OTAGO DOCK TRUST COMPANY. ALLEGED LIBEL. THE HON. ROBERT CAMPBELL. (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) London, February 2.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 353, 23 March 1889, Page 5

OTAGO DOCK TRUST COMPANY. ALLEGED LIBEL. THE HON. ROBERT CAMPBELL. (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) London, February 2.

A case ot considerable interest to New Zealanders in general and Otago folk in particular has for some days occupied Mr Justice Field and a special jury. The plaintiffs Avere Messrs Mcc, Billing and Co. , colonial merchants and financiers, and the defendants were the proprietors of the " Standard " newspaper, the latter being charged with the publication of an alleged libel, written by a well-known New Zealand colonist, the Hon. Robert Campbell, M.L.C. The defendants admitted the publicatiun of the words complained ot, but said they were in fact a copy of a letter written to the editor of the " Standard " by one Robert Campbell, a member of the Legislative Council of New Zealand, whose name and description appeared in full at the foot of the letter in the newspaper. He denied that the words were published of or concerning the plain tills, a? agents of the Otago Dgulc Trust Company, or at all, or were capable of the meaning attached to them by tho plaintiff* He further said that the words were published bonajide and without malice, and weie a fair comment upon a matter of public interest. .Mr 13ucknill, Q C, and Mr Folkard appeai"ed for the plaintiffs. ; Mr If inlay, Q.C., and Mr Bray for the defendant. In opening Uieease, Mr Bucknill said the plaintitls were well-known merchants and tinanciois in the city of London, and they were employed by the Ojago Dock Trust of New Zealand to bring out in the London marKet an application by that Trust for a loan of -£75,000, in five per cent, debentures of i'loo each. The object of the loan was to build ao Port Chalmers a larger dry dock, and from 1881 down to the present time the project had received the acquiescence of the Colonial Legislature. The plaintiffs undertook to float the loan by a certain time, and paid a deposit of £1,350 to the Otago Trust Board, which would be forfeited if they failed to accomplish the business. They also went to the expense of advertising in different newspapers, including the " Standard,' 1 the prospectus, which was drawn up upon the information they received, and Avhich must be taken to be true, as its statements were not contradicted. Mr Justice Field. — What do you say the libel charges ? Mr Bucknill. — That they obtained money by false pretences. Mr Finlay. — No, no. Mr Bucknill said the alleged libel consisted of a letter written to the " Standard" by a gentleman named Campbell, who had recently returned from New Zealand, and it was published in the money article on the 2oth of July last, the day before the list of subscriptions to the loan was closed, and there being no time for a contradition to its statements, it interfered with the success of the loan. The letter was prefaced by the editorial comment, " The following sounds a note of warning to investors. '* The letter was to this effect : — " I see that the Otago Dock Trust aie proposing to invite the subscription for £75,000, for the purpose of constructing another dock at Poit Chalmers. Now, as one who has resided in the provincial district of Ota^o for 25 years, and who has aUo been connected with the Leaislature of the colony of New Zealand for 22 years, I wish to warn the Biitish public against subscribing to this issue. In the first plnce, the colony is in no respect liable, and if the Trust are unable to meet the interest on the loan, all the reinedj the bondholders will have is to seize the dock and the land, which is not leclaimed. In addition to this, it is a notorious fact that £75,000 will not be pufticient to carry out the work, and even if it were, the icvenue would notjbe sufficient lo pay interest on the loan, much less working expenses. The Chamber ot Commerce of Dunedin, the chief town of the Province, have condemned the scheme.. It has been conclusively shown, from the example of the Fort Lyttelton Dock, that there is no ground whavever to expect revenue from the dock itself, and the experience of the past cannot be in any way set aside by the piospect^ of the future. The only solid levenue is derived from the present dock, and that is not sufficient to provide a third of the sum required for interest and ordinary expenses. The onlyother source ot re\ enue in from the endowment. The Port Chalmers people have endeavoured to put a value on this, by putting up leases for competition with conditions as to non-payment of rent until the reclamation of the land is effected — a very costly process. I could only characterise the attempt; now being made to realise the money as one founded on utterly false pretences, and, if successful, it can only end in los 3 to the subscribers." The learned counsel said that these statements were absolutely untrue in point of fact, and that they were a serious libel upon the plaintiffs, who were agents for the Trust, and who were so described at the end of the prospectus. In reply to Mr Campbells letter, the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the editor of the '"Standaid," but in publishing it the editor left out material passages, which, he contended, ought to have appeared. Mr Justice Field said there might be a libel on the Dock Trust, but he failed to see the libel on the plain tills.

WEDNESDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. Mr Murphy (upon his Lordship taking his seal; said that Mr Bucknill, who held the brief for him on the previous day, had told him what had occurred, and he now asked whether he should call witnesses at once, or first say what he had to say. His desire was to call witnesses. The Judge having acquiesced, Mr Mcc, one of the plain Lifts, was sworn, and proceeded to describe the negotiation which bad taken place with reference to the agency of his n'rm. upon which he was interrupted by the learned judge, who said that he did not see how such evidence could be relevant. Mr Murphy said that the question was what ordinary persons in this country or abroad might think on reading the letter — whether or not they would regard the charge as made against the plaintiffs. Mr Finlay contended that the letter did not impute to Messrs Mcc and Billing that they were the persons who had been endeavouring to raise money by false pretencee. The Judge said that he did noO see how such evidence would assist them. Mr Murphy : If your Lordship is going to rule upon the matter, it would be convenient that I should know at once. The Judge. — I shall not rule at all until you get to the relevant evidence. Mr Murphy. — I tender the contract of the Otago Dock Trust. The Judge. — I do not see what that has got to do with it at all. I assume that Mr Pinlay will say that there is no case to go to the jury. Then I shall have to consider the case of " Henty and the Capital and Counties Bank," and say whether I think these words are capable of any libellous interpretation po far as the plaintiffs are concerned- If the Dock Trust were here as plaintiffs, then it might be perhaps argued that they had suffered.

After some further argumenb as to the admissibiliby of evidence, the plaintiff described the part his firm had takon in the endeavour to raise the £75,000, and, in cross examination by Mr Finlay, said that he had, as agent, heard that there had been a good deal of discussion in New Zealand in reference to the scheme. Sir Finlay submitted that there was no case bo go to the jury. The Judge, after reading the lector, said that, in his opinion, there was in it no libol upon the plaintiOs. He thought it was not without the province of a public journal to criticise an undertaking: of that kind, and to speak in depreciatory terms, if those weie not, extravagant, oi it. At present there- was really no evidence to ero to the jury that there had been a libel upon the plain tifls. He would, however, take the opinion of the jury. Mr Finlay said that he would call no witnesses. Mr Murphy, on behalf of the plaintiffs, said that there wcie two questions to be submitted to them, the first being whether an ordinary man of business taking up the " Standard " and reading the advertisement as well as the letter would not come to the conclusion that the libellous words referred to the plain tills : and, next, whether, in the outiuary course of business, they would not appear to reflect upon those who had prepared tho pro*pectus. The defendant pleaded that what had been said came within the scope of fair comment, but he did not think, looking at all the circumstances of the case, that the jury would be of that opinion. He admitted to tho fullest extent the right of the pi ess to discuss the met its of schemes put before the public.' No one could deny that the public inteie^tdemandert that that should be done, but theie were pioper times and ways of doing it, and the " Bto-nrfaul " had observed neither. They had selected the last day for the subscription as that upon which to insert the letter of Mr Campbell, so that it was impobsible to remedy the mischief. Mr Finlay, on behalf of the defendants, said that the case was one of considerable public interest and importance in its general bearing, for if the doctrine put forward by the other side were law it would be a serious matter, not only ior newspapers, bub for the public also, who w eve interested in a full and fiee discussion of all matters, particularly of schemes into which they were invited to put their money. If newspapers weie not able to publish comments on the merits of such invitations without being made liable, the public would he seriously prejudiced. Heie they had a scheme for a harbour in New Zealand, of which the people in this country knew nothing, and they knew from Mr Mcc that in New Zealand there had been a discussion as to its feasibility. Mr Campbell, a member of the Legislative Council, ssnb a letter to the f " Standard," giving his opinion on the subject. Surely that letter might be published without incuriing the pains and penalties attaching to an action for libel. He submitted that the consequencesfollowing upon the contrary doctrine would be monstrous. When a scheme was advertised criticism was invited, and complaint ought nob to be made in respect of such criticism. The plaintiffs were nothing but the agents in London, acting upon the infoimation sent fiom New Zealand, and it Avas extravagant to tuy ohat any reflection upon a iinancial scheme launched from foreign parts upon the English market was a reflection upon the agents who had it in hand Mr Justice Field, in summing up, said that the action was brought by Messis Mcc, Billing, and Co., who described themselves in the statement of claim as merchants ami financial agents, against the " Standaid "' for having published a libel of ami concerning them as agents of the Otago Dock Trust, which, it was said, had boen injurious to them in their busi ness. Whether that which had been published was a libel or not was a question for the jury, and not for him. If he had come to the conclusion that in no reasonable sen&s could the statement be held to be a libel upon the plaintiffs, it would have been a matter for him ; bub under the cucurnstances he had declined to take the decision of the case into his own hands, and would leave it to the jut y to decide upon the principles which he would lay down. His Lordship then reviewed in detail the circumstances under which the eflorb was made to float the loan, and under which the letter from Mr Campbell appeared in the '• Standard," observing that he did not see any harm in stating that there was an action pending against bhat gentleman in respect to the same letter. It was oiiggested that it was a libel to say that the Dock would not be able to meet the interest on its loans. It was the Panama Canal case over again, only in a smaller way, and that had been the subject of criticism by all the paper? in Europe. Then theie was the phrase "endeavouring to obtain money by false pretences.*' Obtaining money by false pretences was a crime for which he at assizes and elsewhoie had constantly to send people to prison tor six or twelve months, and that was what the plaintiffs paid the libel imputed to thorn, and they also said that a portion and not all of their reply had been inserted in the "Standard.'' Tho whole of the letter in reply certainly was not inserted, but the parts which had been left out did not appear to him to be very material, or other than might be regarded as fair condeneation. It was quite competent for anyone in this country to comment freely and impartially upon the conduct, undertakings, and property, he might sa\', of everybody who invited the public to do anything. It was the privilege of every citizen to be entitled to critici&e I anything which was of public interest. IS T o reasonable man could dispute that people who came forward to ask their brother citizens to lend them -675,000 made themselves fair subjects for criticism, particularly in the money article of a leading newspaper like the " Standard." It was the right of everybody bo comment in that way, with the limitation that the comments must uot be beyond the circumstances of the case — must be moderate, reasonable, and nob beyond bounds. It would be for the jury to say whether in what they had done the " Standard" had been actuated by a malicious object of injuring the plaintiffs, and whether, after an investigation of the facts, they believed that the criticism was not fair and justified by the circumstances. If thoy were of opinion, looking to all the circumstances of the case, that it was fair criticism, then their verdict would be for the defendant. If, on the contrary, they should think that ib exceeded the occasion — that the paper had been made the vehicle for circulating views prompted by malice — then the verdict would be for the plaintiffs. Then there was, however, another difficulty. The defendants said, even if this were a libel, by reason of going beyond the occasion, it was not a libel upon the plaintiffs. Upon that point he desired to call attention to the words of tho late Lord Justice Lush in the case of "Jenner v. A'Beckett." The defendant in that case -was the proprietor of some publication, in which appeared the words, " As we have not seen the bag of bags, we i cannot say that it is useful or portable, or that it is elegant. All this it may be, but all we can deal with is the title, which

we think very slangy, very silly, and very vulgar." The question then arose whether thoso words were a libel on tho plaintiffs, and Lord Justice Lush said, " I ooino to the conclusion that no parb of tho language complained of can be considered libellous. I think tho Court is bound to see that the words are capable of casting imputation on the person complaining, or upon his conduct in carrying on his trade. The imputation must be of a kind likely to injure him in public estimation and in his trade. Words not capablo ot" that construction ought not to be submitted to a jury. It id competent for every member of the community to express his opinion as to the good taste of a fcible t " It was the duty of the jury in this case to see whether the words complained of weie likely to cast an imputation upon tho character of the plaintiffs or their conduct in carrying on trade, and the imputation musb bo of a kind likely to injure them. It would be tor tho jury to place their own construction upon the words published, and then to say whether they could be applied to the plaintitts, and finally, if so, whether they went beyond the bounds of fair comment. If they were of opinion that they did apply to the plaintifts, and weie beyond fair comment, then their verdict would bo for the plaintiffs ; but if, on the other hand, they were of opinion that the words did not cast any imputation upon tho plain tifYp, chen their veiclict would be for the defendant ; or even if they thought they cast imputation upon the plaintiffs, but were nevertheless only fair comment, then their \erdict would also be tor the defendant Tho jury, without leaving tho box, found a verdict for the defendant. The Judge ga\ c judgment for the defendant accordingly, with costs. Mr ITolkard. — la&k your Lordship to stay execution. The Judge. — On what giound ? Mr Folkard. — On many gionnds ; but my learned leader is absent, and 1 cannot state them. The Judge : I see no reason to stay execution. I had great doubt as to whether there was a question for the jury at all, and certainly see no reason to iind fault with their verdict. If it had been the other way, there would be an end to all fair criticism on undertakings of this kind, and theie is no class of undertaking which requires more the action of full and fair criticism.