LIBEL ACTION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3546, 26 June 1890, Page 2

LIBEL ACTION.

MM v. E&ytoa-

This was a case brought before the Supremo Court yesterday by JRiohard Anyon Butcher, of Featherstori, journalist, to recover from Joseph Payton, of Masterton, proprietor of the Waikabapa Daily, the sum of £IOOO as damages for alleged libels in the said newspaper. The. case was tried by a special jury of twelve, whose names have, already been published. .

Mr JellicoQ (instructed by Mi Middleton) appeared for the plaintiff, and the case for the defence wai conducted by Mr Gully, instructed bj Mr Beard. •'

The* statement- of claim alleges that the plaintiff was, at the time of, the alleged libel,' 'in the' employ of Messrs 1 Smith and Hogg, proprietors of ifo liklahuna and Puliiatua Muil, ' as their manager at Eketahuuo; that ( about October, 1889, the defendant ( commenced to print and publish in , the Wairarapa- Daily, a series of ■ false, malicious, and defamatory libels ' of and concerning the plaintiff, to the ' detriment and damage of the plaintiff; that on .the 29th October, 1889, the . defendant printed and published the ' two following paragraphs(a)" It | is whispered that a wealthy Eketa- , buna syndicate is about 'to . start & ..purely lcffial paper, to: be ; known by .the blood-thirsty name : of the 'Bush Lance,! or 1 Butcher's Blade'; ft) there is a serio-comic whisper of a syndicate being formed , here (meaning Eketabuna) to start a paper. I hear that the- plant can be had for next to nothing for a trial, as it is now lying idle somewhere this side of San Francisco. I cannot tell you for certain what the name of the venture will be, some say it is to be called the Bush Lance. . It that is to be the name, all those who do not subscribe will get a prod. Some tell me it is to be called the " Butchers Penny Advocate." That the reference to the name of "Butcher" in the above paragraphs was intended as reference to plaintiff; that the above paragraphs faisoly implied, and were meant to falsly imply, that the plaintiff was 'unfaithful to his employers in attempting to start a Iresh newspaper while still in their employ;? that in consequence of the printing and publication of the foregoing statements the plaintiff was at once dismissed from his employment; that in the Daily of Bth November, 1889, the defendant again referred to the plaintiff, saying, " We are curious to solve the propound and perplexing mysteries of the Smith and Hogg cum Butolior combination journal", that in the Daily of 16th November, 1889, the defendant printed and published • the following paragraph:" In our report of the Eketabuna Court Mr Butcher is represented as stating that in consequence of certain scurrilous particulars published about him in the Daily, lie had been dismissed from his employment. We have ample evidence in our possession to prove that the statement , is untrue, and should Mr But- | oher desire it, to sliow the ( real reas.ons whioh induced Messrs ■ Smith and Hogg to dispense with the services of the proprietor of the [ Eketahuna Mail;" that in consequence of the above paragraph, the plaintiff publicly requested the defendant to ( state in his paper, the evidence of untruth whioh he stated was in his 1 possession, and to show the real reasons to which he referred; that in | theJDAiLY of the 21st November last , the defendant printed and published the following paragraph"Mr It A Butober complains in the columns of our local contemporary that we | refused to publish a letter; which lie L wrote to us. Mi' Butcher should not say things whioh are untrue. He wanted us in that letter to tell the • public, why he. was dismissed-from i his employment, and the course we took -was as followsWe sent him a note giving him the reaaong—they were not nice reasons to priut-and • we wrote to him as follows: 'The 6videnco we possess goes to show I that you were suspected of being and , and that the paragraph was used as an excuse of getting rid of you. If you wish ,to publish them we shall do so." That the aforesaid paragraphs directly charged flie plaintiff with untruthfulness, and were intentionally so worded as to : lead the public to infer that the reaps for his dismissal were reasons 1 bearing prejudicially on his . conduct 1 u'nd character; that the paragraphs were false;"tkt'tlie nfatteracoir--1 talnedin the paragraphs were not matters of public interest ;.that the 1 defendant printed and published the ' statements in order to,drive away the plaintiff's competition to tlio circulation of his newspaper'at Eketahuna; : that in consequence of the said statements the plaintiff has been unable to obtain employment in his profession as a journalist; wherefore 1 he olaims £IOOO damages., The statement of defence was that the statements are not libellous o r defamatory; that- the plaintiff wa 8 not dismissed from his employment • in consequence of the paragraphs ; ' and that the matters dealt with were jnalters pf pufilic interest tp Wai. rarapa people, and were published fo r the public benefit, tymjiit, and with, pat any sinister or malicious motive,

plaintiff was examined at sw.pK that tl)e paragraph? in question l)ft<} heeij. the of preyentiqg hinj getting employment. Messrs Ho«g and Smith, proprietors of the Masterton Star, gave evidence as to seeing tho paragraph, and giving it as; their opinion- that the article iii question was calculated to damage the plaintiff.

Joseph Payton, tbo defendant and proprietor o£ tlm Wairarapa Daily adiuiitad in his evidence- tho publication of the paragraph, but'pleaded i that it wasrot written, with any i malicious intent. Witness did not consider that■ the, article, prevented the plaintijjf ram" opining other qniplojment, , ' The defendant was subjected to a long cross-exaipjnafiop byMr Je|licoe, and at fj.jjQ. the Oo«r(i adjourned till the following mornips;,