CRIMINAL LIBEL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2188, 23 March 1880, Page 2

CRIMINAL LIBEL.

The criminal libel action. Stead v. the “Otago Daily Times ” ami “Witness” Co., was continued before the Christchurch Bench yesterday. Mr ( ieorge Fenwick was the only defendant in attendance. On the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr Oarrick, for the defence, submitted that there was no evidence that the Bench had jurisdiction. Besides this, he would submit to the Court that there was no evidence to connect Mr. Stead with Mr Fraser. It was a perfectly clear principle of law that no libel could bo written on a person under an alias unless this knowledge was proved to have been known to the persons writing the libel. The principal ingredient of criminal libel was malice, and the presumption of malice was rebutted when it was a case in which a person chose under an alias to carry on racing,or any other business,unless it was proved that the person who wrote the alleged libel know the nom do fjnerro under which the individual alleged to be libelled waged war. There was no evidence to prove that the managing director, who is the defendant in this case, knew that Mr (ieorge (latonby Stead who had set the law in motion here, was Mr (ieorge Fraser, who was racing in Otago. He submitted this as a reason why he contended that there was no case for a committal to a higher court. Mr Modish was with Mr Garrick on this point. The only question which might be raised was before the Judge that a person who was writing on racing was supposed to know that Mr Stead’s racing name was Fraser. But this would ho a question for direction by the Judge. Ho did not think there could be any doubt about the case. He was clearly of opinion that there must be a committal for trial. The defendant having been duly cautioned, declined to make any statement, and was committed to take bis trial at the ensuing session of the Supreme Court at Christchurch. Mr Curricle —Will your Worship allow bail ? Mr Medish—Yes, in defendant’s own recognisances.