CURIOUS LEBEL CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1520, 27 October 1883, Page 2

CURIOUS LEBEL CASE.

• Dunedik, 25th October. The libel case, Denniston v. Otago Daily Times and Witness Company, was commenced before Judge Williams and a special jury. The plaintiff claimed £6OO damages for a libel in " Passing Notes," published on 15th September, over the signature of "Civis," in which it was stated that Mr Denniston was actuated by strange fits, for which he was surely irresponsible, in his appearance as solicitor"in -the lower Courts, He could not" help snapping at the Resident Magistrate or his fellow-counsel. Hisattackj were.pure frenzy, and, just as a mad dog snapped at whatever comes in its way, so did Mr Dennis ton. He was the subject or victim of a kind of intellectual rabies, The defendants pleaded in effect that they were comments jusfcifiod not only by Mr Denniston'soonduot in the particular Court case which gave rise ■to tho " Passing Note," but in other cases previously in which his conduct had been of a similar character. For the defence, the first witness was named.Mcßwaid, with whom Mr Denniston had the scene in Court upon which the article Was founded. He stated, among other evidence., that on one occwion, he had called Mr Denniston, his learned friend, but Mr Denniston said he regarded that as an insult. Witness called him " he" and he objected to be: called " he." I then said; I would cslMiim " she," but he would not have that, so I offered to calllvim'f my learned friend," but he would not be so called, and finally I called him "Mr Denniston." He did not; seem much pleased then. The bthorevidence. was given by reporters, who gave;evidence as .to scenes at various times in which : Mr Denniston had been concerned. The reading of these frequently caused laughter, as in some cases the altercations had taken pla.ee with Mr Stout who now appeared en behalf of Mr Denniston. In crossexamination of the Daily Times reporter questions Were sought to be put by Mr Sjtout with a view of dieting who was the writer of .the "Passing Note," but in Connection with this point tie Judge ruled that if a witness was asked if he-wrote any particular ('Passing Note," ; ivhich. might be said to be libellous' hewould consider it his duty to protectee Witness, and tell him that he was privileged, ta he might criminate hinjself. . The direc* question, " Who Wrote the passing-note!" being put by Mr Stout to the sub-editor, a. long argument occurred, The judge held it to; be assumed to be law (though he knew of no case in which it had been directly'decided) that if the publisher or proprietor of a newspaper eleoted to take the responsibility of a' letter or contribution the writer need not be divulged, even if it were intended to show that such writer had' been actuated by malice. He disallowedtho question therefore, The 1 case will proceed to-morrow.

_'•:•■' ," Liter. la the libel esse to-day the only witness examined.wiu tlja ptoseoutor,Mr J. 0, Dennliton, Vho 1 " wag called,'to' give rebutting evidende.■ He denied the Mcaraoy of the reports whtoh had been eonoetnied. In Across examinatien, he .cotnplaiiieti of ; ; the whole-' tenor 'of the ''passing note!' in queition whtoh was' obriously of nature,',. He said:—"My:first objeotlbn is to its generally I venture to lay anyone who has known me since J haw been |taotisiiis in Dnnedin,, coUld not honeatly ferity that of mo. It nttstbarebiityitiiten kysowe fsfjon

aotuated brpersonal malice." Mr Smith anfl.Mr Stout having addressed the jury, his Honotliamnud up, The following is an exlraot, probably the most important, from;kiadtoia:-.«lf the proprietors of: a -newspaper aret called upon the name of the writer of a letter or article wbioh appears in their paper, and it-upon mature consideration they think that the writer haa been indulging impersonalities that ouithtnot tobe.mdulgad in, or .has gone beyond the limits of legitimate optician),' I agree with Lord Chief Jnstioe Cookburn that-it. is. a moral-duty on their part to give up the name of the writer. If, howevpr/ upon mature consideration they think-that what the writer.has written is justißable, then I agree with tha expression of opinion of another learned Judge, Baron Martin, in another case the editor would be a • littlo short of mad to give.up the name of the writer.". The jury, were out a quarter of an hour, and returned with a verdict for defendant with Mr StOut intimated that he would move for a new trial. 1 .'" .'.. -