MR. MASSEY'S SUIT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1178, 13 July 1911, Page 2

MR. MASSEY'S SUIT.

WHAT DID THE CARTOON MEAN? AND THE JURY? Tho appeal of William Ferguson ir.ni> soy, in the case of Massey v. "New Ze.v land Times," was further heard yesterday in the Court of Appeal, with his Honour Kir Joshua Williams presiding, and !lr. Juslico Henniston, Mr. Justice Edwards] and Mr. Justice Sim, with him on th« Bench. Mr. 11. D, Bell, IC.C., with liim Mr. A. Gray, appeared for the appellant; Mr. S. Solomon, K.C., with him Mr. A. W. Bliiir, for tho respondent. W. F. Massey, M.P., originally claimed .£2OOO from tho defendant company in respect of an alleged libellous cartoon, which was said to mean that plaintiff was responsible for the free distribution of an improper and scurrilous pamphlet, reflecting upon the Prime Minister, or had taken part in the free distribution thereof, and that the plaintiff was a liar. Plaintiff lost tho case, and applied for a re-trial. This was refused by tho Chief Justice (Sir Roliert Stout) and Mr, JiiStico Chapman, and the appeal was against their judgment. . . Mr. Bell, who bad begun bis argument on Tuesday afternoon, continued it during tho greator part of yesterday's sitting. Ho mado particular objection to the following passage in Mr. Justice Chapman's summing up at the trial: "If it is merely an ordinary political cartoon, as suggested by Mr. Solomon, not pointing in any way as suggested, it ought not to l>e treated us a libel, always bearing in mind that tho particular way the plaintiff complains it hits him is that it connects liiin with the distribution of the pamphlet in such a way as to render it open to lx> said that lie has been charged witli & mean and despicable action." This passage, Mr. Bell contended, was a misdirection, his Honour having, by it, given tho jury to understand that "tliey might find that a man might bo charged with, the distribution of the pamphlet, and might also find that this was not a mean and despicable act. His Honour also omitted to say that if there was a libel on a party or a class, and an individual was depicted as a member of that class or party, that individual was entitled to a verdict. Counsel further objected to a direction, which, he said, left th« jury to infer tlint there was not the same necessity for adhering to the truth in a "political skit" as in an ordinary cartoon, i When onco the jury had found that tho figure in tho picture represented Mr. Massey, that the paper did impute to him participation in the act of distributing the pamphlets, and solo control of tho hitching of a wagon to a lie, was it possible for them to say that tho cartoon was not a libel? Tho verdict ought not to havo been accepted as a verdict for the defendant. When tho jury said, "This is a political cartoon and is not libellous," they probably meant "and therefore is not libellous." If so, the jury had misinterpreted the law. They ought to have been told that, having found that the figure, represented Mr. Massey, it wr.s not open to them to find that tho cartoon was not a libel on Mr. Massey.

Mr. Gray, in a short address, con fined himself to submitting that improper evidence had been admitted, in the cvossexnmination of some of" tbo ' witnesses called for the prosecution.. Mr. Solomon contended that tlio plaintilt could not rocovcr, unless lie proved that he had been accused by tlio cartoon of having been responsible for the distribution of tlio pamphlet, but ho had uot proved that, und the cartoon meant, counsel submitted, the same as the leadill? article of December 1. Reviewing the summing-up, counsel laid stress u]>on the question whether the cartoon imputed to Mr. Massey responsibility for ;the distribution of tho pamphlet. Mr. Justice Denniston: That should have been put to tho jury as an issue. Mr. Solomon: It was put to them. Mr. Justice Denniston: Then it was not discussed.

Mr. Solomon submitted that _ it was in effect answered. He quoted New Zealand cases on ' imperfect verdicts, and contended that the jury exactly understood what His Honour put to them, and gavo a verdict accordingly. If this Court, having before it the Judge's summingup; and the way the case was presented by counsel on both sides, could see with reasonable plainness what the jury meant, the verdict would stand. That was the important point. There was no justification for including the Word "therefore" in the verdict. 'No such word was necessary. The jury were told thai if they found that the cartoon meant that Mr. Massey was responsible, either singly or in c'o-opcration with other people, for the distribution of the pamphlet, then tho cartoon )vas a libel on him, and he was entitled to damage? which it was their duty to assess, but if his (Sir. Solomon's) view—that tho cartoon was a mere political satt, and had no reference to the pamphlets—seemed to them correct, then tho defendant was entitled to a verdict. Now, the jury <aid that the cartoon was a political

skit, and that it vras not libellous. Clearly they had concluded that the cartoon did not impute to Mr. Mnfscy the distribution of tho pamphlet (after what had been put to thorn), they expressed that conclusion by saving that it was not libellous. Tho hearing will be resumed at 10.30 this morning.