ALLEGED LIBEL ON THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY OF DUNEDIN.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 173, 21 July 1876, Page 7

ALLEGED LIBEL ON THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY OF DUNEDIN.

from our Supplement.)

lie has commenced this action without the slightest regard to every rule of courtesy and good taste. He did not take the slightest action to ascertain how the paragraph appeared, He did not give any opportunity to Mr. Bell to contradict the report, which no doubt he would have done, if requested. His Worship : What does Lord Campbell's Act say upon that ? Mr. Howorth : It goes to the root of the whole question of libel. His Worship : Does the Act allow the newspaper to apologise ? Your argument is that there is no libel. Mr. Howorth : My argument is that there is no libel. I submit that Mr. Bell should have had an opportunity given him of retracting the statement. That opportunity was never offered to V. #iim, and I think I am perfectly justified in stating that the ordin- ' ary rules of courtesy and good taste have not been followed in this case. A criminal information has been rushed at, as it were, without even the poor preliminary of a lawyer's letter. Mr. Macassey : That is a very poor one. Mr. Howorth : Well, in a case before the Lord Chief Justice in England, he drew attention to the omission of the usual preliminary letter, and said that nothing could justify such a course without absolute necessity. That course has been followed. His Lordship admitted an evident animus against the defendant when he stated that he supposed Mr. Bell would not contradict the paragraph if he had been asked. Mr. Bell, in his statement, says that Bishop Moran's letters have always received prompt attention at his hands, and your Worship has heard Mb denial that Bishop Moran haß any just ground for stating his request would not meet with the same attention on this occasion. Your Worship will see, in reviewing the evidence, that no effect can be given to it when taken with the surrounding circumstances. I have now exhausted all the principal points. And, in conclusion, I would ask your Worship to bear in mind that no possible good can result from sending this case to the Supreme Court. There is a already a feeling which, but for this unfortunate and, I submit, ill-advised proceedings, would never have been raised, and the public mind is agitated to an unnecessary degree. My client and all other persons, so far as I am aware, desire to live in peace and harmony with our Roman Catholic brethren. But I submit that these

proceedings are calculated to create a very wide breach. At all events, a state of feeling will probably arise which we must all deplore. , Bishop Moran said in his evidence that if the historical portion of the ' case were gone into, it would never end. Unless your Worship is prepared to dismiss this information, I submit that a very grave re* sponsibility rests with your Worship. We cannot possibly foresee what angry feelings may rise amongst' the various sects in this Province, and what bad feelings may be engendered. Bishop Moran has brought the case into the Court. He has given his version of it, and I submit that no possible good can result by sending it to a higher Court. There is no libel involved in it, and the body of persona mentioned in the information are not effected by it. I submit there is no prlma facie case made out for the prosecution. I have therefore to ask your Worship to give full consideration to the whole of the evidence and to the statement of my client, Mr. Bell ; and I confidently ask that this nforination should be dismissed. I have one witness to call : — Frederick George Wetham, reporter, deposed : lam temporarily acting as sub-editor in the ' Evening Star' office. I was so employed on the 3rd July. I have read the paragraph complained of. Mr. Bell was not consulted as to its publication. To my knowledge, he has has acquiesced in, or consented to, its publication. The paragraph was cut out of the * Tuapeka Times.' It was there I first saw it. Cross-examined : When I say that Mr. Bell did not acquiesce in its publication, I mean that Mr. Bell did not see it before, and neither expressed approval or disapproval after its publication. No expression of regret has appeared in the • Evening Star* concerning the publication of that paragraph. I have been connected with newspapers for upwards of three years. Eeaders of newspapers are supposed to be fond of " spicy morsels." When I saw the paragraph it did not strike me that it would cause a great sensation. I looked upon it as an ordinary paragraph. I know the gentleman referred to as Pere Hyacinthe by hearsay. I know that the reference to Father Hyacinthe had relation to the marriage of a Catholic priest, and that it caused a great sensation ; but I was of opinion that after the eximple set by Pere Hyacinthe the sensation caused by the marriage of a Catholic Priest would not be so great. I saw that the event forming the subject of this charge was stated to have occurred in Dunedin, or referred to a Catholic clergyman residing in Dunedin; but it was not importing Dunedin news from Tuapeka, ai a thing might be known in Tuapeka and not in Dunedin. I first saw the paragraph on the morning of the 3rd in the 'Tuapeka Times/ which is published on Friday or Saturday. The supplement of the ' Tuapeka Times' is published in the ' Star' office, and consists of telegraphic, Parliamentary, and other matter reprinted from the ' Star.' lam positive I did not see the para1 graph before it was published in the • Tuapeka Times.' The local was cut from the body of the paper and not from the supplement. I know who inserted the paragraph in the ' Star.' I will not say who inserted it because I might criminate myself. I made no inquiry as to the truth of the statement before I saw the paragraph in the ' Star.' I thought if it were untrue it would be contradicted. The paragraph was cut out in the ordinary way. I have beenon t'.ie 'Star' about three years and a-half, and am acquainted with the spirit and style of the paper. Ido not think Bishop Moraa is one of the Deities the • Star ' worships. The Bishop is often hit pretty hard by the ' Star' — blows are freely exchanged. I don't think the ' Star ' usually exercises an editor's privilege of having the last word, though some papers do. The attitude of the ' Star ' has not been generally hostile to Bishop Moran — there have been differences of opinion between the editor and Bishop Moran on certain matters, but I do not know that the tone of the ' Star' has been hostile to Bishop Moran personally. I don't know that thia paragraph has been telegraphed from the ' Star' office to any other paper. Re-examined : Neither Bishop Moran nor any one else asked that this paragraph might be contradicted. If I had received a letter asking that it might be contradicted, it would have been inserted. Bishop Moran's letters have always received attention and been published in the ' Star.' They may possibly add to the circulation of the 'Star,' but they are not inserted with that intention. This closed the case for the defence. His Worship, in summing up, said : At this stage of the proceedings, the first part I have to consider is — Has there been a libellous paragraph published, a misdemeanour committed, or ia the contention of the learned counsel for the defence correct, that the publication of the paragraph in question is in no sense libellous ? The law of the matter is laid down with sufficient clearness to enable me to come to a right conclusion in regard to what my duty in the matter is. I may notice that once or twice counsel haa suggested that I was apparently indulgent to the one side in showing favour. I must repudiate anything of the kind. lam here to administer the laws to the best my ability without fear or favour or affection to anyone. He concluded by explaining that he was bound to send the case to tne Supreme Court, a prima facie case having been established. The defendant was committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court, and admitted to bail, himself in £100 and two sureties of £50 each.