Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1893. Very Satisfactory ?

Manawatu Herald, 29 July 1893, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1893. Very Satisfactory ?

_♦ We have the assurance of the Premier that because, in. his boyhood's days, he was employed in a railway engine fitters shop, he therefore is in a position to speak authoritatively on tbe management of railways. It may be so, but we very much doubt it. On one other subject which he has lately declared his ability to judge we also materially differ with him, and that is, as to the amount nacessary to be recovered in a libel suit to represent damages against the utterer of the libel. In the Cadman-Rees discussion in the House a fortnight ago the Premier tried to force upon the members that Mr Cadman had come out of the Napier trial whitewashed, because the jury awarded him twenty shillings, and no costs ! The Premier was contending against the view of matter held by Mr Eolleston, and he is reported, in Hansard, to Ray •' But what did the jury do? They did not give nominal damages for a farthing or for a shilling ; they gave ' damages for £1." Just twenty times

one shilling, a third of the Ministers pay a day, that in, the Premier's idea was a, substantial verdict. To our mind the Minister got more than he was entitled to, but with the exception of the Premier we doubt if any one else could 04 found to admit that they considered twenty shilling?, without coats, a very satisfactory way ont of a court case. However Mr Eollesfon quoted the Bumming up of Baron Huddleston in the Bryue Eusden case where he pointed out " If you give a person nominal damages when he comes into Court, in an action for libel, it is dismissing him with contempt, which may probably affect him more than a verdict p gainst, him.' 1 This is really the way the jury treated Mr Oadman yet the Premier is satisfied ! Mr Eees in hi 3 speech which was not contradicted by the Premier or any member of the Government side of the House, gave his explanation as to the proceedings after his evidence had been given in the trial. As a' guarantee that his statement was correct it may be mentioned that Sir Eobert Stout acted as counsel for Mr Cadman, and was therefore exceptionally well placed to challenge any statement. Mr Eees said— After the jury brought in their verdict, application was made to the Judge, and the Judge said to the jury " You have placed me in an awkward position, but, as you have asked me what is the least amount that will carry costs, I must ask you, do you mean that your verdict shall not carry costs ?" The foreman spoke to the other members of the > jury, and then answered, " The jury decided not to give costs but to leave it to the Judge." Sir Eobert Stout applied to the Judge for coats.. I followed him, and said, " The jury had not given costs. You have seen the alleged libels, and I quite admit, with Sir Eobert Stout, that they are most atrocious if not proved," and I then asked the Judge, " Have you seen anything in the evidence or in the case which would warrant you in amercing me in oosts ?" Sir Eobert Stout followed, and pressed the Judge for costs; but before he sat down the Judge said " I quite agree with Mr Eees's reasoning. The verdict is for 20s, and I will not rectify for coats." It will be noticed from the above that the question of Co3ts was not one wholly left to the jury, though they were of the opinion no costs should be given they left the matter to the Judge. It will be soen that after being pressed for costs the Judg? considered both the verdict and the evidence and saw nothing to justify him in amercing Mr Eees in costs. In spite of all this the Premier is jubilant that his erring Minister has been satisfactorily whitewashed by having fecured twenty shillings. A very little pleases the Government sometimes.