CRIMINAL LIBEL CASE.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2186, 20 March 1880, Page 2

CRIMINAL LIBEL CASE.

TOWN EDITION.

STEAD V. “ OTAGO DAILY TIMES ” AND “ WITNESS ” COMPANY.

This case was commenced before Mr Mellish, 11. M., and Mr J. Ollivier, J.P., at tlie Christclmrch Police Court yesterday. The plain till: is George Gatcnby Stead, and the defendants on the record were Messrs James Smith, T. M. Hockcn, W. Guthrie, W. H. Eeynolds, James Marshall, and George Fenwick, of Dunedin.

The alleged libel was contained in the following, which appeared in the “ Otago Witness ” of Feb. 7, under the heading of “ The Dunedin Cup Face ” : —“Mr G. Fraser's chesnut gelding Longlands, by Totara —Marchioness, oyrs, 7st 121 b, was bred in Auckland by Mr James Walt, and is a very good horse, though scarcely able to hold his own with the best at weight for ago. He has achieved a great reputation for gamcness and speed, but is principally notorious for his two consecutive wins in the Great Autumn Handicap. He has not done a great amount of work the course observed being much the same as is pursued with Mata —score a remunerative win and then either lay him up for a time or run him totally unfit, the result being that some hanclicappers lets him in cheaply for another big race, and again he ‘ lands a moral.’ ”

Mr Spademan (Wynn Williams and Deacon) appeared for the plain till' ; Mr Garrick appeared for the defendants, and also for Mr Fenwick, mho mas present. On the case being opened, Mr Garrick said —I do not know what course my learned friend is going to pursue. Mr Fenwick is here, but the other defendants are not. I should like to know whether Mr Spackman requires to have all the defendants present, or whether he will proceed with the case as against Mr Fenwick. Mr Spademan— Sepcratcinformatlons have been sworn against the whole of the defendants. lam quite willing to go on with the evidence against Mr Fenwick, and leave it to the Court to say if it is necessary to have all the defendants present before them. Mr Mellish —I do not see that there is a necessity for the whole of the defendants to be before the Court now, as the article containing the libel was published by all at the same time. .Mr Garrick—l may say. your Worship that I appear for all the absent defendants, as well as for Mr Fenwick, and 1 woidd bring under the notice of the Bench and 1113' learned friend that if he elects to proceed against Mr Fenwick, 1 shall raise the point that the libel is a joint offence and cannot be taken separately. What 1 shall submit is, that the ease should be ad journed until say Monday next. The absent defendants must be present, because though I represent them here, if they were committed for tidal 1 should step aside. The crime charged is a joint publication of a libel.

iMr Kpaekman—l would point out to my learned friend that lie admits that (lii.s is a joint crime, and yet he wants to go on with only one of the defendants present. I should oppose any adjournment. The Bench have no power to adjourn, but it" tlic defendants did not put in an appearance to the summons issued, they were bound to issue a warrant. 1.1:1 apply for a warrant to issue the Bench must grant it, but I do not want to do that.

Mr Mollish —No, of course that is not necessary, but still I would point out that the other defoudauts should have been present. Mr Garrick —I may explain, jmur Worship, that the reason of their nonappearance is, that they arc acting under the advice of able Counsel in Dunedin, who advised them that it was not necessary for them to attend. Mr Spademan —It seems to mo that there was no need for the advice of any able Counsel, as when a defendant does not attend in pursuance of a summons, the course of the .Bench is clear, viz., to issue a warrant.

Mr Garrick—l .still submit that this being a case of joint libel, all the defendants must be present when the case is taken ; hence the necessity for adjournment. If my learned friend goes on I shall reserve the right to raise the point I have referred to.

Mr Spademan —But if my learned friend does so, the only course left to me is to apply for a warrant. There is no ground for such an adjournment, and if it were made the only course for the Magistrate to pursue would be to issue a warrant. The Act laid this down specially, that the Magistrate had no power to adjourn the case except in cases of variance of the information. It was finally decided to adjourn the proceedings till Monday, so as to enable the whole of the defendants to be present, and Mr Fenwick entered into his own recognisance to appear on that day at 3 p.m.