BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume XL, Issue 5775, 28 February 1912, Page 5

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

EXAMINATION (>F Wn'M'.SSF.S

mi: .masskv j:\pi;l:ssi:s

iiKi.'iu-ri

(Vcr i'ress Association.)

Wia.l.lNf.'TON. rVI». '2i. The Committee <»'' t!u- House ol

KcpresentatUes appointed \o iiivfuirinto the charges oi allege;! bn.,-.'i\,, met this morning". Mr .vi \ crs appeared for Mr .Ma»c.\ . an>l a.NM'U for adjournment i'H 'ihursday. a-; he had inly U/i n inslructcd that morning. 'I his. aIUT discussion, was refused. Mr I'auve ya\e evidence. LU: denied discussing politics with Sir .1. Ward or Mr l>ro\vn in Napier. Although he had conversed with ihem he bail not been approached direct 1\ or indirect I\" by any Minister us to ho"' h>' should vote, lie had said "to Mr Mas.sey that tin nllempl. had been made to square him and added that .Mr Massey would be surprised if he know where the oll>r came from. Mr Massey said : "Mr Viuor Brown '.'" But witness replied: "So." Ifcpl,\ing- to Sir .1. Watd, Payne said he had no reason to believe that Uk1 suggestion came lo him from the Ward (iovernnu nl. Sir J. Ward, on oath, said he hud never at any time, directh or indirect ly, offered to square any man in connection with the politics of this country. Mr Vigor Brown also gave sworn testimony to th« same i-nect. The Committee decided not to asK Mr Massey by whom the statement read in the House was made.

In the House of Representatives, Mr Massey made a statement acknowledging that he had committed a grave error on Friday in having •quoted an extract from a letter which he ha-d read to the member for (Jrey Lynn and the terms of which suggested that a member ol the House was subject to corrupt^ influences. Some of his own words he said, might have been capable ; Uk« same construction, though he did not intend them, lie felt it his duty to the House, to Sir.l. Ward and Mr Brown, and to Mr (l'ayt-.e to ! express his regret not-only for reading- the extract. but for the words he himself had used. He. at. the earliest moment, withdrew a.H imputJUi'on.s against those members. He did so without -having" previously consulted with 'his party, bcimj guided only by what his own Conscience considered due from one man ' to another. WKULINU TUN, Feb. 28. J The meeting of the Privilege Com-j mittee this morning was fully attended. Mr Skerrett. for Mr Payne, said Mr Massey was in the position of v prosecutor and it was for him lo call evidence and for his side lv refute it.

Mr Myers said Mr Massey had nc thing-'to add to what lie• s.iid in thq 1 louse on Monday night, tie quoted an article in support of his contention- that a writer had a common law property in the letter and could interfere with its unlimited use. The letter could by used for lawful purpose, b.ul its publication was not a lawful purpose. The writer of the letter could obtain an injunction from live Supreme Court to prevent Mr M-assey publishing' the letter. To produce same might e.\-

pose two or three persons' to libel actions. If would he most improper to produce the letter even if the Court would not order the publication of the letter. The Committee could not control persons other than ilr Payne;, a.s they were not before it.

Mr Skerrett said the rases cited by Mr Myers were irrelevant. If Mr Mnssey were in the witness-box lie would not be privileged from disclosing- the name and producing-' the letter, which was the gravamen of the whole char-go. An undertaking given by Mr Payne certainly would *>c binding. The statement of Mr Myers that publishing1 the letter was not a breach of privilege would not hold. He was not prepared to say what Mr Payne would do in regard to the production of the letter." After further argument the Committee proceeded to deliberate on the question.