LIBEL CASE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 267, 8 October 1884, Page 2

LIBEL CASE.

SUPUEME COURT WANGANUI.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) Russell v. McKelvie and McMjnn [continued.] Mr Izard's address continued : Regarding the native woman, they i would recollect defendants had to j prove"' 'theft ca*ie.^ He"~Kopetr"*tney would agree wjtb him that m this respect, the case for the defence had broken down. " ©id they tfiink~fc woman who had been attacked m this manner would not have brought the affair up before now? Plaintiff told tkeni that on a certain eveniug he did see a native woman who was stooping down for Home' J purpose or other, and ** grunted." If an assault had taken place, a great many people wo ii 1 .11 l are seen i t, as the night* wits clear Regarding Air McKelvie Mr Shaw put him m, the witness when they had heard thiit on two 'distinct occasions Mr McKelvin had written letters' amounting to apologies to Mr Russell; for th« paragHi jjh|>" t Ha t l\iM "apiWamTin the Standard^ On two occasions also bad Mr McKelvie called on Mr Russell; : wlien '. l the latter h.ul informed hini of tb^ character of the nian who Was " runnmi* " hih paper,and that after Mests Haukirjs and Baker had written him a lawyer.-* letter. But Mr McKelvie tiati k^)t Mr McMiim hi his employ m spite of all these warnings and he had there-? fore rendered himself liable lor what ever damages might be incurred, and it was only lijpii iliat he should be responsible for : ili- 1 acts of his'subordinate, and they should look upon it m the light that the : tw» | wore equally guilty and should suffer equally. 'Regarding the' 'damages, the question was to what " damages was the plaiiitifiT *nlillißU\ «&ls>thw vested with, the jury. 5s TJ>p .sum claimed was a very.^niall one indeed as compared with, the offence which ;had been committed, .The |>lajntif£ was a man of some position. He was a married man ; wit h a family; and he caiue to them (the Jury) to clear his clearacter. lie could not think that they w0u1... con-, ; aider my jiortioii'of the plea of justification was proved m tlm, "case, VVbat Had been written had gone largely m excess of what, had jbei m proved. This bad necessitated the plaintiff coming there to clear his character. But there was something more than Chat veqhiVerf ias well. The plaintiff was entitled to ask damages for the libel : he had sustained;; , He would suggest that the jury shew their appreciation of : plaihtiffVaetion by giving substantial da'niag&i - ! The defendants had failed to* pr6Ve the 1 justification they had underraWoh to prove, and their action m taking up that defence was only an aggravation of the original libels a ORb.eyA ftugbi. have apologized, but would not, but, with the merest tittle of evidence bad come into court go attempt to prove that what they had said was true, with only the most meagre evidence to shew. He would that the full damages claimed be firenMr ,Shaw then addressed the Jury as follows : May it please your Honor and gentlemen of the jury, ,i have heard my. learned friend make; an r excellent speech, and donU. lhmk t ll have ever heard him make a better. And I agree that ailJ&is advocacy is much required to help to win the; cause of inyl^arniMl friend tordaly. He has pooh-poohed ,the evidence ■ and. made light of iv Now, the . case of the plaintiff ..consisted .of seven: or eight .witnesses who were put iv that box auJ asked whether they knew anything; wrong m the character, of Mr Russell, and then allowed to. go away. Thisi reminds me of a case.for murder, of which the following story Is narrated; The ■ Crown: i prosecutor brought seven or eight witnesses who-, swore. th<»y h»d aem . the mui'dei*:committed. For the defence, the prisoner brought seven or eijrht to awe-iri they had not seen the murder icoinhiil ted, and thought^ that because; there wewi ; seven or- eight men who had not seen it, their evidence was as.strong 1 as the seven or eight who had. Still, this w. the same-sort of evidehce^ms ; 4eairied friend has brougß6>Mp to-day. He has brought us eight witnesses to shew that (hey di&raol see anything wrong m the plaintiff, so that's to prove his case ! I feel for the plaint tiff, although I am on the other side. \ daresay no qne regrets jthat he has brought ;this case tyefore, yoUj .more than Mr Russell . hiinsejf. .He,' has told you his'- tale himself, 1 and Wadyit is a. pitifgl. cqnpe,ptiqn« ,He effect tKat the number of \y hiclj . \ye brough t came herq^andcoinmitted wilful and. corrupt perjury! First, he takes. the. evidence -of Mw» Louise Crawford. My friend Mr. I&ird was very vigorous 'on this point. " His jvisjor arose when! desciibing tlie possibility or impossibility of an mr . decent assault being committed m such an open place. Well : we don't pretend that this r assault was one of those of which, I regret, we have had. so many m our Courts m these days. But, his Honor will tell you,'if a man makes an improper suggextioh to & woman, or makes an improper movement of his body, or anything of the sort, he commits,' legally speaking; aii indecent assault on that woman. If we are to believe Miss Crawford, we have m the plaintiff "a" man 'who was dogging her footsteps "all oyer the town. Hedoseh'igo much to this Hotel , as . a rule, but when she" compile, goes constantly. Oh Ja night, after the' play,he tor jtKe Gvai time finds an opportunity of being alone with her. He made adVahbes to heri but misunderstood his woman, and then took the opportunity, .tne jfirst he had' bad to 'make bis offers, bis advances, and then he was refused and there was an end' of that. My friend says " Why didn't she cull m the police." Why she Was : going away on the Monday morning^ and this was Saturday night. No, she didn't do any thing of the sort, she simply expressed hei feelings, and .so the ' ma tter became town^talk. My •triend says we have only attempted to prove 'indecency and ! therefore have no excuse f oi imputing to plaintiff a lnstfnl characttjr. My friend wqnis yet lnoi^e instances of Riissell^ proclivities. , I should have t nought my j ftiend would have bad enough. He' says you ought not toWll him lustful because you/have ndotber'cliarges

to^ bring. WeU» ;>fc we .have brought you two other different instances. that i« a matter for you * gentlemen to consider. My learned . friend points out the impossibility ot this having happened m so open a place. No«r I will, ask; you whether it is likely that this lady has concocted the whole of this statement ? ' Which is the most proltable? Has falsicated the story ?■ . Whafchas she to gain by that? She loses . her time and money, and a certain prestige, and yet you are asked to . disbelieve her because forsooth Russell " says "Is it likely he would nake any proposal of the kind !" My learned friend says sometlring might have , taken place. Me dospn't say what, but we do say what ocpuried.. And, forsooth, he says Mrs Wilkinson should have been called too, and tries to make out that it wquld have been just as easy for Mr McMinn to pay . 460 as to pay £30 for Miss Crawford. Well, lam glad this w his experience. It is not my own lor that of my clients I may point out that that reflects both He «*?* wn y did we not bripg Mrs Wilkinson to proyo what 'happened, and says we knew better than to do that because she could not have corroborated what Mips Crawford had said. Then why did not the plaintiff bring, down Mrs "Wilkinson ? My learned friend says the defend- ' ants havje not spared money to bring witnesses. Has the plaintiff spared money ? Has he not called witnesses front all parts to prove the innocence *of his w character ? He could have called Mrs Wilkinson if he had pleased. Why did he not do so when she wasthe very one who could have, according to my learned friends, refuted the evidence of our chief wit-ness?-Because he knew well that she would only con olw rate what MUa Crawford had said. Them comes the; dressing room epicode, when our friend opens the door of the <lreswingroom and admires the unadorned persons of two ladieK ih«re, and soems inclined to stay there until .he was •forcibly put out. Then with legard to Miss Crawiord's demeanour m the box. My frivnd suys "anybo'ly could discover she vas au actress," the way she; gave her evidence. T dare say if my learned friend was m the witness box anyone could, tell lie was a lawyer, and I can tell my .learned friend that if he will allow me to introduce him to Miss Crawford, he will find that that is her "ordinary manner and way of speaking, Then regarding the native wo« man* if you believe the witness Murphy, I think yon will ace that •some interrufitioh hud taken place between the plaintiff and this woman, and if his evidence i* correct, thik did actually occur. The plaintiff was pointed out to Siarphy by the wonun. . Murphy's account of what . took place; that night hardly tallies with plaintiff's version of it. The plaintiff's coining was the reason why the -woman rushed to Murphy for pro- ■ ;.",■;:' . : '■■;•■'■.■■ '. i. [To