BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10684, 2 August 1912, Page 5

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

WAIRAU PETITION CASE. (By. 'leiegrapn— Association.) WELLINGTON, Last Night, The Committee (of Privilege set up -by ilhe Houise of .Representatives ,to •enquire into the publication) of a ■letter sent by .William Sinclalir .to W. Can* on' 25th March last,' 'reflecting cn. Mr R s McC&llum, M.P., for ,W:aliirau, resinned its sittings yesterday mornCiag.

Mr Skei're'tt appeared for Mr McCaJaUm.

The members of the Committee present were| Messns Hianan (ChairimaYj), Hon. W. Fraser, E. M. Thomson, T. Y. Seddon, Atmore, Lang, i'.VhJ Lee.

The chatnnan informed Mr Sinclair that the Committee was not going t'nto tlie merits of the case. It was purely an. inquiry. Mr Sjiislair said lie would; contend ■chat bc-th .-tlie letters (to Caitr iajid ;-0 Ye'itcli) ware privileged. The foruner wag a letter from -himself to a olieont am:l the ]latter from himself 'to a M.P. He held that lie was privileged ,to ,write to a- member of Parlijimeiit on matter dealing with the parity cf elections. To Mr SkerrOtt: jHe liad. freeh evidence -bearing on the facts which had been before the Court. He toad no inttnici^an.s l frfem his diccrt (Oa ! r<r) to l u.vke the steps he JiaH, after the hearing of the petition at Blenheim. Mr Sinclair t'lmn called Mr W. A. Veii/Cii, M.P., who e-aid he had received a letter from Mir Siincliaar, 'to-gether"-wMi anctner .marked "Private '.and confidential," which he had hil.rlcd to Mr MtCallum, and the. othe.r die deefbro' ed. He <?.on&ideire'd.' itllie contents ;we.re no credit tb the omui who wrote them. He regarded (the Jotiter as an (attack on a M.P. It contained -grot's chplrges aga?r.'Ut Mir McCallum. I The chxiikimaiJ here read a letter from G'.mt, litatinig tl:(a-t lie could i.Hot see 3r:s way to a.'tend the .Commiitjfcee alfc Tii-s own expense. He was tin no wise concerned' 5-n the untftiter. Neither lie nor the other,petitioners were a party io-r piri-vy. t : o the publication of the I 'letter.

Mr "tMcCallurn. M.P., oni being called, .sVnid he did) not cciiisideir a letter (private or confidential which conitaiined a :Scanaa]ous libel. He was awa» that tilie letter haid been declbred a breach c.f privilege in .the Honse.

Mr S'inda.ir washed to mnake a sfcalbe'ino;nt of defence, but 'the .Chairman" informed him' that the House would 'afford him on opportunity of patting his case before an.y punishment was inflicted. .

(Mi* iSiindtiir then. .Eaid tlhat amy statement made in the .letter was wga'ih-'t McOalkim. /as a candidate, not las a member, therefore there was no breach of privilege. The Court ' had only investigated McCallum's con.d,uct as a candidate, .n'otb a® a lrJan. TlTero bad been no, (publication <jf the letter ■addressed to Mr Veitdh, as it was <niamked v "Plrivaste laind conifidenitial." He intended (presenting & petition to Parliament, 'and following tlie whole 'irJatter up. He proceeded, to quote aiu'.lh'ority to show* that liis actions were pMviileged 1 .

iM'r Skerrett su'bmft/fced that a Court of Law the comaniuuiioaition libellous. It was familiar to everyone that privilege could not ■he used,ais a cloak for tlxe committal of ® crime, lit .would be a, monsitrous pT'opcAsKion if anyone could libel another anid evade prosecutitni by prefixing "Private and icomfide'ratiaill"' The Committee then adjourned to deliberate. ,