AN IMPORTANT LIBEL CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4480, 26 July 1893, Page 3

AN IMPORTANT LIBEL CASE.

On May 18tb, 1898, Mr Cust, M.P. ' ior tho Stamford Division of Lincolnshire, England, entered an action against two well known Lincolnshire newspapers; the Grantham Times, and Stamford and Rutland Guardian, The former is published by the Lincolnshire Newspaper and General / Printing Co,, and the latter by Susan Eliza Hayne3, whose second daughter Mr Joplin, schoolmaster, of Tenui, j married whilst he was in England; ] Mr Gust iB well known as the editor of the Fall Mall Gazette. Ho claimed £2,000 from Mr Eli Grabtree and the Grantham Times, and £SOO from the Stamford Guardian, whilst Mr Crab- ' tree claimed £I,OOO damages against Mr Cuet. The three libel actions arose out of the last general election for the Stamford Division of Lincolnshire. . The libel complained of by Mr Cust was stated to be falsely , and maliciously printed and pnbstatements concerning him, I as a landowner and landlord, and as ' a Parliamentary candidate, and the j jßting of it was an accusation that | whilst Mr Gust was a great friend of ; the labourer in words, and advocated ' email holdings and allotments, yet in ' Action he was otherwise, as he refused ; to grant allotments on bis own pro- I perty; also that he ground down the ' poor by giving them starvation wages, i namely, lis a week, which had been raised to 12s. The defendants pleaded privilege as regards reports of publio > meetings which were published for the public benefit. After a lengthy trial the Lord Chief Justice of England ' characterised the libel as arising from ejection squabble, and could see fliplfj defamatory although it might !be disagreeable, and ought to have foeen settled without going into Court. With regard to the newspaper it was privileged to give a fair report of matters transpiring at a public meeting, however defamatory they might be, It had also a right to fair comment-fair comment to his mind beiug a comment which fairly sprang from what took place. A newspaper bad a right to be sharp and hostile and that did not necessarily make a comment unfair. The jury retired for about ten minutes and '.returned with the following result :- iCuat v.Grantham Times, verdict for (Oust, farthing damages; Gust v verdict for Cust, £6O damIsges; Crabtree v Oust, verdict for Crabtree, farthing damages. His lordship in tho first case deprived tj,j plaintiff of costs, and in the costs followed the verdict, Sir Edwar * '" Mr - ÜBt| informei * hi3 tbat llie caße Bffaiast 'efitamfordGuardian would ' beTithdra*' I '* mm * h " h his Lordship sa'W mi very proper to pursue.