ALLEGED LIBELLOUS CARTOON.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1054, 17 February 1911, Page 4

ALLEGED LIBELLOUS CARTOON.

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. : " Notice of -motion for a new trial hai . been lodged in the' Supreme Court by Mr. Massey's counsel in the case, Massey >, tho New Zealand Times Company, in connection with the publication of an alleged libellous cartoon in which a verdict wai ' given oh. Wednesday for-the defendant company. The notice is as follows:— In the Supreme Court of New Zealalidj ; Wellington district. Between William Ferguson Massev, of vMangere, near .-Auckland, sheep- 1 ' farmer, plaidtiff,' and the Nen; , . . Zealand -Tiriffes Company, Ltd.,' a company incorporated under the Companies Acts in New Zealand; . and; having its registered office in the ! city of Wellington/ defendant, .Take notice that this-honourable'.Court . will on Tuesdaiy, the 21st day of February, 1911,-at'lo.3o a.m., or so scon r thereafter as counsel: can. be' heard,- that , ; the verdict and judgment entered in this' ,; action be set aside and: a' new trial had between th<S .parties, upon tho grounds:. (1) That-.the special verdict or finding ' ■!: of the jury is .so;defective that judgment'' cannot be' given* upon it.-. (2)_ That the Jearied judge misdirected the jury in. the" following-matters:

(a) By directing them that they might- disregard • the evidence of the . witnesses' as to • the interpretation of 'such' witnesses: of the cartoon.' and words which forni the alleged libel. • ' (b). By directing them thai even;il they found-that the plaintiff was represented by the figure hitching the wagon they might'find that the car- . toon. and. words were a mere political 'skit, and therefore did not attribute . .- ' personal misconduct to thi plaintiff.' (c) By directing them-that, their-- ! . special finding, was a verdict for the ■ 'defendant companyand that ■ they upon silch special finding should give their, verdict'-for the defendant, company. -- . (3) That the 1 verdict.was.asainst-tha weight of evidence.'-,'

(4) That the finding of the jury is not a-verdict for the defendant company. (a) That this learned judge admitted improper evidence to which the plaintiff.' objected distinctly at the trial, namely, evidence' of- the memory, of witnesses of . reports of what was said by. members of - Parliament in a debate-in the House of : Representatives on the 30th, day 'of Novembor, 1910, and in a debate':n the Legislative Council on the Ist day of December, 1910.

Dated at Wellington this 16th day oi February, 1911. ~ .