THE “FREE LANCE” LIBELS.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2594, 14 July 1881, Page 2

THE “FREE LANCE” LIBELS.

Auckland, July 13. In the case of Hurst v, Wickham, the defendant pleaded not guilty and justification, inasmuch as the matters alleged against the plaintiff were subject to suspicion at the time. The plea was demurred to, and the Judge ruled it bad. He declared that to justify the libel the defendant must plead absolute truth to the allegation contained in the article. Therefore, to put in a new plea, the case was adjourned till to-morrow. In the case of Rees v. Wickham, for libel, arising out of the former’s land transaction on the East Coast, Mr Tyler conducted the prosecution, and Messrs Whitaker and R. Browning the defence. The indictment was ver* lengthy, embracing extracts from the offensive article. Mr W. L. Rees gave evidence at length as to his land transactions on the East Coast, and Mr G. Reed also gave corroborative evidenoi. Mr Whitaker, for the defendant, did not attempt to prove the truth of the allegations, merely pleading not guilty. He said defendant was a poor man, and not in a position to bring up witnesses, otherwise witnesses would have been called. Mr Tyler proceeded to sum up the evidence, and said it showed the allegations in the articles were false and malicious, and the object of the libel to bring the prosecutor into contempt and ridicule, and injure him in the future. Mr Whitaker addressed the jury, asking them to consider whether the alleged libel did not come within legitimate comments, which might be made by a public writer against a public abuse and wrong. There was no doubt whatever that a wholesale scheme had been entered upon affecting the position of native lands and native owners. It was a matter of notoriety that a proposal was made to float a Company which would comprehend all native lands on the East Coast. The jnry would pause before they would restrict the functions of the public Press. If the language was strong the circumstances were such as might very well excuse ir. These native lands were the subject of discussion in and out of the Parliament of the colony. A war between natives had actually arisen out of these questions. Justice Gillies summed up. He said—- “ There is no public subject stated to be of greater importance to this North Island of New Zealand than that which relates to the propriety of the mode of dealing with the natives as regards their lands. On all these views of the matter it cannot be other than a public question, upon which fair comment is allowed.” The jury after a short retirement acquitted the defendant.