LARNACH v. "NEW ZEALAND HERALD."

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7262, 23 January 1889, Page 2

LARNACH v. "NEW ZEALAND HERALD."

[PRESS ASSOCIATION TELBORAM 1 WELLINGTON, January 21 The case in which the Hon Win T Mndie Larnach, M H.E. for the Peaiuaiil* sought to recover two sums of from William Scott Wilson, JoseDhTir 4 Wilson, and Alfred George HortosTT 8 prietors of the N. Z. Herald, Auckland, f alleged libel in a leading article ia journal on the 19th and 31st days of J»J] last, was heard to-day before Mr Juatj' Richmond and a special jury of twa-* Sir Robt. Stout, with him Hon p f Buckley, appeared for the plaintiff »J Mr Gully, with whom was JSrStI«S for the defence. er H The first article begins thus--" Tfc e • cident referred to by our Wellington co* respondent in relation to the absenceTrf Mr Larnach from the Assembly and h! continuing to draw honorarium ijw trates a phase of Parliamentary Uf e +21 the public of New Zealand should layS heart. It shows an instance of ftj* scrupulous dealing with publio Jaooew which has unhappily been too chaxacterisKe of Parliamentary proceedings in, and the thanks of every honest nuai&lgy Zealand are due to the hon. member for fe[ Bay of Island, Mr Hobbs, for bis in undertaking the unpleasant duty of posing the scandal." The article goes <a to say that everybody knows that Mr, W nach has left the colony and entered iafe, business in Melbourne, and concludes aa follows—" Despite the fact that Mfjfe nach has actually left he apparently e&« tinues to draw honorarium by a serial of 'leaves of absence,' obtained on the aitfe of members in the House. In tho laS motion so made, the permission,], asked on the grounds of 'illness in jy, family/ It is bo that illness, not exact!? in a member's family, but of himself » under the fifth clause of the Parliamentary Honorarium and Privileges Act, agyound for a member's being granted tears 'ti absence, and consequently drawing feag, rarium when absent. Thia is a sheer aitf shameless excuse for plundering the coaa« try. This alleged * illness in his fam%* is put forward by a member in the Hoeuj, The statement may or may not '■%& a fact, most probably it ia nots to that it should be adduced in ment. and that with the exospiog of Mr Hobbs' apologetic protest no voio? of indignation was raised, will go to cofr firm the fast growing conviction in tfej public mind that Parliament, as it exiak should be swept away, and pla*e fej something else, with better comprehend of the fitness of things, and cordance with the common sense of $b community." The second article '''jn&> plained of asserted that the plaistiifa object in returning to Wellington was" isj to resume his Parliamentary duties, baj apparently to give a banquet to the Ibgada of departments of the Civil Service, sad ft also maintains that Mr Fish, in the faca of the fact that Mr Larnach's absenoa hitherto had been on account of busfcess, and that he was leaving to pursue thai business, asked for leave of absence "oa account of illness in his family." Defend, ants admit publication of the words <sm plained of, but denied that they were pub> lished maliciously. They said thai; tho subject matter of the alleged libels beo&Se, and was, a matter of publio interest, ggj thereupon they bonafide for the 'public good, and without any sinister or maiiefeua motive, published the words complained d. Sir B. Stout addressed the jury at fxmii length, and in the course of his remaj&i referred to the statements in questios ia being about the crudest and grotsest libels that any paper could possibly hays perpetrated on any man, more especially upon a public man. Dr. Coughtrey, of Dunedin, was calleo to prove Miss Larnach's illness ym the cause of plaintiff being called away to , Dunedin.

Mr Gully submitted that the evitbaeswhich the doctor was called upon &>/?#<} was quite irrelevant, inasmuch as feda* fondant admitted that there had fea illness in Mr Jjaraach's family. Hes»* tended that such evidence was the other side to enlist the sympathy of tha jury. Sir E. Stout said that he would askEsi Coughtrey who it was that called St Larnach from his duties at Wellington •Mr Gully objected to the quea<aos,a3 the grounds that the fact could not pqssibly have been known by the write; w&*S the article was written.

Some argument ensued, and Sir B. §toui withdrew the question. Dr. Cough trey thereupon .stood down, and the plaintiff was called. His evideaca was very brief. He said he had beet ia Parliament about thirteen years, and tk' Herald had always been strongly opposed to the party to which he belonged. He retnrned from Victoria in May lask es.3 left again for that colony in October. Wka he ?eturned to Wellington he wsssJafKa the first article. This was after Misss! been called away to his heme alter ccssiajj back from Melbourne. Never in bis Uk had he been.in the habit of sending is a claim for He. never troutl&l much about it. - He gave an ords? t»ss it, and never troubled himself as to wfcs» was given him. Cross-examined by Mr Gally—'Wa about in Melbourne at the begimriisgli the session. Returned to New ZealaM about May 30th, having in the arranged to settle in Melbourne. Stays. a few days in Dunedin on account of.lsu daughter's illness, and reached Farliattttt about June 7fch. On May SQfch. Mr S&Msa moved that leave of absence be granted to witness on account of urgent priests affairs. About July ?nd witae?3 tf&J peremptorily summoned by Dr. Coygkisi'? to return, . and remained till- t&e dwios told him it • was safe to return. Got back about August 7th. Before karfflfj on- July 3rd witness gave 6 banquet J& some Civil servants. Told ibfia in *'-} speech he was glad to have an opportunist now. he was out of office, of giving ttsas some return for their courtesy white P was.Minister. 'J'old one gentlemaa, i«w spoke on the matter, that he was lea?is,3 the colony. Could not say whether it *& generally known. Some of his frisaw » the House knew it. At. the time ot& bano.net witness had no idea he woula t« called on to go South so soon, and -had to go upon an urgent letter from i® doctor without seeing his friends. 0$ td 18th July Mr Fish moved oa m ff behalf, and, at his request, asfccd.tf leave of absence. for witness. SavT'ira* a,- Dunedin paper a brief to the speech. Mr Hobbs made ««J that occasion of a somewhat nature, and seat him a telegram on t& subject. Afterwards read a full the speech. Oa August l«b rntsto brought up the Herald's articlesi Mj House as a breach of privilege. P» sn remember seeing- a third article i»J** Herald oi the day after this debate. *•■* putting the matter in his solicitor's M» witness received a telegram fendanta stating the articles were **«*-* under a misapprehension, and to deal' generally with tha subj*» £ honorarium, and.not to reflect w,®** (Larnach)i He sent an answer w ~* effect that the matter was in his hands. He was aware both answer appeared next day in a paper, but did not know bow the? «* Be-examined by Sir B. settled in Melbourne, he (witnew) *»* large interests in New Zealand. &f £i etituehts desired that he ehould stifirewf his seat. Telegraphed to Mr Fish him leave of absence because ho * ot, would have to remain in Dunedin -Wfy than he expected; till, in iff-» daughter was out of danger. (..fro Mr Qnlly, in opening the case * -Jf defence, eaid the articles were ™ u s. s purely from materials supplied oj ifcroWscorrespondent in had reported the statement m*te House of Bepresentatives by h$ ,r"L* who had said plaintiff had and Wellington, and w»j about to kthe colony, and wanted to 'to** would receive his hoaorannsa- f*£ £, 3 never been ehown plaintiff hsd oca u>» ~ 'colony, and defendants tai toe breach of privilege Aaj f ostl4th. Hecelfed— ■ MeCaJioagh Essd, «& q ßS|i* Ibsfc ho was leader waiter oa the **

-at He wrote the article mtbatpaper rfj_lr 19th. He knew Mr Larnach had banqaet to the Civil serSSoa June 30th, before the -fade was iSSn? He first knew plaintiffhad reSSedto Wellington about August 13th. article was inserted jTthTlfera-i on August 15th, and Se telegram sent to Mr Larnach by {2 proprietors, which had already been This was done voluntarily. JfZgre iras nothing telegraphed to him to ATeffect that Mr Larnach was going to *T_e legal action. He was in no way pasted by personal malice against editor of the New Zealand Sjr-M,said he wrote the second article fggajained of. He corroborated Mr Seed's rjggnceT He assumed the telegrams on «_jch the articles were baaed to be true. This was all the evidence called. Mr Gully asked bis Honor to direct the s-rr whether the articles were justified •jZjgj the circumstances -which the writers vjdbefore them. 2js Honor said he thought he would ijUn have to direct them to find whether *kere was any solid foundation for these facts. They must be certain defendants hgd t» v<,n reasonable steps to assure themaelrei the facts were right. jgr Gully quoted the decisions of Lord £__ef Justice Cockbum, in which he laid d<rm that public writers, even if they fell into some error as to facts, were privileged ao long as they honestly believed the in-fo-station on which they commented to be correct. Bis Honor said he hardly thought the PEaffg quoted were applicable. The fact tfcst a public writer was misinformed -roald not save him from the conseaßenees. Mr Gully addressing the Jury said ft fit admitted by the other side there was no personal malice, and he argued the evidence h-d shown the writers of f_* alleged libels had reason to believe that the reports on which the articles were baaed were correct. Let them put themletres in Mr Beed's place, and he thought tbey would agree that he was '.justified in lettering Mr -was absent from the "Book and Parliament without an intention to return, and that the motion lor leave of absence was to enable __a to draw his honorarium. As to the contention newspaper writers Paget to verify their information, he ,poi_ted out that such a thing was absolutely impossible. He asked the jury to fad there was reasonable ground at the time for writing the articles, though it unfortunately turned out the facts were sot altogether right. Even supposing they found otherwise, he urged that a handsome apology had been made in the of the Herald, and private telegrams of a ji-niTA.- nature sent to plaintiff directly defendants were aware of the mistake, and it was difficult to see what else the pT-iwtiff could wish. Sir B. Stout said Mr Gully's speech was gimpl- an appeal to let off defendants as lightly as possible. According to the paper's own correspondent's telegram it was clear plaintiff had not left the colony; that he had not drawn his honorarium; and that there was illness in his family, and yet these points were all denied in the articles complained of. There was, in fact, no foundation whatever for the libels. They were directly contradictory to the statement of the Herald's own correspondent ijsjseli. Moreover when Mr Hobbs found he was wrong and apologised, what did the paper do ? It" slated" Mr Hobbs for apologising, and reiterated its offensive statements. Instead of coming into Court and stating like honorable men they found they were In the wrong, they had up to the last attempted to justify their misstate--Bsents. His Honor, summing up, said—A dis-t__ei-on was made between fact and coxaBent on fact. Fact must be established on reasonable evidence. He reads number of instances from law reports to make the position clear, amongst them Bryce v Eusden. It was admitted the articles complained of were written under three misapprehensions of fact. The most serious of these was the denial of Miss Larnach's illness, whereas she really was seriously iIL This waa quite indefensible. No doubt It was dear Messrs Eeed and Berry were writing under a misapprehension, but he did not suggest that was any defence. Though there was little doubt they wrote with bu fides, still that was no consolation to the person aggrieved. With reference to far E. Stout's suggestion that defendants should have come into Court and confessed, it was probable this course was act taken because they were advised they eoald establish a defence on the plea of fair comment, but this he thought they eoald scarcely do. The jury, after forty minutes* absence, returned, and the foreman asked what sajouat would carry all costs. The Judge said it did net signify, as easts were in the discretion of the Court. '■"■ The Foreman said they were all agreed spon the verdict, which was for plaintiff, damages £500. His Honor awarded costs on the middle Male. (rBOK OUR 0088-SFONDXNT.] WELLINGTON, January 21. Generally, the heavy damages awarded ft? the jury to-day to Mr Larnach in his bnel action against the New Zealand Herald sxeited a good deal of surprise, as the utaicst generally expected was a verdict that would just carry costs, but much of the evidence as to the general impression prevailing at the time the article was written, upon which defendant hoped to •Sect a mitigation of damages, was ruled to be inadmissable, and hence the verdict.