ALLEGED LIBEL. LARNACH V. "NEW ZEALAND HERALD." VERDICT FOR £500 DAMAGES. Wellington, January 22.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 337, 26 January 1889, Page 6

ALLEGED LIBEL. LARNACH Y. "NEW ZEALAND HERALD." VERDICT FOR £500 DAMAGES. Wellington, January 22.

Tnn caee in which the Hon. Win, Jas. Mudie Larnach, M.H.R. for the Peninsula, sough(, to recover two eums of £500 each from William Scott Wilson, Joseph Liston Wil" son, and Alficd George Horton, proprietors of the "New Zealand Hemld," Auckland, for alleged libels in leading ai tides in that journal on the 19th and 21&t days of July last, was concluded yesterday in the Supremo Court, before Mr Jubbice Richmond and a special jury of 12. Sir Robert Stout, and with him the Hon. P. A. Buckley, appealed tor the- plaintiff, and Mr Gully, with whom was Mr Skerretb, was tor the defence. The iirsfcarfcicle begins bliu.s : "Theincidenb refened to by our Wellington correspondent in rolation to the absence of Mr Larnach from the Assembly and his continuing to draw honorarium illustrates a phaso of Parliamentary lite that the public of New Zealand should lay to heart. It shows an instance of the unsciupulous dealing with public moneys which hns unhappily been too characteristic of Parliamentary proceedings in bhe past, and the thanks of every honest man in New Zealand are duo to the hon. member for Bay of Islands (Mr Hobbs) for his maniinoos in undertaking the unpleasant duty of exposing the scandal.'' The aiticlo goes on to tay that everybody knew that) Mr Larnach had loffc the colony and entered into business in I Melbourne, and concludes as follows : j "Despite the fact that Mr Larnach has I actually left, he apparently continues to diaw honorarium by a series of ' leave of absence' obtained vii the motion of members in the House. In the latest motion so made, the permission is asked on the ground of ' illness m his family.' It is so that illnets nob exactly in a member's family, bub of himself, ifa u?ider fcho tiitii clauso of the Parliamentary Honorarum and Piivolegcs Act a ground ior a member being granted leave of absence and consequently drawing honorarum when absent. In sheer and shameless excuse for plundering the country, this alleged illness in his family is put forward by a member in the House. The statement may or may nob be a fact, and most probably it is not, bub that it should be adduced in Pailiamenb, and that with the exception of Mrllobbs>'d apologetic protest no voice of indignatiou was raised, will go to confirm the fast-growing conviction in the public mind that Parliament, as it exists, should be swept away, and give place to something else with better comprehension of the fitness of things, and more in accordance with bhe common sense of the community." The second article asserted fchafc the plaintiff's object in returning to Wellington was not to resume his Parliamentary duties, but apparently to qi yev c a banquet to the heads ot departments ot the Civil Service, and it also maintains that Mr Fish, in the face of the fact that Mr Larnachs absence hitherto had been on account of business, and that he was leaving to pursue that business, asks for leave of absence " on account of illness in his family." Defendants admitted the publication of the words complained of, but denied that they were published maliciously. They said that the subject matter of the alleged libels became and was a matter of public interest, and thereupon they, bona fide for the public good, and without any sinister or malicious motive, published the words complained of. Sir Robert Stout addressed the jury at some length, and in the course of his remarks referred to the statement in question as being about bhe cruellest and grossest libel that any paper could possibly have perpetrated on any man, and more particularly upon a public man. Dr. Coughtecy, of Ounedin, was called to prove that Miss Larnachs illness was the cause of the plaintiff being called away to Dunedin. Mr Gully submitted that the evidence which the doctor was called upon to give was quite irrelevenb, inasmuch as the defendants? admitted that there had been illness in Mr Larnachs family. Ho contended that such evidence was intended by the other side to enlist the sympathy of the Sir Robert Stout said he would asL Dr. G'oughtrey what it was that? called Mr Larnach from his duties in Wellington. Mr Gully objected to the question on the ground that the fact could nob possibly have been known by the writer when the article was wnbten. Some aigument ensued, and Sir Robert Stout withdtew the question. Dr. Coughtrey thereupon stood down. The plaintiff was called. Hise\idence was veiy brief. He said he had been in Parliament about 13 years, and the " Herald " had always been strongly opposed to the party bo which lie belonged. He leturned from Victoria in May la&t, and left again for bhab colony in October. When he leturned to Wellington he was ghown the first article. This was after he had been called away to his home, after coming? back from Melbourne. Never in his life had he been in the habit of sending in a claim for honorarium. He never troubled much about ib. He crave an order to geb it, and never bioubled himself a& to what was given him. Cioss>-examined by Mr Gully : He was aboenb in Melbourne at the beginning of bbc (session, and returned to Ne\v Zealand about May 30th, having in the meantime arranged bo settle in Melbourne. He stayed a few da,ys in Dunedin on account of hi- daughter's illness, and re-entered Parliament about June 7th. On May 30&h, MrSgddon moved that leave of absence be granted to witness on account pf urgent private affairs. About July 2nd witnas* was peremptorily summoned back by l)r. Cough ttey, and remained bill the doctor toki him ib was e-afe to return. He got back about August 7th. Before leaving, on July 3rd, hegaveafcanquet to some OivjJ servants, and told them in his speech he was glad to have the opportunity now that he was out of office of giving some return for their courtesy while he was a Minister. He told one gentleman who spoke on the matter that he was leaving the colony, but could not say -whether it was generally known. Some of his iriends in the Hou&e knew ib at the time of the banquet, but he had no idea he would be called on to go South so soon, and he actually had to go upon an urgent letter from the doctor, without seeing his friends, on the 18th of July. Mr .Fish moved on witness's behalf and at his request for leave of absence for witne&s. He saw from a Dunedin paper a brief reference to the speech Mr Hobbs had made on the occasion, of a somewhat derogatory nafcui c, and sent him a telegram on the subject. He afterwards read a full report of the speech On August 14th he brought up the " Herald's " articles in bhe House as a breach of privilege. He did not remember seeing a third article in the " Herald '' of the day after this debate. After putting the matter into his solicitor's hands he recei/ed a telegram from the de.fendants stating that the articles were written under a misapprehension, and intended to deal generally with the subject

of the honorarium, and noo to reflect on Mr Larnach. He sent an answer bo the effect that the mattor was in his lawyer's hands. Ho was aware that both tele gram and answer appoarecl next day in the Southern papers, but did not know how they got them. He' was examined by Sir Robert Stout: Though he had settled in Melbourne,he still had large interests inNew Zealand. Hisconstituents'desired that he should still retain his seat. He telegraphed to Mr Fish to got him leave of absence, because he found ho would have to remain in Dunedin longer than he expected — till, in fact, his daughter was out of danger. Mr Gully, in opening the case for tho defence, said the articles were written purely from materials supplied by the "Herald" correspondent in Wellington. He had i'o ported tho statement made in the House of Representatives by Mr Hobbs, who had said the plaintiff had left Parliament and Wellington and was about to leave the colony, and wanted to know if he would receive his honorarium. It had never been shown that plain till' had not left the colony, and the defendants knew nothing of it till the bieach of privilege debate on August 14th. He called George McCullough Reel, who deposed that he was leader writer on tho " Heiald" staff. He wrote tho at tide in that paper of July 19th. lie know Mr Larnach had given a farewell banquet to the Civil seivants on June 30th, before the article was writton. lie tir&t knew plain Ufl had loturned to Wellington about August 13tn. An apologetic article was inserted in the "Herald"' on August 15th, and a telegram sent to Mr Larnach by tho proprietors, which had already been mentioned. This was done voluntarily. There was nothing telegraphed to him to the eft'ecb that Mr Lanmch was gome* to take legal action. He \vas> in no way actuated by personal motives against the plaintiff. William Berry, editor of the New Zealand "Hoiald," paid ho wrote the second article complained of. lie corroborated Mr Rood's evidence that ho assumod tho telegrams on which the articlos were based to be true. This was all the evidence called. Mr (Sully asked His Honor to d'nect the ■jury whether tho articles wore justified upon the circumstances which the writers had before them. His Honor said he thought he would Iso have to direct them to lind whethoiathore was any solid foundation for these facts v They must be certain defendants had taken reasonable steps to assure themselves that the facts were right. Air Gully quoted the decisions of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in winch be laid clown that public writers, evon if they fell into some error as to the tacts, were privileged, so long as they honestly believed the information on which they commented to be correct. HiB Honor said he hardly thought the cases quoted were applicable. The fact that a public writer was misinformed would not save him from the consequences. They were, in the eyes of law, volunteers. Mr Gully, addressing the jury, said it was admitted by the other side that there was no personal malice, and he argued that j evidence had shown the writers of the I alleged libels had reason to believe that the reports on which the articles were based were correct. Let them put themselves in Mr Reed's place, and he thought they would agree that he was iustih'ed in believing Mr Larnach was absent from the House and Parliament without any intention to return, and that the motion £or leave of absence was to enable him to draw his honorarium. As to the contention that newspaper writers ought to verify their information, he pointed out that such a thing. was absolute!}' impossible. Ho asked the jury to find that there was reasonable ground at the time for writing the articles, though it unfortunately turned out that the facts were not altogether right. Even supposing they found otherwise, he urged that a handsome apology had been made in the columns of the " Herald," and private telograms of a similar nature were sent to plaintiff directly the defendants weie awaie of the mistake, and it was difficult to ?ee what else plaintiff could wish. Sir Robert Stout said Mr Gully's speech was simply an appeal to let off uhe defendants as lightly as possible. According to the paper's own correspondent's telegram, it was clear that plaintiff had not left the colony, that he had not diawn honorarium, and that there was illness in his family. Yet these points were all denied in the articles complained of. There was, iv fact, no foundation whatever for the libels. They weie diiectly contradictory to tho statement of the "Herald's" own corre°pondent him&elf. Moreover, when Mr JHobbs found he was wrong and apologised what did the paper do? It slated Mr Hobbs ior apologising, and reiterated its offensive statements. Instead of coming into Couit and stating like honourable men they found they were in the wrong, they had up to the last attempted to justify their misstatements. His Honor, in summing up, said a distinction wa& made between fact and comment on fact. Fact must be established on reasonable evidence. He read a number of instances from the Law Reports to make the position clear, and amongst them Bryce v. Rusden. Jt was admitted the articles complained of were written under three misapprehensions of fact. The most serious of theoe was a denial of Miss Laruach's illnoss, whereas she was really seriously ill. This was quite indefensible. No doubt ifc was clear Messrs Reed and Bony wore writing ynder misapprehension, but he did not suggest l that this was any defence, though there was Hfcplp doubt they wrote with bova Jides ; still that was no consolation to the person aggrieved. With reference to Sir Robert Stout's suggestion that the defendants should have come into Court and confessed, it was probable this pourse was not taken because they were advised they could establish a defence on the plea of fair comment, but this he thought they could scarcely do. ■ The jsiry after 40 minutes' absence returned and the foreman asked what amount would carry all costs. The Judge said it did not signify, as tho costs wei'e in the discretion of the Court. The foreman said they were all agreed upon the verdict, which was for fcbe plaintiff, damages £500. His Honor awarded costs on the middle scale.

OJtSli/iOX & CRAKWELL are fcwß&n*, FurniLui-e and Carpets very cheap. Iron Bedsteads and Spring Mattresses at greatly reduced prices. Bedding of all kinds ready for delivery. Oil Cloths from Is. -square yard. Linoleum from 2s 3d. Blankets, sheeLs, quilts, curtains,, and all furnishing Eroods splendid value. Wire Wove Mat tresses much cheaper than they used to be. A strong Iroti Bedstead and Wire Wove Mattress for 55s cash. Simple Iron Bedstead and Wire Wove Mattress for 38e cash price. Our goods are carefully packed, eve 7 attention paid to prevent damage by 'r?,asit. Buy all your household goods from 'IMIU.UK and GRAN WELL, Cabfegfr -jukeriij Queea street. Auckland*