THE NELSON LIBEL CASE.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 789, 16 March 1871, Page 3

THE NELSON LIBEL CASE.

On Friday last at the sittings in bunco, before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond. Mr. Conolly moved for a rule nisi to fhow cause why a criminal information should not be filed against D. M. Luckie and G. Collins, for o libel on Sir David Monro, contained in two articles in the "Colonist" newspaper, of which they are the printers and publishers. He then read the affidavits. His Honor, addressing Mr. Conolly, said : To grant a rule nisi in a ease of this kind is a matter of some importance, and if J had any doubt I should take time to consider ; but L think that you have established your right to a rule, whatever may come of t. To write of •a member • the Legislature, or of any •other politic! i, chat he is a strong party inan, : and .... dyne this or that act (ot in itsel: improper) with a view to advance the interests of Ids party, is certainly not lib. llouo, In the eyes of people who have never thought about such things, or have thought to no purpose, it may be apposed an imputation, but this is a Vulgar misapprehension. It is essential to the proper management of the affairs of countries which enjoy or possess such constitutions as ourc, that parties in the f tate be organised, and that the larger number of representatives adhere to some such organized party. When a man has chosen his party conscientiously, it will generally be patriotic on his part by nil fair means to serve the interests of that party, because in so doing he will be keeping the reins of Government in those hands, or obtaining them for those hands, which he dei ms best able to guide public affairs safely, prosperously, and honourably. Therefore it cannot in general be libelkus merely to write of any member of the House of Representatives that he has acted as a party man. But there is one member of the House of whom it is libellous so to write, unless what is so asserted can be proved. It is certainly libellous falsely to say of the Speaker in the chair, that he has acted for party purposes, because impartiality in the adminstration of his office -i.e., perfect indifference in that office to political parties, is his highest duty. Now I find that in the second of the newspaper articles impugned, that in the " Colonist " of the 10th February. 1871, entitled, " Who put back the Clock," there is a distinct assertion that Sir David Monro did on the occasion referred to do a certain act (whether in •itself proper or improper) for party purposes. The libel, if any, consists in the imputation of a party purpose—not in the assertion that Sir David ordered the clock to be put back. The writer adopts a paragraph from the New Zealand Spectator, of September 13, 1802 which is in the following terms : "The end of the session approached, and a Ministerial Bill was in difficulty. Ministers wanted to get the Bill sent to the Upper House before the afternoon adjournment (on Friday, sth September.) Dr. Monro, (the Speaker) thereupon sent a messenger into the gallery. mihwion to the House, and put the clock luck ten minutes ; he then forwarded the Bill a stage, and got it through." Now the writer in the (Spectator) says that a Ministerial Bill (Native Lauds Bill) was in difficulty, and that the Speaker helped it. through by causing the clock to be put back. According to >sir David Monro's affidavit, this statement that the Bill was in difficulty is wholly untrue, It had, according to lis statement, passed every stage in proper time, all opposition having ceased, and the only matter remaining at halfpast live by the House clock, was the title to the Bill, which is a pure formality and docs not in law even constitute a part of the Statute. Upon this state of facts, which I must, for the present, assume to be correct, it appears to be a complete misrepresentation of the occurrence to write of the Speaker's act in altering the clock as having been done to serve a party purpose, It appears, p,-/?H« facie, to have been done, properly or not, to advance the business of the House without any reference to party interests. I think, therefore, the applicant has a prima Jacie case. The rule may be made returnable hext Friday, as the vacation is at hand subject, of course, to any application winch may be made for extension. Rule nisi granted.