THE "TIMES" LIBEL CASE. CHARGES AGAINST MR PARNELL AND THE LEAGUE.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 291, 18 August 1888, Page 3

THE "TIMES" LIBEL CASE. CHARGES AGAINST MR PARNELL AND THE LEAGUE.

Tme action hi ought by M r 0 'Don n ell against bho " Timeb '' began on Monday bofoie Lend Chief Justice Coleridge. Mr O'Donnell its a journalist, and was between 1874 and 1885 a member of Parliament for Uatway and Dungar\en. He alleged bhab the " Times" had libelled him by piacfcically alleging, among other things, that he, along with Mr Parnell and others, was the trusted and intimaLc accomplice and colluag-ic of iho lnvineibles in planning and picpaiiugthc Phu'iiix Park murders, lie claimed i.5000 damages. Defendant-) denied .illuding in tlieir aiticlo bo plaintill j except so far as he was mentioned by name, in which case they claimed their words weio a fair comment and true i:i substance ! tind in fact. Plaintill was represented by one holit'iry counsel, Mr Arugg, wliilc the defendants— Mr John Waltcis, the proprietor ; and Mr U. E. Wright, tho punter — wcie defended by the Attorney -(.Scnoial, Sir Richard Webber, QC., M.P., «ir Henry James Q.U., M.P., Mr J.-uuley Smith, Q.G., Mr (lialuun and Mr \Vynnj James. Four witne-^-tb weic called to piove that in their opinion plamtill was imul be sevcied fiom Mr l'aruell one of those leadeib to which the "Timeb" reteued. The plaintill did not go into tho box, his counsel baying that u. w.ib for The " Timco " to j)iove their (v^cr^ withoub him. Tho Attornoy-Ucncral, in a .speech lusting two day, commented on \li O'Donnoll not being called a<- a pioot that he daied not, on ticcounl of the league, submit to a cio'-s elimination. I'lamoill w,i- nob a nicmbei ot the c-i iinintd party— tho league — against w Inch the " Time-i"' articles weio diiected. the " Time-j " ou^ht to be able to iighb the i'-ne with Mi I'anioll and his friend s> and nob with tlie plainbiU. The lea nod counsel quoted horn, the famous articles on " Parncllibin and Chime" at length to fchow tho doings- of the league m inciting to murder during the yeaia 1879 to 1881. Ho albo read lettert, and among them one fiom Frank Byrne to Quinn, in which tlie wntor said that before he left London he lcccived the promised cheque tor ClOO fiom Mr Painell. The Attoincy-Goueial s.ud he would pioduce evidence ot the genuineness of these lettois. On Thursday .in unexpected termination to the case oecinied. Fiom the magnitude oi tho ib^uts involved and the vciy serious allegation made in the AtSornoy-Uenoial's biwecli tor the defence, it appealed pObSiblc that tho action might btretch lor a week. The defence was placed in such a dilemma that it would have been obliged to pioduce witneK-e.s to piove hundreds ot small facts, which a few minutes' crosb-examination of O'Donnell himsclt might have established. At the elobe of tho addicss of the Attorney - Ueneial, the Chief Justice announced that he should not allow any evidence to bo tcndeiod a* to tho ciuth ov falsehood ot the hbel-> other bhan those affecting the pie sent plaintifl. Hib Loidship added that he ! had lead all the publications, and could .see no libel in them on Mi O'Donnell. An I ai^uincufc onMied between his Loidthip I and the counsel foi the plaintill ab to whethei there was reallj any ibsue to a ]ivy. and after Mr Arugg had had an opportunity of consulting \wth his client he decided to abandon that portion of the ea>e in which it was alleged that Mr O'Donnell had been libelled as a member of the Pamcllite paity and to proceed only in the libels in which Mr O'Ponnell's name was 'specially mentioned. The counsel for the "Tunes" thereupon did not proceed to call witnesses. The judge summed up, and the juiy without lea\ ing the box de cided that plait. till had not been libelled and that the ciiticibin to which ho had been subjected was fair comment. Thctiial accordingly ended in a \erdict for the defendants, with costs.

THE CHARGES AGAINST MR PAKNELL. The Abtorncy-(_!eneral, in the emu so ot lmaddioss, paid that nothing would induce the '" 'i'imc-5 " to make know n the sources of its infoimatton. This was an obligation of honoui, ami lo fail in ib would nob only bo disgiaeetul, bub it would pi obably lead to assassination. Hence the secret would bo kept even if ib cost fchc "Times 15 ihe vcrdicb. The Abbot ncy-Geneial pioduccd t-onio 10 maikablo coircsponcloneo between Messrs I'avnoll, Egan, and Caiey, the intoimci. Certain paits of ib mv.de a motound. hcnsabiou, and at least produced a feeling oi bewildci men I. Counsel book caio bo intist in advance on bhc genuineness of bhc lcbteis including the /ac snnil( of the lcbtcrs denounced by Mr L\unell in the House of Commons, and piomised the jury every oppoit unity by (.he evifknee of exports and direct comparison w ith othoi wiibing, the authorship of which \\ us admitted, ot teaming s-ifc coneluHons in lcgaid bo them. The correspondence begun in bhc days ol 1881. About 16 mouth' befoie the oce 'iTcnce of the Plucmx J'aik tiagedy m February, JBBl, Mr Pat noil was in Paiis with Egan, and according to the lebtei written b\ lCgan to "Mat" iLuiis, he there agreed to make furbhci advance-, to what wa^ know ii ab the fund ot tlio league. He again mentioned iurbhet that l\lr Parnell and lie had met with O'Leaiy, the ITcniMn, and tliab they all agreed tliat piompt. and decisive action wa-i called for. In June of the tatne year Air farncll wrote to the plaintifl O'Donnoll in reference bo another application from Egan to this eileet :: — '* 1 see no ob")ccoion to giving bhc amount asked ioi. There is not the lcns>t likelihood of what you are apprehensive ot happening.*' The body of this letter was in the hand wilting ot Mr A. Campbell, then acting as I\lr Parnoll's Seciefcjry, bub the signature was that of Mr L'arnoll himself. Other two brief notes fiom Mr Varnoll seemed to relate to Bronnan'b expedition to the West of licland. in Ocbobcr, 18C1, Mr Parnoll was lodged in Kilnnunliam, wliiclv he shaved with lii-ennan, l^illon, \Y. OBrien, fScxton, and others. A iew days later on the 25th of October Egan wrote as lollows to Cavcy, the informer :—: — " Dear sir, — 1 have by this post sent . M. £200 ; he will give you what you want. When will you undeitakc to get to work to give vis \ aluo for our money ?" The Attor-ney-(icneral suggested that j\l. uas the man Mnllebb, who was aiterwards sentenced bo 10 ycaife' penal tcrvitudo for complicity in the Plvunix Paik nmrdorp. Couiiftel next read two letters tiom Egan to Caiey, backing Cuoy in his attempt to get elected to bhc City Council in Dublin, and forwarding him money. Then came the great .sensation of the tiial, in the reading of the following letter, said to have been sent out of Kilmainham, and dated January 9fch, 1882 :—" Dear Egan, — What arc those follows waiting for. This inaction, is inoxcusablo. Our best men are in prison, and nothing is being done. Let there be an end to this hesitancy. Prompt action is called for ? You undertook to make it hob for old Foistcr and Co. ; let us have .some evidence ot our power to do po. My health is good Thanks. — Yours truly, Giias. S. Pahnkjul.' | The Attorney-Genet al would not say who [ wrote the body ot the letter, bub he asked tho jury to believe that the stgnulutc was

what ifc professed to be. Dealing summarily with the remainder of the speech, I may say that counsel showed further that when Frank Byrne fled the country to avoid a trial on a charge of complicity in the* Phoenix Park murders, it was Mr Parnell who sent him a cheque for XlOO irom the funds, to cnab'e Mm to make good his escape. It would be proved that since the moral guile of Sheridan, Egan, Byrne, and others was obvious lo all men, the leaders of the Irish party weie in regular communication with them, and had received money Irom them ; therefore that the ai-Uclct. of the " Times" were true in fact. Bub it was not in this way that the '• Times " wished to meet tho&c whom ib had admittedly libelled.