THE O'DONNELL—TIMES LIBEL ACTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1764, 17 July 1888, Page 1

THE O'DONNELL—TIMES LIBEL ACTION.

London, July 4. The libel action O’Donnell vJThe Times is still proceeding. Plaintiff’s case closed to-day. O’Donnell was not examined. Counsel for The Times contends that the strictures ot the paper did not apply to O’Donnell. July 5. Among the letters produced by counsel for the defence in the libel action against the Times was one from Egan to James Carey stating that he had sent “him” (by which it is believed Mullet the Invincible was meant) £2OO urging him to give good value for the money. Mr O’Donnell called four witnesses, but their evidence was immaterial. Sir R. K. Webster, in his speech tor the defence, challenged the Parnell party to bring an action against the Times. Sir R. E. Webster, counsel for defendant in the Times libel action, has produe d a number of letters purporting to have been written by Parnell, Egan and Byrne. In writing to Egm, Parnell, while confined in the Kilmainham gaol, reproached him for hesitating after promising to make it hot for old “Buckshot” Forster. Another letter was produced in which Byrne admitted that Parnell gave him £IOO when leaving London. Before the witnesses for the defence were called, Lord Coleridge ruled that there was no case to go to the jury. O’Donnell had withdrawn the case based on a general libel, and had proceeded with the libel referring to hira-s-lf personally. Lord Coleridge denounced the gross injustice of O’Donnell’s tactics against the Times and the Parnellite party. The jury returned a verdict for defendants with coat?, adding that the criticisms of the paper were justified by the evidence.