PALMERSTON LIBEL CASE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 223, 13 June 1908, Page 7

PALMERSTON LIBEL CASE.

-4 . ' EX-MAYOR VERSUS EDITOR,. . JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. " ' (by telegraph.—special correspondent). ' Palmerston North, June 12.' Tho Efcsex-Hobn libel ■ action was con- J tinued to-day in the Supremo Court before Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury. Mr. Power, for. plaintiff, said that neither .Mr. nor Mrs. Esses ever went near the . trenches with whisky for the men. The gentleman who providod the refreshments for the men was the proprietor of the Masonic Hotel. • Cross-examined, witness state'd. that ho was sometimes away from the job, so that Mr. Esses might havo paid-a visit during . his absence, but that was hardly possible, .as witness liad a partner who would' tell him of any Mayoral visits. R. Armstrongj borough storekeeper, denied that Mr. or Mrs. Esses .had brought whisky. This closed, the evidence for, plaintiff. For the defenco, Ivy Graham stated that sho saw tho workmen round a cab at tho borough works in February. In tho cab was a lady and a man' whom she took to bo Mr. Essex..' After tho cab drove away sho saw ono of the men with a parcel wrapped in straw. Mrs. Graham corroborated tho evidence of tho previous witness. Other- witnesses , gave similar evidence. W. Smith, who was in tho employ of the borough 'as curator, said the Mayor instructed him not to uso any' water for tho squares or cricket pitch. 'Witness disregarded tho instructions, and continued to Uso tho water. He saw tho Mayor stop the .water. . Matters were very unpleasant between them, arid a few days later the hose disappeared altogether. E. D. Hobon. defendant, admitted publishing tho articles. On February 7 he wroto an articlo on tho Mayoral election which created a good deal of talk. Shortly, after- ' wards a memo.' was left on his tnblo containing information regarding tho drink being takon to thp sewer. He had similar information from 'other townspcoplo. Ho then mado U\o reference to. the residents being "whisky won." Ho did not know : that votes' had been won 'by the distribution of whisky.. He was willing to publish any.: .letter from Mr. Esssx, but 110 could not, in tho fnea of tho information he had received, publish a statement withdrawing the article. lie said iu tho first placo that the Mayor was forcing a moaning upon the letters which was never intended, and that if ho published a withdrawal of' the articles it .would bo an admission of' libel which might bo subsequently used against him. 'Ho had told Robertson that from what ho had seen of Mr. Esses ho would not accept his word except in i writing. He believed Mr. Essex had been instrumental in getting 'Truth" to abuse him. Ho was also of opinion that Robertson was ( trying in his interview to ■securo evidence for Mr. Essex, or that he was being .used as a tool. Robertson assured bittr that.'he wan friendly to both parties, and that tho interviews w.ould be confidential, . which, turned out sinco to be the very reverse. t Robertson said to him that tho action would cost him a lot of money. He replied that tho people of Palmerston would see him through. He had told Robertson that plaintiif had boycotted the paper, and sought to injure him in other ways, but this had nothing to do with tho attitude ho was taking up. On several occasions he had taken Mr. Essex's part against other members of tho Council. Ho had domed, and 'still denied, that tho articles were intended to libel Mr. Esses..

J. Coombo, part proprietor of the "Standard," produced copjes of His paper containing advertisements on behalf of issues of "Truth," wherein articles were inserted regarding Mr. llobcn. Ono of tho advertisements, ho stated, was brought to tho office by Mr. Essex, but .the account was made out in the name of tho "Truth" manager. . .Mr. Essex gavo a donial of ev;er having been at tho sewer when whisky was taken thero. R. Essex also gavo.tho suggestion an emphatic denial. When addressing tho jury, his Honour said it could not bo assumed from the article regarding tho whisky that votea had been won at the 1907 election by whisky, nor could it bo taken that the votes had been won at the recent election ill 1908. There was at .this time a considerable amount of unrest in municipal matters. Fair criticism, so long as malico was not shown, was permitted upon public men, and was .1 duty on tho part of a journalist. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs in the lushest pcnlo on tho ground that tho_ articles did not cast a reflection upon plaintiff.