LIBEL CASE IN AUCKLAND.
An interesting case came up at the late session of the Supreme Court in Auckland, the matter dating from the beginning of last month. A letter signed " C." appeared in the Auckland Evening News, reflecting upon the management of certain public houses at Newton, one of the suburbs of the city. Mr Fuller, a publican in the neighborhood, considered the letter to refer to him, and brought an action for libel against Mr F. Cherry, to whom the authorship of the alleged libel had been traced. Mr Cherry will be remembered by many as an old resident in JNapier. The alleged Jibel was as follows : " Something has been said about the separate character or standing of the bouses. Individually, T know nothing against of these houses, the York and Queen, except the one fact that they are licensed to sell liquors ; against their keepers or general conduct 1 say nothing. But T have heard and seen enough against the other two. If scenes of drunkenness and cases of gross indecency in the neighborhood of, and traceable to either of these houses, are of any consequence, then the residents would not merely have been doing their duty, but acting in self defence, in seek ing to close them. If children going to, or returning from the Sabbathschool, are tq be familiarised to hearing and seeing what no respectable parent would wish his children to see and hear, then a house at the Symonds street end of Newton Road is a thing to be tolerated; but such is neither the wish nor the opinion of yours, C." In the Resident Magistrate's Court the following is reported to have taken place : " Henry Fuller deposed ; I have kept the Edinburgh Castle Hotel, Symonds street, for the last years. This letter refers to my hotel.—/To Mr Cherry : People have been in my house on Sundays. I am not aware what transpires outside of the house. " The Bench ; There can be no doubt that you are the writer of the letter, and you admit that you bote no malice against the prosecutor. Jt is * ery clear that you had no cause for what you have done, and the least you can do is to apologise.
w The defendant said he supposed the case would have to go to another Court, and he would therefore reserve what he had to say. " The Bench: I am surprised that you hesitate to at once express your sorrow. It is not my wish to trouble the Supreme Court with such a paltry case, but unless you al once apologise,, I shall be compelled to do so I cannot understand-how the editor of the Evening could insert such utter rubbish. , . " The defendant was then committed, to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court, bail being allowed in two sureties of .£25 each, and himself in .£50," This case was heard on the 4th of May, and on opening the criminal .sittings of the Supreme Court on the sth June, his Honor Sir G. A. Arney charged the Grand Jury on the subject as follows .* " The libel is said to consist of a certain statement made in the Evening News newspaper. I have not read the language of the alleged libel, but you will read it; and yon will see, first, whether it was published, and satisfactorily proved to have been published ; and seeconclly, whether it was published by the person accused. There seems very little doubt the libel itself would be traced to Cherry, and that it was handed to the newspaper for publication. The next question will be whether it was a libel. The nature of the libel i« alleged to be a charge against the publican for misconducting his house. You know there has been a. good deal of feeling existing of late on this question, and piobably men are now ready to proceed to indictments for accusations which some time, back they might have thought it worth their while to pass over without litigation. But 1 have only to charge you thus far : that if the words that are proved to be published are in your minds proved to have been written of the particular individual—Mr and of his house, then that it is a libel for a man to impure to a publican inis-* conduct in the conduct of his business."
The case, as the Resident Magistrate stated, wa'J a paltiy one enough, and it is difficult to see why it should ever have been committed to a higher tribunal, or what reason the worthy magistrate could have had in insisting upon an apology. At any rate, the committal had no effect beyond entailing unnecessary expense upon the Colony, for the Grand Jury, after duo consideration, threv out the bill.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HBT18710624.2.9
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 17, Issue 1051, 24 June 1871, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
801LIBEL CASE IN AUCKLAND. Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 17, Issue 1051, 24 June 1871, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.