Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LIBEL CHARGE

JURY DISAGREES

RE-TRIAL NEXT MONDAY.

(Per Press Association- r- Copyright.)

AUCKLAND, July 28.

In the lil.el case against George Budcl, and Ernest Frederick Thbmfcson, of publishing defaniaio.y libel concerning Police Inspector Luacei*,after further evidence had been heard, counsel for the accused said that t-e astonishing thing was that the Magistrate had eWr permitted such a prosecution for criminal libeil. The Crown Prosecutor said that the law of criminal libel had ‘l>o_n brought in only in 1901, because it had l>een foilnd nedessaiy to restrain irrespoin-i sible and dangerous parsdns from libelling men in public positions. . i His Honour described the case as “a comparatively simple one.” Statements made against Inspector Lia.jder were that he was a lair, that he perjured himself, that he attacked defenceless men and Women. It was open to the defence to seek to prove that the statements were true, but they had not done bo, If these words bftd boon published, it wotiid be absurd and impossible to suggest that they were not defamatory. The main delUnco was that these .two men were not responsible for the publication and distribution of the paper, but there was direct evidence of two police officers implicating Thompson. The name of Budd was at the bottom’cf the paper. The real question was: “Is this a defamatory libel referring to Inspector Lander?” . After three and a-hallf hours” retirement, the jury returned to ask if a verdict of publishing, was found against Budd, and one .of distributing against Thompson, would both be equally guilty? His Honour replied that if Budd published the libel lie avals guilty, and if Thompson distributed a libellous document he also* was guilty. Thate there was an impossibility.. of reaching an agreement was reported by the foreman of the jury after a retirement of four and a-half hours.

' His Honour discharged the jury. ' Be said the accused would be re-tried on Monday. ■ *, “No;, I won’t allow them bail,” be told'counsel. “They can stay where they are.” :

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19320729.2.46

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 29 July 1932, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
330

LIBEL CHARGE Hokitika Guardian, 29 July 1932, Page 5

LIBEL CHARGE Hokitika Guardian, 29 July 1932, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert