EVENING PRESS LIBEL SUIT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2391, 4 September 1886, Page 2

EVENING PRESS LIBEL SUIT.

[Evening Press.] [Before his Honor the Chief Justice, Sir James Prendergast., and a special jury of twelve] VOGEL v. ROYDHOUBB AND ANOTHER,' • This suit, brought to recovor damages in respect of certaiu alleged libellous articles published in the columns of the Evening Press in the month of Jqly last, was commonced at the Supremo Court at JO o'olosk yesterday n>orning, before hia

Honor the Ohief Justice and a Special Jury,;..

Mr W; T. L. Travers appeared fox* the, plaintiff and Mr H. 1), Bell for tlie : defendants.

The following gentlemen wero'enipannelled a Special Jury;— Messrs R. W. Simpson (foreman), E. 0. Mills, E. J. Cox, H. L. j. Aumu'de, M. Murdoch, T. D. Scoullar, James Robertson, H. Cook, 0. H. Biss, ( 6. B, Olark, S, Mackay, and J. Graves,'

Mr Travers submitted the following evidence

Thomas Kennedy Macdonald said: lam an auctioneer carrying on a business in Wellington, 1 read the article produced, published in the Evening Press of the 10th and 17th July. I thought they reflected on the Colonial Treasurer, Sir Julius Vogel, in a libellous manner. This article convoyed the imputation that the colony lost a Bum of money and a portion of it filtered into the pockets of a few mombers of Parliament, aud the inuendo clearly throughout the articlo, though not expressly stated, that one portion went into Mr Steward's pocket aud the. other into those of tho Colonial Treasurer's. It convoyed ]he impression that Mr Steward and the Colonial Treasurer had been parties to robbing tho colony in connection with the purchase of the VYaimate railway, , ; His Honor: I do not understand why these questions are asked. Are not the jury capable of judging these article's themselves? It is quite clear that the jury are quite as capable of understanding the language of,the articles as Mr Macdonald. ...

Tho witness was jihen requested to stand down,

Mr Travers called Sir Juliuß Vogel, who stated that ho was the plaintiff and Colonial Treasurer of New Zealand. As Colonial Treaurer he purchased certain debentures from tho: Waiinate aud Rotorua Railway Companies, with the result that the credit to the colony was about £IO,OOO. The debentures were purchased at 93 net for every 100. There has been considerable gain to the colony. The debentures were not available for ÜBe in England until next year. The transaction is favorable as tho debentures were prevented from being banked at Home. He (Sir Julius Vogel) had no personal interest in tho transaction whatever.

Cross-examined by Mr Bell: Witness returned to the colony last time early in 1884. Witness came out as a director of the Agricultural Company, and was probably Chairman of Directors, Ho had a mission from that company to the colony. It was not part of the mission to sell part of the company's land to the Government. Witness could not say whether thero was not £3OOO of rates outstanding. Witness was elected to the House after tho dissolution of 1884. The only person who spoke to witness about tho District Railway was Mr Henry Driver, who was his bitterest political opponent. He could not remember any other porson speaking to him about them before he joined tho Government. After he became a Minister, he thought he had received a deputation from Auckland about the Rotorua railway and the Ashburton railway, In September, 1884, witness movod tho second reading of the District Railways Act. fle could not recollect whether it passed that year. He could not tell anything about the debate of 1884, as it had passed his meihory tlmt it had been introduced, [Mr Bell thou handed the witness Hansard of September, 1884, which showed that tho Bill was rojectod by .the Legislative Council.V The witness, on reading it, said it looked [ike a rejection, but that somotimes after the Legislative Council had-thrown out a Bill, it was passed by the Houso. Witness afterwards said that r resolution was passed in the House, authorising tho Government to purchase the railway debentures. A long dißcußsion followed. Witnoss said it was unfair to examine him on Hansard, so ho was often away from the House. Sir Julius Vogel said that he corrected his speeches before they appeared in Hansard. But that would not aay they wore a 'correct record of what he said, as the speeches were sometimes so abominably reported,' that whole sentonces had to be struck out in proof. .In 1885 witness brought in the District Railways Act, and the Government agreed upon tho purchaso of tho debentures. He thought the negotiations were conducted mostly by Mr Richardson; and while witness was in Canterbury and Dunedin he acted for Mr Richardson. The District Railways Purchase Bill of 1885 was sent back to tho House amended

by tho Upper House. A. question then arose as to the right of the Council to amend the Bill. He moved that tho amendments of the Council be agreed to, and the Speaker' rose • tho question of privilege. He recollected that "lie said that he thought it was undesirable to raise the question of privilege, He could not give his roasona now for so doing. Witness should think that a good deal of lobbying waßdono to get this Bill through and he was awaro that Mr Steward was particularly anxious to get the Wajmate railway (winch had been struck out) res. tored to the Bill.

In reply to Mr Bell's cross-oxainination the witness said that lie had been connected with the press for. many years; that he wrote his first article in 1854. He had been editor of papers and had had two actions for libel brought against him, He had written several articles against Mr Macandrewa's candidature for the superintendoncy of Otago years back. He always wrote conscientiously. Some pressmen did not. Whon the report was first read Mr Peacock made a personal explanation, and Mr Steward also made a porsonal explanation, and Sir R, Stout spoke and moved a resolution. Witness had seen the resolution and approved of it in Cabinot, but it was arranged by the Cabinet that Bir R, Stout should move a resolution aB an amendment on theresolution for the adoption of the report. The resolution was put bo quickly that witness had no opportunity to speak. Mv Bell: There is a newspaper published in this town which does support your Government, is there not 1

Witness: Sometimes it does. Mr Ball; You don't look upon It as a sufficiently consistent supporter, Witness; 1 did not say bo. You must not pat words into my mouth. Mr Bell: You say it only sometimes "supports you. Witness: I did not say " only." I said there was a paper here which sometimes does support me. Mr Bell; Have artioles In that, newspaper ever been inspired by the" Government ?

Witness: 1 should like you to explain what you mean by " inspired." Mr Bell: Have you, for instance, ever suggested to a Government organ—T do not say this Government organ—the line of thought which you would like to have expressed in their leaders or their columnß.

Witness: I fancy the. editor is too independent. He takes his own line, I have given information to the editor of tho paper. Mr Bell: But have you over indicated the line the paper ought to take ? Witness: Perhaps—very rarely. Mr Bell: You know this editor is very jndependanfc because he refuses to adopt a line indicated sometimes.

Witness said the paper in question, was not.4 thorough supporter of the Government.

Mr Bell: Were you annoyed at the resolution which was moved by Sir Robert Stout, oi at not having tho opportunity of

speaking, or anything that occurred on that occasion I ■

Witness; The resolution met with my approval:

, Mr Fell: Then you were satisfied with your position after that resolution had been carried? ■ , ■

•■Witness:' No; 1 wished to moke a personal explanation, Mr Bell: I suppose the Evening Post is the paper to which you refer aßthe one which sometimes supports the Govern-' tiient? Witness: Yes.

Mr Bell : Have you seen the article published in the Evening Post on the 15th July ? [Mr Bell read the article in question.] Witness continuing, said he had read tho article, and that on the 18th, he spoke on Mr. TurnbuH'g motion. Between the date of the resolution passing and the 16th, he had beon ayare that ia Mr Sleo'a latter referred to witness, [Mr Bell then read Mr Sloe's letter.] Sir Juliuß Vogel objected, and appealed, to His Honor. Mr Travers informed Sir Julius that he must leave his case In his (Mr Travers) hands, At present he saw nothing to object to in tho course Mr Bell was adopted.' Mr Bell: Do you think, Sir Julius, that any person reading Slee's letter and not knowing who • ■ was meant for, would think that your name was the one referred to.

Sir Julius: No, certainly not. . Witness continued; Sleo'B letter suggests to Mr Stewart to get Bomeone else to assssb him in disposing of the debentures.

Mr Bell: Do you think, Sir Julius, that the first article attributes to you that you and Mr Steward shared tho commission ? Sir Julius: No doubt it insinuate# to thatoffect.

The Court then adjourned until half past two. The case was concluded last night, Wo extract the following from the New Zealand Times:—

His Honor summed up, He would leave to the jury, he said, the. question of whether imputations had been made, and whether wrong motivos had boen imputed. Speaking on the tu'tiglo (the earlier one)' without the cartoon, however, he might say that counsel' for the plaintiff had not alluded to any particular portion of it. The report of' the Committee contained two matters.. First it reflectod on Mr Steward's action, and secondly on what was considered- to be an extraordinary and erroneuUß opinion, expressed by Sir Julius Votjoh If the jury was satisfied that the first article imputed misconduct to the plaintiff, it would still be open for thein to say wheiher the second one evinced malice. The defendants said it did not make any to commission but was simply an article on Sir Julius Vogel's speech—comment and criticism on it, It reflectod upon him for not disavowing an opinion he had expressed, and said that the dobato was a bad one for those who were, concerned in the matter. With regard to the cartoon, it indicated " whitewashing," as was admitted, but attention was directed to an article in the Post of the night before, in which the same oxpreision was used. It was suggested thou that the cartoon was an expression of the Poat'a views, It was for the jury, therefore, to say whother the cartoon meant that Sir Julius Vogel wanted whitewashing and did not'get it, or whether it only indicated that he wanted whitewashing In regard only to the opinion he 'expressed, aud which was objected to. With rogard to the principal article, he was not able to see any vulgarity in tho language, and ho did not think Mr Travers meant to say that (it was eouched in ' Billinesgate.' His Honor went on to describe the offeot of tho artlele. It was for

the jury, he said, to say whether any ulterior motives wore assribod to Sir Julius Vogel. He Wat not able to im that there was. it would b# for the jury to say whether there wag any impaction of discreditable conduct which was not

proved by the facts. He came now to the sting of the 'whole matter. It was etuted in the article that the mombors of the Government Bhould carefully stand aloft from all personal connection with the transactions with the eompanios, " it is not clear," it went on, " who got that money," but the report indicates that a member of tho Houas got part. Tho plaintiff said this sugg&ted that tho Colonial Troaßurer got a part of it. It would be for tho jury to decide that. In concluding His Honor said the jury.would consider whether the second article was, though sevsre, a fair commout, as compared with tho debate In tho House. Thojury then (10.25) returned to com sider their verdict.

The jury returned at 11,35, and the foreman announood they had found for tho defendants. A vordict was accordingly ontered for the dofondants, with posts on tho highest scale.