THE BRYCE RUSDEN CASE.

Lyell Times and Central Buller Gazette, Volume VI, Issue 272, 8 May 1886, Page 2

THE BRYCE RUSDEN CASE.

Adelaide, April 17. Files of London papers to hand, per s.s. Chimborazo, give full details of the Bryce Rusden libel trial. Mr Bryce was examined at great length, and the manner in which he gave his evidence produced a fovorable impression on the judge and jury. Defendant's counsel, in cross-examina-tion, evinced a desire to indicate that the action had been brought merely to clear the reputation of the Hall Ministry than to satisfy the honor of Mr Bryce, but the Court refused to countenance this attempt, and reminded the jury that the question at issue was solely whether, as stated by Mr Rusdan, Mr Bryce attacked women and children, cutting them down gleefully and easily. The Judge, Baron Huddlestone, declared, in summing up, that the defence on that point had failed completely.

Mr Bryce was cross-examined very closely as to the details of the Parihaka incident, counsel for the defence endeavoring to show that ho (Mr Bryce) had treated Tc Whiti with unnecessary harshness, and the policy of the Hall Government with regard to this matter was canvassed, hut the Court held that personal harshness on the part of Mr Bryce must he cited.

The chief interest of the trial centred in the defence, which was generally regarded as essentially weak. Mr Rusden, in his examination, stated that he had endeavored to write a true history of New Zealand, upon material supplied to him by the Bishop of Wellington (Dr Hadfield) and Sir Arthur Gordon, then Governor of New Zealand ; taking his information also from the Blue Books and the New Zealand Press, as well as from personal conversations with Maori Natives. He disclaimed all idea of being actuated by ill-feeling or malice towards Mr Bryce personally, but maintained that the proceedings at Parihaka were of the cruellest nature. In cross-examination, Mr Rusden admitted that when he compiled the history in question he had heard nothing as to the slaughter of wives and children of the Natives, but he was subsequently informed of Mr Bryce's action in the matter through Sir Arthur Gordon and Bishop Hadfield ; hence he came to write the paragraph which formed the subject of the present action. He placed reliance on the statements made to him by Bishop Hadfield, and the communications which he had received from Sir Arthur Gordon. When he discovered the mistake he had made in declaring that women were present in the W'oolshed, he prepared a list of errata for the book, but gave no orders to attach it to the copies printed. Later. Mr Rusden also admitted that he had not supplied copies of the errata to the New Zealand Press. He admitted that he had done wrong regarding Mr Bryce and the women, and stated that he never imputed that Mr Bryce had personally slaughtered children, but was only the Commander of a party of Cavalry who were alleged to have committed the cruelties in question. He had been led into a gross error, but maintained, nevertheless, that at the time of writing he believed his accounts to be true in substance. The Judge, in summing up, remarked to the jury that they had two questions to consider; first, whether this was a fair comment on the facts. Mr Rusden had admitted the publication of matters which were now admitted to be untrue, therefore the plea was at an end that it was true in substance. The real question, therefore, was whether the libel partook of the nature of bona fide comment on matters of public interest. Liberty must not descend into license. Though the defendant had a perfect liberty to discuss the public proceedings of plaintiff fairly and temperately, the comments must be within certain limits. When they dealt with the character of private individuals, historians had no special privilege to abuse public men. Mr Rusden never made any pretence of impartiality, and had admitted his inaccuracy. Instead of apologising in a generous spirit for the mistake, he came there into Court justifying the libel, alleging everything he had stated was true in substance and in fact. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff— £sooo.—Canterbury Press.