TELEGRAMS.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 961, 16 July 1881, Page 3

TELEGRAMS.

(fkom our own correspondents). v. Wickham. —Libel. > Auckland, July 13. Mb. Tyler appeared for the prosecution, and Messrs. Whitaker and Browning for the defence. Defendant’s counsel elected to plead not guilty, instead of pleading truth and justification ; and the jury had only to try whether the article in the Free Lvnce was a libel on Mr. Rees calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Five previous articles were put in by the prosecution to prove malice, and Messrs. Reed and Rees gave evidence rebutting the allegations. The defence called no evidence, but Mr Whitaker made an exceedingly clever speech, to which Mr Tyler was debarred from replying, the defence thus scoring a point. ’ The Judge, in summing up, said a great deal turns upon the form of the action, and whether the words are such as would be likely to produce a breach of the peace. If the words are such as might produce such a result, you will be justified in finding a verdict for the Crown. Now the liberty of the press ought to be a very dear and a darling thing for every one of us ; for it is really the ultimate protection of our liberties in all matters of public interest; but on the other hand, if the press goes beyond the true liberty of endeavoring, honestly and fairly, to expose abuses, and to discuss public wrongs, that would be no longer liberty, but license. If it goes the length of discrediting or defaming private persons or non-public individuals, without due course, from malice, then the press ought to be restrained. You will, thereijpee, remember on the one hand what isthe real value of the liberty of the press, and on the other, what is the injury that may be done to the persons, prospects, and liberties of individuals, by the license of the press. You will have to judge whether this aiticle is a libel as to cast ridicule, hatred, and contempt, upon the prosecutor; and even if you do find that, there are cases where it would be the duty of the public press to cast hatred and contempt upon persons who acted wrongfully, by dealing wrongfully with a public trust. It would be the plain duty of the conductors of the public press to expose such things; but conductors of the public press must take care that they are truly informed ; they must take care that they do not themselves speak and write falsely and wrongfully ; that they do not go beyond the bounds of fair comment on the facts fairly brought under their notice. It has been well laid down that it is not a misdemeanour if defamatory comments are made on public abuses, or on things which the authors of them submit for public criticism, provided that such comments are fair and reasonable on the part of those who make them. The next thing you have to determine is whether the matters here referred to are matters of such public interest as would entitle the journalist to comment on them at all. Unfortunately, one must perceive the tendency, both at home and in the colonies, to. enter upon matters that affect private life and prifate character. That I may tell you, this license, by entering upon such matters which never come before the public, the press are going beyond their plain and manifest duty, and if the consequence is Injury to others, they will be liable to punishment. It has been contended in this case, that the matter was a mere

transaction between the Natives and other persons, while, on the other side, it is contended that the transaction itself went far beyond what could be deemed a merely private matter. It appears to have been made public by the prosecutor himself, who addressed public meetings upon it; who published it in pamphlet for distributing—the pamphlet in which the very questions were made public, and upon which the Press took up the right to comment; therefore, it would appear to be public matter There arises the consideration as to the nature of the subject. For you, the question is, whether dealing with these Native lands, was, or was not, a matter of such intense public interest as to excite comment; whether all dealings with Native lands, by private persons, is, or is not, a practice which might be scrutinised by a public writer. It has been stated the question affecting these Native lands, had, throughout the whole of historv of this Colony, brought about serious troubles with the Native race. It has been known from the foundation of this Colony, that this is a great public and political ouestion, upon which public opinion has varied from time to time, that there is no public’subject stated to be of greater importance to the North Island of New Zealand, than that which relates to the property of, and the mode of dealing with Natives, as regards their lands. On all these views of the matter, it cannot be other than a public ques- - Hon upon which fair comment is allowed. Now then, gentlemen, is this fair comment, or is it malicious comment, on the transactions of the prosecutor, in regard to these Native 1 nds ? Is it fair and reasonable comment if the whole of the language had been written in the wav the latter parties conceived ? I think •i would be regarded as fair comment, for the object appears to be to call attention to the

manner of placing these lands in private hands, as trustees, and to show that the person who should hold these lands in trust, ought to be a public officer, and not a private individual. But if that language, on the other hand, were merely a cloak for malice, then it would be libellous. If the real, and only, object of the writer, was to obtain a public trustee, that would be a good and proper object. To come to the language itself We have the statement of a “ worthless title.” There is either a title, or no title, and worthless title, is, simply, no title. Then there is the statement that the prosecutor, “ by means of false representations, endeavored to extract large sums of money from the strangers who came to our shores.” The defence that has been submitted is, that these representations were that he had, or would have a good title • whereas he had no title, and “ has no title,” does that imply a charge of obtaining money under false pretences, or does it merely mean that the prosecutors entered into an agreement on the certainty, of being paid by those settlers, upon getting for them a good title, and which he had tried to get, and that he was to get £12,000; The language is capable of either construction.-lAs to the word “ unscrupulous,” that is a most improper word to use, and you will say whether it is libellous. It is language of a character which I think public writers ought to avoid. Then there is the assertion “ That the Belfast settlers had been swindled.” You will say whether this means “ cheating ” these people, or whether it might not be used in the sense that these people had been induced to come and settle on that land, and pay their money without having guaranteed to them a perfect title. It is for you to say what it means. Then there is the statement “ That the Native Land Court declined to connive at a fraud.” That would appear to go beyond the limit of fair comment. It is for you to determine in what sense it is meant. Did he knowingly, and wilfully, attempt to perpetrate a fraud, which the Land Court would not connive at ? Then, there* is the allegation “ That the prosecutor endeavored to deprive the Maori owners af the Pouawa Block, of their j ust inheritance.” What is the meaning of that ? “ Was it that he endeavored to swindle the Maoiri owners, as well as the Belfast people ? < You will have to read that by the light of what follows. Having done so you will judge what may be its true meaning. Then there is the statement, “ That the prosecutor is not acting honestly ” or cannot show “that he is acting honestly.” Does that refer to acting honestly in money matters ? The term is just as frequently used to whether a man is acting fairly, openly, or properly ; or, might the language of the article mean that he (the prosecutor) is not putting the matter honestly before those w-o are concerned? That he is not dealing fairly or openly with them ? .Was the word “ honestly ” used in this sense, or did it mean that he was simply cheating ? It is for you to determine in what sense these words are used. Here then came the allegation that “ By false promises, bribery arid threats, the Natives were induced to sign Trust Deeds.” In the ordinary sense that would constitute a very graVe charge against the prosecutor ; on the other hand, might it be considered a very strong way of putting it that Mr. Rees had set before the Natives, views of the great advantage to be derived from dealing with the property in such a way, that by an expenditure for roads, and bridges, and other improvements, a large amount of money was to be obtained. Were these delusions merely, or were they false promises, bribery, and threats ? Then there is the allegation that “ the prosecutor prevented the deed being brought before the Trust Commissioner ; the Trust Commissioner has not given his assent to the deed.” Then there is the statement relating to “ usurious rates of interest.” It does appear from the evidence that several lands have been mortgaged, when put in trust, either for buying out other interests, or for expenditure on roads, bridges, and other imprtrvements. As td whether he' “ betrayed his Native clients,” did that mean whether the Natives would ever get the benefit of such expenditure, or not ? It is alleged that “ in no sihgle instance had he rendered an account of the trust.” It was true, that in no instance had the trust been redeemed, because there was not time for it. Again, gentlemen, I tell you it is not for me to express any opinion. I had one of these trust deeds before me in a recent trial, and I then expressed my opinion as to what I thought of these transactions; suffice it to say, that this mode of dealing with Native lands, deserves that the public attention should be drawn to it in proper language ; it deserves the attention of the Legislature, in order to prevent great public evils that may arise from it. The guestion may arise whether this article might have been written with that view. The only question for you, as a jury, is, whether this article is malicious ? You will say whether you gather from this article, malice; Ybu will say whether the language is a strong way of calling the attention of the public to the impropriety of Mr Rees’ mode of dealing with these Natives; and then you will say whether it exceeds the boundary of fair comment upon the public conduct of the prosecutor. A public writer would be entitled to point out the impropriety of Mr Rees’ conduct in fair comment, if he thought that conduct improper. It must be malicious as against Mr. Rees—it must be something more than a desire on the part of the writer, to expose what he believes to be a public injury. And again I say to you, that you alone are the judges of that. You will have to say whether this article is defamatory, w’hether it is false ; whether it has been actuated by malice ; or, whether it is such an one as it would be the duty of a public journalist to write an article endeavoring to expose a public injury. Mr. Tyler: I would ask your Honor to direct the jury that they must put such construction upon it, as it is calculated to raise, in the mind of any ordinary persons reading it. His Honor : I am not prepared to direct the jury to that effect. I would say, gentlemen, that you must take both considerations into account; you must take into your consideration what an ordinary reader would gather from it, and, also, what was the intention of the writer, because it was the malicious intent which has to be proved —if there was no malicious intent the words do not bear a malicious

signification ; you must be the judges whether it necessarily bears a malicious meaning, or whether it bears on the face of it, taken in connection with ether parts of the article, evidence of being meant as a strong personal attack on public grounds in reference to Mr. Rees’ conduct on public matters ; this is wholly for you. Mr. Tyler : I would ask your Honor to direct the Jury, as to whether a journalist can allege what is false, and comment on false facts. His Honor : Here it is upon admitted facts, putting Native Lands in trust in this way : there are allegations of fact which are apparently false, but the jury will have to take the whole article into consideration, and say whether it is malicious, or whether the writer had merely intention of commenting severely upon the thing to which he objected. Mr. Tyler : I submit that it is not fair to comment on false facts. His Honor : As I have said, the main facts are admitted, there are some facts alleged apparently false, but the intention of the writer must be gathered from the whole article. The jury at five o’clock retired to consider their verdict. Ata quarter past six, the jury came into Court with a verdict of not guilty.

Hurst v. Wickham.—Libel. Defendant Pleaded G-uilty. Wickham Apologised, and was fined Is. July 14. Mr. Wickham tendered the following apology : —“ Finding that the several allegations, and imputations, contained in an article in the Auckland Free Lance, of March 19th, 1881, and which are the subject matter of the indictment herein, have no foundation in fact, and cannot be supported, I beg to express to you my sincere apology and regret, for having published the same ; and I now ask you to allow me to withdraw all scandalous, or injurious imputations, or reflections, which that article may either directly or indirectly cast upon you. This I ask, being satisfied that such imputations and reflections are utterly false, and without foundation; and the same ought not to have been published. As to the future, I undertake that no criticisms, referring to your personal character, or to any of the matter complained of in the leading article before mentioned, shall be directly, or indirectly, published in the Auckland Free Lance, so long as I am proprietor of the same ; and I now beg to offer you herewith the sum of £2O, towards the costs and expenses which I regret I have put you to in this matter ; and I also regret that I am not in a position to increase the amount. —J. D. Wickham.” East Coast Settlement Co. A meeting of the Auckland portion of the Provisional Directors of the East Coast Settlement Company was held this afternoon, at the Chambers of Mr. Coleman, solicitor ; all were present but one; unavoidably absent. Mr. Rees and Mr. G. M. Reed attended, and gave full explanation as to the position of the lands, and the desire of the Natives to associate in the prospectus. A lengthened discussion ensued, and it was unanimously resolved that the whole scheme was highly satisfactory ; and that an effort should be made to have Auckland strongly represented on the list of shareholders.