indirectly, aided in the repetition of such offence, as against Mr Schultze, or any one else.