CRIMINAL LIBEL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 218, 7 September 1892, Page 2

CRIMINAL LIBEL.

CHARGE AGAINST MR HAGGEN,

(BY TELEGRAPH. — PRESS ASSOCIATION.)

Wellington, this day. Tiie charge of criminal libel preferred against Mr E. A. Haggen, proprietor and publisher ot tho " Woodville Examiner," by William Symes, choaiiet, of Woodville, was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr W. B. Edwards appears for the prosecutor, and Mr S. Baker for the accused. The article on which the charge was based accused a certain person (who, the indictment states, was Symes, the prosecutor) of having seduced a young woman in Woodville, and then procured her miscarriage. This statement was made on the authority of a doctor who was called to the womtui when she was supposed to be dying. She told this doctor her story, and tho outcome was the polico woro communicated with. She denied most of the statements she had made on her siok bed, and in consequence of insufficiency of evidence tho police dropped the case. The article also suggested that the influence of the Govern-, mont had been brought to bear to burke inquiry, Mr Symos being a Juetico of the Peaco. Tho accused pleaded not guilty.

Mr Edwards said the libel was of the very worst kind thab could be published, as ib charged a man with a criminal offence and would tend to destroy his business. Tho libel was very plain and direct, and he thought tho jury would have no difficulty in arriving at a decision. The publication of the newspaper and article was admitted by tho defence.

Dr. Milne, of Woodville, gave evidence to the effect that he knew to whom the libel referrod as ho had conversation with Mr Haggen the night previous to tho appearance of tho article, when Mr Haggen told him he had an article in type accusing Symes of seduction and procuring abortion. A long argument ensued between Judge Prendergasb and Mr Baker as to the relevancy of evidence concerning Mr Symes' mode of business.

Mr Baker contended that the occasion was privileged, and that the accused was entitled to show he had good grounds for what he had written, arid on that view he asserted his righbto bring evidence in reference to all the surroundings of the matter.

His Honor held distinctly that bhe occasion was nob privileged, and bhab there was no dofonce unless truth were proved. Dr. Milne was then allowed to leave the witness box, His Honor ruling that evidence as to tho grounds Haggon had for publishing the article wore altogether irralovanb. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. Mr Baker said as be had not asked the pica cii justification ho had no evidence to call.

The Chief Justice, addressing the jury, said that any person publishing a defamabory article which he could not justify was guilty of malicious libel. If tbe defendant had pleaded justification and beon able to prove the trubh of his assertions, and . that bhey were for the public interest, it would bo justificatory This the defendant had nob done., After 15 minutes' deliberation the jury returned a verdict of " Guilty."

Mr Baker applied to be be hoard in mitigation of sentence. The Court adjourned until 3 o'clock. Tho Chief Justice subsequently received affidavits in mitigation of the eentence in Haggen'B case, bub absolutely declined to reserve the question of privilege. Senbenco was postponed until eleven tbi3 morning, bub if tho counsel for'the prosecution desires to reply bo the affidavibs, sentence may be further deferred. The accused was admitted to bail on his own recognisance.

A SEVERE SENTENCE

In the Supreme Court this morning, Mr Haggen was fined £50 and sentenced to two months' imprisonment also until the fine is paid, and to givo security to keep the peace for a year, himself in £100 and one of i'so.