LIBEL ACTION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3078, 7 April 1892, Page 2

LIBEL ACTION.

HUTCHISON V. BALLANCE AND BOYLE. ("I" TELEGRAPH.—PHES3 ASSOCIATION.) Wanganui, Last Night. Tho Kbol action by (reorgs Hutchison, M.H.R., against Hon. J. Ballance and Boyle, manager of the Wanganui Herald, commenced thi.s morning. Tho claim is that plainlitf at the time of the alleged libel was a member of tho House of Representatives for Waitotarii. In last session a Bill was introduced by the Premier, by which the payments to member* were ijr.iposed to be increased. Plaintiff in Parliament and at a public meeting at Pat.-m, spoke of the Bill as a dishonest measure. Defendant afterwards addressed a meeting and a report of his speech appeared in the Wanganui Herald of Bth December, and Yeoman of 12th December, containine the fallowing words concerning the plaintiff : —" Mr Hutchison had told them that the Payment nf Members Bill was a dishonest measure but he forgot to tell them that he had signed a paper in the lobby of the House tn the effect that he was in favour of tho Bill," meaning thereby that although the plaintiff professed to be opposed to the Payment of Members Bill as a dishonest measure he acted so as t>) promote the passing of the Bill with the object to increase the payment to members including himself. The defendant, Boyle, was the publisher, and the defendant, Ballance, the proprietor of the sjid newspapers in which the words set forth were published ; the said publications were false and malicious, aud the plaintiff prays for judgement with damages of forty shillings and an injunction against each defendant to prevent any further publication of the said libel or any words to the same effect.

Mr Hutchison conducted his own Sir Robert Stout and Mr Stuiord appeared for Mr Ballnnce and Mr Bar.iic( a*, f r Mr Boyle. In opening his address, Mr Hutchinson referred at Icnorth to tlin incidents bearing on the casu. IFe explained t'.ie clauses in the Payment ut Members liill introduced into tho H'n<! last session, stiting that when the Bi.l cnnn on for the second reading he expressed himself as opposed to the measure. Tim report from Hansard was then ivad, in -.viiicli he (Kutcliinsmi) stated that he woul! v, t-! against the measure and oppose it in iv, ry way. His own address at Patea sh-n t'v rtftei , the close of the session referred t < t'm extract from the sirae chronicl' , . Tno Premier's mldress on December 7tli at P.itea referred to a report which appear,!! 1 in the Herald and the Yeoman, in which was published the libel complained nf. Mr Smith, M.H.R., had been given by Mr Ball.ince as his authority fur the statement hut ho contended that Mr Balance must accept tho responsibility, although given on the authority of another person.

Mr Hamerton, journalist, of Patea ; John Wilkie, Waitotaru, and A. Tewse, farmer, of Kαi Ivvi, gave evidence as to tho interpretiitiim they put uuon the report in question. The defendant Boyle was also ex:miimcl. and said Mr Ballance had not Htt'!:idod a meeting of tlie Herald directors since lie bnciutia a member of the present Government. This closed plaintiff's oase.

Sir R. Sl"iit submitted that there was no case, as there was no evidence of publication as far as Mr Ballanoe was concerned, and even had Mr Balla nee attended all the meetings of the directors, lie could not be made personally liable for what appeared in the paper. His Honour decided that since Mr Bailance had not taken part in the management or direct publication of the paper, he could not be held liable for any part of the publication. The objection made on Mr Ballance's behalf must prevail; therefore, there was no case to go before the jury. The case Hutchison v. Boyle is proceeding.