BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
THE BLENHEIM ELECTION. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Thursday. The Committee of Privilege set up by the House of Representatives to enquire into the publication of a letter sent by William Sinclair to William Can- on March 25 last, reflecting on R. MeCallum, M.P. for Wairau, resumed iU sittings this morning. Mr. Skerrett appeared for MeCallum. Members of the committee present were Messrs. Hanan (chairman), Fraser, G. M. Thomson, Seddon, Atmore, Lang and Lee. The chairman informed Sinclair that the committee was not going into the merits of the case. IT was purely an enquiry. Sinclair said he would contend that both letters (to Carr and to Veitch) were former as it was a letter from him to a client, the latter from him to a member of Parliament, lie held that he was privileged to write to a member of Parliament on matters dealing with the purity of elections. To Mr. Skerrett: He had fresh evidence bearing on the facts which had been before the Court. He had no instructions from his client (Carr) to take the steps he had after the hearing of the petition at Blenheim. Sinclair then called Mr. Veitch, M.P., who said he had received a letter from Sinclair, together with another marked private and confidential. The former j he handed to MeCallum, the other he i destroyed. He considered the contents were no credit to the man who wrote them. He regarded the letter as am attack on a member of Parliament. It] contained gross charges against lum. The chairman here read a letter from Carr stating that he did not see why he should attend the committee at his own expense. He was in no wise concerned in the matter, as neither he nor any other of the petitioners were party or privy to the publication of the letter. MeCallum, called, said he did not consider a letter private and confidential which contained a scandalous libel. He was awara the letter bad been declared a breach of privilege in the House.
Sinclair wished to make a statement of defence, but the chairman informed him the House would afford him the opportunity of stating his case before any punishment was inflicted. Sinclair then said that any statement made in the letter was against McCallum as a candidate, not a» a member'; therefore there was no breach of privilege. The Court had only investigated MoCallum's conduct as candidate, not as a member. There had been no publication of the letter addressed to iMr. Veitch. a.s it was marked private and confidential. He intended to present a petition to Parliament and to follow the whole thing up. He proceeded to quote authorities to show that his actions were privileged. Mr. Skcrrett submitted that a court of law would consider the communication libellous. It was familiar to everyone that privilege could not be used as a cloak for the committal of a crime. It would be a monstrous proposition if anyone could libel anotner and evade .prosecution by prefixing "private and confidential."
The committee then adjourned to deliberate.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19120802.2.11
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 64, 2 August 1912, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
513BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 64, 2 August 1912, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Taranaki Daily News. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.