THE MASSEY LIBEL CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 955, 16 February 1911, Page 3

THE MASSEY LIBEL CASE.

VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS Wellington, February 15. The Supreme Court was occupied all day yesterday hearing the libel case brought by the Leader of the Opposition for £2OOO damages against the N.Z. Times. Wm. Eraser, M.P., for Wakatipu, was in the box most of the afternoon. During the course of cross-examination by Mr Solomon, the veteran Oppositionist was asked ; Do you remember Mr Massey saying that the only difference between the Government and the Opposition was that the Opposition was honest ? Witness : I’m not sure he was not justified. (Laughter.) The case was continued to-day. W. A. Bowring, artist and cartoonist, considered that the cartoon undoubtedly depicted Mr Massey distributing the articles shown in the waggon. It was possible that the words, ‘‘We are the party,” were intended to show that the Opposition Party was distributing the contents of the waggon. W. F. Massey, the plaintiff, was the next witness. He said that he had been in the House nearly 17 years. Although he had been often politically cartooned, be had never before brought au action. He had no doubt the figure was meant for witness. He had never had anything directly or indirectly to do with the publication of the ‘‘Black” pamphlets, and would retire from public life if it could be proved to the contrary. He did not consider that the discussion in the House absolutely exonerated witness from the imputation that he had been connected with the Black pamphlet. He considered that the cartoon was a cold-blooded and deliberate libel on himself.

To Mr Solomon : Immediately he saw the cartoon he went straight away to bis legal adviser and a writ was issued the same day. He did not know that the original writ was confined to a claim in respect of the imputation re the Black pamphlet. He had not seen that Mr T. K. Taylor recently characterised witness as a liar regarding statements made in the House, but if so there was plenty of time to deal with Mr Taylor, He had referred to the Government as a whole when speaking re the Hine charges. He believed each member ol the Cabinet personally to be honest. He believed the cartoon was inspired by a member of the Government. He had heard it said that the pamphlet was distributed, not only for gain, but mainly to damage Sir Joseph Ward, and a number of members had reflected on the Opposition in connection with it. Mr Taylor, in the House at a late stage of the discussion, denied having blamed the Opposition, as it had expressed sympathy in the House with Sir Joseph Ward. Re the pamphlet, he did not consider it necessary to write him a letter of sympathy. He considered the Times’ remarks two days before the publication of the cartoon to be only a qualified denial of the imputation. He considered Ur Findlay’s speech in the Council to be clever, but unfair. Considered the thanks of the country were due to him for his action. What witness considered Tammanyism was such actions as the Government refusing to give advertisements to Opposition papers, appointing to the Legislative Council men whose only claim to distinction was their sinking money into Government papers, and also the reckless expenditure of public monies just prior to elections. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Solomon called no evidence.

Mr Hell, addressing the jury for Mr Massey, said the fact of the defence calling no evidence showed that no honourable citizen dared come into Court and deny that the cartoon depicted Mr Massey. If the defendants had unintentionally used the figure resembling Mr Massey, it would have been different ; but the figure of the Leader of the Opposition had been purposely and deliberately depicted. Referring to the question of damages, counsel pointed out that far heavier damages than were claimed in this case had been awarded in libel cases which were considered partly political. His Honour entered up judgment for defendants.