RONALD-HARPER CASE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 229, 15 February 1913, Page 1 (Supplement)

RONALD-HARPER CASE

MORE LITIGATION. A cable message from Melbourne last week stated that the Rev. James Ronald had issued a writ against Mr. Robert Harper, claiming £IO.OOO damages for fraudulently procuring a verdict in the action Ronald versus Harper, heard in May, 1909. The Ronald-Harper case began with a libel action in lIHIII. in which Mr. Robert Harper, a well-known Melbourne merchant and a member of the Federal Parliament. was the defendant, and the Rev. J. B. Ronald, formerly a member of the Labor parly in the Federal House of Representatives, was the prosecutor. Mr. Ronald claimed C.'IHOO damages, and set out in his M:ilcment of claim that the alleged -lander, was uttered by defendant at the Rre.-bytcriai) (.'Lurch, Toorak. in the presence of Frederick Stocks, and that the words complained of were: ' - ! have relinked Ronald at Parliament House for low or improper or bad language, and also I have heard it stated at Parliament House that some of his rolleagues of the Labor party disapproved of his conduct, and that some of them had gone so far as to reprove Mr. Ronald for using improper language." The alleged libel was written by defendant and sent to (lie committee of the Presbytcrv of Melbourne South in November. 11)07.

The defence, as amended, was, that if the words were uttered or written, they were used on privileged occasions, and without malice, and were confidential nnd substantially true. It was also set out in justification that on different occasions plaintiff had told improper stories tuul used improper language. The jury found for I he defendant .

Tn the following vpar Robert Harper, W. C. Harper. T. Hill. .T TTuxlpv. W. Kemp and W. Rropket were tried in the Criminal Court on diaries of conspiracy. Til opening flip easp for (lie Crown. Mr. Purvps said it was contended that Hill was employed by Robert Harper to col--1 pet ovideiipe >upporting a plea of justification which had bpen sot up by tlip defendant during the course of the Ronald v. Harper libel action. It might be possible for R. Harper to prove that he believed Hill was an holiest man. Rut evidenee would be forthcoming against such a hplief. There eoiild bp no question of mistake. It was as a matter of deliberate purpose that I-lill had set out practically to ruin Mr. Ronald by procuring witnesses who would swear diabolical falsehoods against him. The trial ended in the conviction of Hill and the discharge of the other accused. A series of subornation and perjury charges were also heard in connection with the case.