LIBEL ACTION

Hokitika Guardian, 3 February 1927, Page 3

LIBEL ACTION

LORD GLADSTONE'S EVIDENCE

[I!V TELEGRAPH—I'I'.R PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

I..OXDOX, J''cU. .3. When Birkett tiiMini Word Ci]:id,stone to tlio witness box, tlie cause cole br<; of the day reached its climax. EIo is of medium height, not looking 73 with liis clipped grey moustache and close cropjKsl iron grey hair. He answered dispassionately until Hi rkett asked:—“What do you say about this passage in Wright’s hook?” Gladstone's face flushed and he answered emotionally-- “It was revolting. It made me angry almost to an ungovernable extent.’’ Birkett asked: “What was the relationship of your father and mother:-” Gladstone, with emphasis: “Abso'utc.ly perfect.”

Birkott: “After Wright’s evidence do you wi-.li to qualify or withdraw tie expression ‘foul’ ?” Gladstone: “Certainly not. One win makes a foul charge is foul-minded, thought M tight a foul fellow and thinl so still.” Gladstone proceeded to outline hi; lather’s work in connection with fallen women. Ele mentioned several institutions founded and liberally supported by him throughout his lifetime. Furthermore. in this connection he often spoke to women in the streets. Despite what Lord Motley described as “baseness of men’s tongues” lie kepi to the resolution with iron tenacity. Deferring to tile letter to Wright, ho declared he wrote with the express and absolute, purpose of forcing him into the law courts. It was the only remedy, because when he and his brother bad gone, none of the family would be left with a full knowledge of the facts. Correspondence extending over f=3 years between his father and Miss Novikoff was available wherein there was not the slightest suggestion or bint of impropriety. It was ail infamous and vile charge, against Miss Novikoff also. Gladstone reviewed at length, the associations of Mrs O’Shea and Parnell, quoting an instance to prove that his father was not aware of their relationship. Birkett, in that connection, read extracts from Airs O’Shea’s’hook, adding: “This proves conclusively that Gladstone was not aware of the relationship.”

Cross-examination developed into a lively duel. Morriman referred to n passage in which it was suggested Lord Beaeonsfiekl regarded Gladstone as a religious hypocrite. • Gladstone retorted: “f don’t care wluit you say. Beaconsfield can sav what he likes, T know.” Counsel proceeded to refer to “the hostility” of Queen Victoria to Gladstone, whereupon the Judge ruled that the name of a, sovereign must not be

mentioned. When serious charges such as Novikoff were mentioned the proceedings developed into a. veritable verbal duel. Gladstone’s voice rang out through the Court: “I was with my father at the time, so I know what I am talking about.” Djton witness and counsel were speak ing si in ul taneously. Gladstone heatedly: “Father would have taken action had the Novikoff charges been brought in his lifetime.” Me prim an questioned Gladstone at length about an article published during his father’s life-time asking why he had not taken action. The Judge broke in with: “All T can say if the case happened to he tried before me. I should have to consider whether the works were capable of any such meaning at all.” The case was adjourned.