CRIMINAL LIBEL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2397, 10 September 1892, Page 4

CRIMINAL LIBEL.

The Court at Hokitika was occupied on Wednesday with the libel case, Dr Millington (Grcymouth) v. DrWhittin, (Reefton), damages £IOOO, owing to the insertion of an advertisement imputing treatment of a criminal nature. The defence pleaded justification. His Honour ruled against this plea and directed the jury to find damages. A great deal of medical expert evidence was called by both sides, but nothing to support the plea of justification. The jury returned at 10.10, after a retirement of 50 minutes, with a verdict for £250. Costs were allowed according to scale. The charge of criminal libel preferred against E. A. Haggen, proprietor and publisher of the Woodville Examiner, by William Syms, chemist at Woodville, was hoard at the Supreme Court, Wellington, on Tuesday. The article on which the charge was based accused a certain person (who, the indictment states, was Byras, the prosecutor) with having seduced a young woman in W T oodville, and then procured her miscarriage. This statement was made on the authority of a doctor who was called in to the woman wfieu she was supposed to be dying. She told this doctor her story, and the outcome was that the police wore communicated with, but when the woman recovered she denied most of the statements she had made on her sick bed, and in consequence of the insufficiency of evidence the police dropped the case. The article also suggested that the influence of the Government had been brought to bear to burk enquiry, Syras being a Justice of the Peace. Accused pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The publication of the newspaper and the article was admitted by the defence.—Dr Miln, of Woodville, gave evidence to the effect that he knew to whom the libel referred, as he had had a conversation with Haggen the night previous to the appearance of the article, when Haggen told him he had an article in type accusing Syms of seduction and procuring abortion. A long argument ensued between Mr Justice Prendergast and Mr Baker as to the relevancy of the evidence concerning Syms’ mode of business. Mr Baker contended that the occasion was privileged, and that the accused was entitled to show that he had good groundsfor what he had written, and on that view asserted his right to bring evidence in reference to all the surroundings of the matter. His Honour held distinctly that the occasion was not privileged. Mr Baker was proceeding to arguo that it was the duty of everyone to assist in the detection of crime, when His Honor observed that if a man intentionally published a libellous article with the idea of suppressing crime and with a go?)d intention he was guilty of a criminal act. In the present case there was intentional publication of libellous matter, and to that charge there could be no answer. There wag no defence unless defendant could prove its truth. Mr Baker said that as he had not raised the plea of justification he had no evidence to call. The Chief Justice, addressing the jury, said that any person publishing a defamatory article, which he could not justify, was guilty of malicious libel. If defendant had pleaded justification, and had been able to prove the truth of his assertions and that they wore for the public interest, it would have been justification. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. His Honour agreed to receive affidavits in mitigation of sentence, and deferred sentence until Wednesday. On resuming on Wednesday, the Chief Justice said if the affidavits were true there had been a gross miscarriage of justice. He did not say that if proceedings were taken a conviction would have followed,but prosecution should have been sot on foot. After some argument, His Honour, in passing sentence said that the present case clearly showed the necessity there is for treating the dissemination of libel as a criminal offence, as it tends to create disturbance in the district. The subject of the article had been referred to in tsie paper on subsequent occasions and from the pulpit, which proved the disturbance of the peace. The proper course for Mr Haggen to have pursued was to have set the lav.' in motion, and His Honour pointed out that the law did not hold him liable unless he did so without reasonable grounds. No one with common sense could believe it was the duty of the public press to take up a matter of the kind, and in his opinion the case was one that should be, in the public interest alone, severely dealt with. Accused was not in the ordinary sense a criminal, but the sentence he intended to pass would be deeply felt by a man in his position. In concluding, His Honor referred to the variety of actions against newspapers, which lie attributed to the manner in ivhich they were conducted. Sentence was then passed. Mr Haggen being fined £SO and two months’ imprisonment, or until the fine be paid, ho is 1 1 give security to keep tho peaco for a year, himself iu £IOO, and ouo surety of £SO,