CAMBRIDGE LIBEL CASE. Defendant Convicted.

Waikato Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1486, 12 January 1882, Page 2

CA MB RID GE LIBEL CA SE. Defendant Convicted.

Oor Auckland correspondent wires last night : — The libel ca&e of Victor Granvi lie against William Ripley both of Camb'ulge, came on for hearing ab the Supreme Court to day: Mr Tyler appeal ed for the prosecution. The accused was undefended by counsel. The indictment having been read to the accused, and having beeu asked to plead he produced a number of libellous circulars and other manuscript compositions which have been for come time past exhibited in his window at Cambridge, snch as " alchol is a thief avoid his company, " and " medical men and their patients." On being asked to plead a second time he opened one of the circulai*s, and exhibiting it to the court said: "If what is contained here be a libel then I am guilty. I did not consider it a libel until it was both printed and published, but I suppose if the court rules this a libel then I must be guilty." This reply was taken as a plea of guilty. Mr Tyler said there were certain circumstances surrounding the case that did not appear on the depositions which he would like the court to know, and which were aggravating. These circulars had been circulated by the prisoner in Hamilton, Ngaruawahia, and all round the country, and were of such a nature as was calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. They might not do the prosecutor harm in the eyes of those who were conversant with the facts of the case ; but when they were circulated and read by strangers, then the reputation of the person against whom the libel was directed was seriously impaired. His Honor entirely disapproved of criminal prosecutions of this sort, and thought the matter should have been settled with a civil action instead of a criminal. The man who wrote the libel suffered more from its publication than the person agaiust whom it was directed, and he would say that the man was very weak indeed whom this circular could excite to a breach of the peace. On being asked if he would undertake to pay the costs the prosecution had been put to, the piisoner emphatically replied that he would not, as he had been put to sufficient expense already. The prisoner was then asked if he had anything to say why the judgment of the Court should not be pronounced upon him. In reply to this question, he entered into a rambling statement about stolen watches, Rose's public bar, drunken men, and Detective Doolan, and repeated a few of the expressions contained in his libellous publication. He also told the Court the History of his acquaintance with Mr Granville ; how that person had entered his shop on one occasion and asked for some of the papers in his window, which he refused to sur-render,-whereupon he was knocked down, and several other amusing incidents. The* whole statement, however, was so incoherent as to be almost unintelligible. His Honor informed, the prisoner that if he proceeded to repeat his libel in Court, he would be compelled to give him such a sentence which .would prevent him from repeating i them for, some time to come., Prisoner replied that CTranville had been swearing what he knew nothing at all about. This , matter of giving evidence . was . so , barefaced that his sense of duty would not, allow him.topassit by. .^The following sentence was then passed — William Ripley, you have been fouiujiL guilty upon your own confession of unlawfully and^ maliciously publishing libel. > , The libel ' is a very, gross one, .but at; the .same, ijbime a very silly ,onej ,andj ;had your,, demeanor , been, such, as to conyince^me^that, you regretted' yqur action, I ..should not /have thought it* lieSessary-'lo 'have sentenced you^to any^'greati extent. ";It f is: quite 8 manifest,^hoVever,u tfti^ i-you'*, are ' pre'paiedMrepeatf the>Hßellous 'conduct and . to, maintain, in the f >fac6 \>f < r the .that tnat you (»nit*repeatlsuclii,conductFwitn T ' ( imp^j^f^^^^gc^o|4K|»||^t