LIBEL ACTION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3991, 17 December 1891, Page 2

LIBEL ACTION.

Evisoav. HMirioaaand Thornton. Vex&iotforXSOSamaffis. . The hearing of the suit brought by S. J. Evison (editor and manager of j I the Catholic Times) to reoover damages from E. Thornton, president, and J. W. Henrichs, secretary, of the " Wellington Branch of the New Zealand Typographical Association, for alleged libel, was yesterday- ' ' ; .*' - After several witnesses had examined' for 1 the' defence,' Honor summed upl He 1 Bm&jjg§ jury would understand that they were , K not sitting there to' at al| try tb,e merits of Trades Nejthef were they to'try' 'the merits ofthj v > system'"upon which the Catboho ' ' Times was oonduoted. They were solely and purely'asked to determine' whatever these letters werirflefamatory of Mr Evison,, and if they were of opinion that they were defamatory it would be their duty to say to what damages plaintiff was entitled. Com- . ing to the letters, he passed by the covering one, because its meaning' was only referential—i.e., it' ;wafl : only by reference' to'the other letter * tlkt : it jjou'ld • b'&ye, anything' jikV"j defamatory meaning. This principal . * lettqr consisted of three paragraphs or " stings, 1 * as Mr Golly had called thorn. The first two had the -same subject matter. .These anc[ also the inuendoes, whioh were thp mtorpratations that the plaintiff put upon the different portions of the alleged libel, -' <* would be placed in the jury's hands. The plaintiff had sought to prove these inuendoes; the jury might think .. > them or some of them to be, proved,'. } Qn the other ;hand the jury'might wink that they all of them Btretchod Itho meariiijg' unduly of the clause to which they werp \ ippljed. But they would be justified, however, in finding a verdict for the plaintiff if they thought that any of hese inuendoes were really made oat, < md if they were 'satis'iietL that the etter as so explained wot really'defa natory. The question whether th*,. \ natter was Jibellouß or not was one, > L ~ or the jury. 'lt would be hi? ctaty to l 4* - * '

•withdraw the documents from the -' jury if he saw that by any possibility I they could not be libellous. But he left them with the jury. Furthermore, if they were of opinion that, iddependently of „,the inuendoes/ the - , natural meaniag' which they*would themselves extract from the several paragraphsof the letter was hbellous, they would also be justified in finding a verdict for the plaintiff, even if they Bhould think that particular innendoes were not proved, because in the existing state of the law the plaintiff could recover if the writing in its natural meaning was defamatory. =lf they | considered if per se defamatory, that was good legal ground for a verdict. He had exceedingly little to say on these several paragraphs. Paragraph one imputed that a certain sum of money was paid weekly to the manager or overseer, that his men were paid what he choose to pay them, and thahhe kept the balance himself. termed, according to ordinary ecage, 3weating, and the pldhrtjtfEalleged that he was accused of The charge was that the money' was paid to the manager, or overseer, and it was contended, for the defendants, that Mr Evison. was neitLer ' manager nor overseer. Several witnesses, however, and, especially Mr Blair, stated that he could understand that Mr Evison was the manager. While Mr Rjgg, ob the other hand, said he himself regarded Mr Cooper as the overseer, but that they did not know whether Cooper or Evison was the person they desired to incriminate. Even, although the letter was construed in that \ alternative sense, it might be defamatory. To say that either Aor B stole a pig was injurious to either A or B, and similarly-any defamatory remark was defamatory against any of the persons against whom it was made in the alternative. During the trial the consideration had struck him that the imputation was not likely to be in a high degree injurious to Mr Evison, seeing teat it had been made to the Archbishop; who. was cognisan himself of the precise facts. That however, was not a complete answer, but it would affect the amount of damages, if any were given on the first head., .Of course the jnry would consider' under this head whether anybody could properly be accused of sweating in the Catholic Times office. Another division of the charge was that the Archbishop had been wil-

folly kept in ignorance of the state of in bis office—the way in which business wire carried on. It was

-not very likely, to damage Mr Evison with the Archbishop, although it - might be defamatory, because the Archbishop knew perfectly well he -was hot kept in ignorance except only this, that he did not know the details of Cooper's expenditure, but he knew that Mr Evison was not responsible. He now came to what appeared to be the meet important of the alleged defamatory statements, viz., the reference to' the manager to which so much allusion had been made, in which the writer treated it aB a degradation to be asked . to interview him. He agreed with Mr Gully that two witnesses for the defence had put their awn construe turn upon it, and it seemed to him that thin was the true construction. It appeared to be the construction that Mr Jelltcoe had adopted as well as his clients, for several times dur-

- ing the previous day the learned gentleman had treated this concludparagraph of the letter as an imputation o#Mr Evißon, that he was what is called a ham bug, bat the imEutation was more properly one of ypocnsy. Several witnesses for the defence had used it that way : and others endorsed it. Mr Rigg was very emphatic upon this, and gave chefoliestAccount of it. He Bpoke of the plaintiff as " a religious adventurer—a man who sold his religious principles to the highest bidder." There was ho doubt that each an imputation as that was defamatory. It had been el£ressly decided in at

least one case that an imputation of hypocrisy was libellous. The only question for the jury, therefore, was whether the words used were really capable of that meaning, viz.—that • Mr Erison became a hired advocate of religious opinions which he did not hold. The mere - facts stated were quite true; viz., that plaintiff had at different times: conducted a. Freethought paper, lectured on a Freethought platform, and was new conducting a religious paper, but when they found that these facts, in the opinion of the defendants, rendered it ut degradation for them to ? hare communication with the plaintiff, then there must be something behind involved in the assertion. "What that something was it was the jury's function to infer. ' The bald facts did not bear out 'the' charge of hypocrisy. Great names maybe cited of men who at different times had done things as dissimilar. Hence.the saying, "The greater the saint the greater the sinner."- Men of passionate temperament many a time when they "had turned the right way had been as notable for their piety as before they were noteable for their impiety. The greatest doctor of the Latin Church—and be belonged to all of them and not merely to the Latin Church—St. Augustine, was perhaps, an instance, and there were many others. What gave the sting ? It might be altogether fanftful, If so, the jury would give a verdict for the defendants. "" If the»e was' a sting— might think there was—it this subtle suggestion of hateful vice, that of hy» the venal advocacy of There was no doubt *>desjreon the part, of "the Typographical' Association to get at "the Archbishop—to put Mr Evison, as the buffer, xmt of the way, and get face to faessWith the Archbishop, so as to succeed in their- object—for which a good deal could be said, no doubt, in itself—so as to put down the cheap publication of this paper. As Mr Jellicoe had said, the witnesses for the defence were a remarkably gentlemanly' and intelligent 'set of young men. Their object in maintaining their professional position yas, 'in. itself, it seemed to hipj a laudable ope. To main • tain the respectable position of seemed to him to be worthy public object. AH public meu Were greatly interested in having respectable well paid men in that position. He would be yery sorry himself to "see them degraded or their emoluments diminished; but the jury had nothing whatever to do with a topic like that, . The whole actual responsibility for the construction of (bis document rested with the jury. ■ Anything be bad said,as to its meanv " ipg was merely in the way of =v v suggestion. It was for the jury to ■-\ construe it, contrary to the rule -X which allowell'melt documents to be "Vsmstrued by the Court. These ' - alleged defamatory writings were an exception to the rule. lsp jory Kfltirod at 5 p.m. and ~ ", retiirilea'at §.85 p.iny, Jndirig a ver- ': Z. diet \ ~ T gn/tbe w$KHe ol

On the application of Mr Gully, His Honor consented to certify for a special jury, second counsel, and two extra days' hearing. Judgment was then given for plaintiff for £SO, with costs according to scale, execution being stayed, on Mr Jellicoe's application, till the first banco sitting after the vacation, with the view of permitting him, should he think necessary, to ask leave to move for a new trial.