RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1341, 11 August 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

[Before J. Booth, Esq., R.AI.J Thursday, Bth August. charge of libel. Kenneth Kerr, proprietor of “Facts” was charged with having written a certain libel against Air C. A. DeLautour. This case was culled on for hearing on Thursday, the Ist instant, but was adjourned for a week, owing to the summons not having been issued under the hand of the Magistrate, Mr Shaw, of Wellington, before whom Lhe information had been laid. Mr Hees appeared for the prosecution, and Air Kenny lor the defence. Mr Rees said tile pre-ent action was one brought by Air. C. A. DeLautour against Mr Kenneth Kerr, the proprietor of a newspaper styled “ Facts.” He would produce evidence to show that the defendant was the proprietor of the paper by documents in the possession of the Registrar of the Supreme Court. Ho would also pat a copy of the paper in evidence, namely, that of the 6th of July, and would show the malice by a paper of the 13th, in which the article was reproduced. All that the j Court had to do was to satisfy itself that a libel had been committed, and if so to commit the defe idant. He would take the present opportunitj” of stating that if the accusation made were either true or untrue they should be enquired into, as it was asserted that most gross and m&liciens frauds had been perpetrated upon the Natives. It mattered not whether these accusations were made for reward or through malice or mere id’e. less. Tbey were put forth in print, and might be scattered broadcast throughout he length and hrc.dtn of the land, and ng 1 : i ;’:d to injure the character an.l re'i at* >;i of tl>e acuused in the mind j of those who read the accusations, I ■ « t u j pe a ips wouhl never see the refu. ! cation. It was only right, therefore, that [ the person disseminating such slanders

should be brought before the tribunal of his country. Nearly all that was said about the freedom of the Press was so much bunkup'. press was perfectly well defendeu uuuii it sought only in the interests of the pu’. K to criticise public men in their public actions, or even their private actions when they had a bearing on public matters, or when they sought to expose a wrong which affected the public: but when it was used to ruin people’s characters by malicious untruths, the law wisely did not permit the writer of such articles as those complained of to go scot free. Fair criticism was allowable, but the assertions made by the deiendant were that gross and terrible frauds or a series of them, unparalleled in history, had been going on in connection with the Company. Mr DeLautour was the gentleman who acted for the Company, and who derived pecuniary benefit from it, therefore the libel applied most distinctly to him. [•air criticism wag right enough, but in the matter before the Court this hud been overstepped, and a false and malicious libel had been perpetrated. He would put in the papers he mentioned, and added that the one dated the 13th teemed with libel, and contained a copy of a libellous petition to the House of from the iecords of which it had s’n.ce been expunged. He called :

G. L. Greenwood, Registrar of Supreme Court, deposed : This document (affidavit produced) was filed on May 7th, under the Newspaper Act, and relates to “ Facts.” It sets forth that Mr. Kenneth Kerr is the proprietor of the said paper. There has been no registered alteration in the proprietorship since that time. Gibson K, Turton, barrister, deposed : I recognise the affidavit produced which 1 drew up for Mr. K. Kerr, whom I know. I recog nise the gentleman at the table (Mr. Kerr) as the one who signed the document. Mr. Rees here put in copies of “ Facts ” July 6th and 13th. Air. Rees said this wa» all the evidence he had to produce. Mr. Kenny Baid that it was not compel ent for His Worship to commit the defendant for trial on the evidence produced. He submitted that the article in question was no libel on Mr. De Lautour. If u libel had been committed it was against the N.Z. Land Settlement Company. There was nothing whatever charged against Mr. De Lautour personally. Hi® name was only mentioned once and then merely in relation to a transaction having taken place in his office. There were no allegations whatever against Mr De Lautour. Not one word taxing him with fraud. It had been stated by Mr. R**es that Mr. De Lautour was th. principal officer of the Company, but not one tiite of evidence had been adduced to prove this. If there were any libel it was against the Company, and not against Mr. De Lautour. Mr. Kenny quoted several authorities to uhow that the prosecutor had utterly failed to prove that the statements set forth in the articles were false. Consequently on these two points the prosecutor had utterly failed to substantiate a case against his client. It was quite competent for the Company to have prosecuted had they wished as was clearly laid down by “ Russell on Crimes.” Air. Rees replied on points of law, and stated that the present Court was only one of enquiry. He had only to in out a prima facie, case, and it would be then for the •Supreme Court to decide. Mr. Kenny was about to reply, when His Worship culled Air Rees’ attention to the fact that he had failed to answer the chief objection made by Air. Kenny, whereupon Mr. Rees read and construed the alleged libellous article, and contended it was a most foul and malicious libel against Mr. De Lautour. If true Mr. De Lautour should undoubtedly bo disbarred and hounded out of Society, Mr Kenny said the prosecution had failed to prove, except by inuendo, that any libel had been committed against Air DeLautour. Air Rees then volunteered to show the Bench its duty, His Worship said a most important point had been raised, and he would take time to consider it. The case would stand adjourned until Monday next. ALLEGED PRINTING OF A LIBEL, The case against Mr C. H. C. Webb, the printer of the alleged libel, was also adjourned until Monday next. Rees v. Karaitana, Adjourned by consent till Tuesday next. Nolan v G. Humphries. Claim £8 17s, for professional costs. Adjourned for 2 months, G. J. Winter v. W. Parnell. Adjourned till Tuesday next.