What the Judge Told the Jury.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1126, 13 May 1911, Page 6

What the Judge Told the Jury.

"I now proceed, with great respect" continued !.\lr. 15ell, "to attack his Honour's summing-up, and his Honour will not .attribute to us that w« did not protest at the time." Counsel then quoted at considerable length from 3lr. Justice Chapman's summing-up, and submitted that his Honour did not tell the. jury, as ho ought to liavo told them, that if they thought tho figure represented Jlr. .Jlassey and was hitching that donkey to that cart, containing those pamphlets, they ought, to find a verdict for tho plaintiff. In this matter tho Judge,_ by the way he put it to the jury, l"ft it to them practically as his Honour's opinion that it was 'a reasonable interpretation of tho thing that, it contained no imputation against Sir. Massey. Counsel fully admitted thai)! the question whether anything was iy libel or not was purely a question for the jury. The libel was, in a sense, generic libel, but an individual was selected as tho representative of tho party. Finally, after dealing with authorities at. considerable length, Mr. Bell submitted that, it once haying -been . found that the figure in tho cartoon did represent Mr. Massoy, tho position was exactly tho same- as in the case of a photograph with the words written across it: "This man is r, liar." The jury had never actually found for tho defendant, save by direction from his Honour. Mr. Justice Chapman: I directed them that their finding was a verdict for the defendant. I asked you if you objected to this, and thereupon I prcservedlht findings.

Mr. Bell: We have no shadow of complaint'in tliis matter, for we recognise that your Honour was endeavouring to leavo it open to (is.

Tho Chief J.ustice: Well, what is ,it?

Mr f Bell: It is not a verdict for the defendant, certainly. The jury answercd two apparent issues, but the answer to the first one is irreconcilable with tho answer' to the second. That is our point.

An Alternative. The Chief Justice: You must contend that it is one of two things—either that it is a verdict for tho plaintiff, or that it is no verdict at all. .What do yon contend? Mr. Bell: That there was no verdict at all; that the verdict was such that no judgment should havo been entered upon it. Mr. Justice Chapman: T directed tlic jury to answer mo formally as to their findings. Mr. Bell: But it is not as if they found n verdict for the defendant and no more. They gavo answers to two issues that were irreconcilablo to each other. Mr. Justico Chapman: That really brings yon back to your main point— that this was a libel on Mr. Masscy, and that tho jury was wrong in finding otherwise. Mr. Bell: Yes; I w<;nt to establish, first, that 'it is a libel. Tho • second question then would be: Does it not represent Mr. Massoy? The Chief Justice': But they havo found that it is not a libel on anybody. Mr. Bell: Well, that is what-1 challenge. Mr. Justice Chapman: Tho jury found that it was not libellous. ,Tlio Chief Justice: That means not upon anyone. Mr.-A. Gray, second counsel for the plaintiff, also addressed the Court.