The Libel Action.

Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 18, 22 January 1889, Page 4

The Libel Action.

LAENACH v. THK PttOPKIKTORS OF THK N.Z HERALD. DAMAGES, £M'J. Tho oaso in which tho Hon. W. J. M. Larnaoh sued Messrs. Wilsons and Horton. proprietors of tho New Zealand Horald, fo,. .£3OOO for alleged libels in respect to tlio drawing of his Parliamentary honorarium, wai concludod in the Sapromo Court, before Mr. Justice Kichmond and a special jury, y< itorday afternoon. The evidence appeared in our last issue. Mr. Gully, in addressing the jury for tho dofence, said that there was a double issue before them. Firstly, was tho writer of the first article acting in a lona Me manner towardß Mr. Larnaoh? and secondly, that being so, was he reasonably justified by tho material upon which the artiole was written ? The evidence bad shown that the article was not written by a person having any ill-feeling towards the plaintiff, and he asked the jury to pnt themßelveß in tho position of the writer, and ask what they would have done with such material before them. He felt assured that if they had been in the writer's position they would have acted exaotly as the writer had dono. Ho oontonded that it was impossiblo to oxpoot an editor to make tho fullest investigation as to tho authenticity of tho material before he wrote his articles. If that wero insisted upon overy newspaper office would have to keep a private dotective staff to investigate the bonafiiea of material supplied to it. He contended that all that an editor was roquired to do was to satisfy himself that the material was substantially correct, and ho submitted that in tho present case tho writers had reason to believe that the telegrams were correct, and were therefore justified in writing as they did. He pointed out that tho proprietors of the paper had expressed their willingness to tender a full and ample apology, and said he thought that Mr. Lirnaoh ought to have accepted the offer, and considered he had roceived proper reparation for tho stateraonti complained of. Sir B. Stout, addressing the jury, slid that there was nothing in tho correspondent's telegram to justify the statements in the leading articles. "What the plaintiff said was that the basis of the telegram was manufactured in tho newspaper offices. The telegrams showed that Mr. Larnaoh did not mean to leave tho colony, that he did not apply for his honorarium, and that there was illness in his family. Notwithstanding all this the leader writer ohose to write statements to the contrary. He nevor know that the newspaper press had sunk so low as to allow a leaderwriter to accopt as facts what woro know n to bo lies. His learned friend had tried to convince the jury that worso Btatomenti than theso complainod of wore frequently to bo heard in the House, but his (Sir Robert Stout's) experience was that if ono mombor used snob language to another, ho would Tory soon bo in ohargo of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and would probably bo fed on bread and water for a short time. An honourable thing for the defendants to have done was to havo admittc d thoy woro wrong, made on ample apology, and paid a small sum into Court, but, instead of doing that, they oame into Court and argued that they wore right. Ho did not think that the jury, putting themsolvoß into the position of tho leador-writor, would havo mado an attack upon a man who bad done them no hum and against whoso character they know nothing. If they put thomselyes in that position, ho had no fear as to their verdict. . His Honour, in summing up, said that the private characters of publio men were entitled to as muoh protection as the oharacters of private citizens. Nothing could be more injurious than tho defamation of public men, beoause it was highly desirable that there should be the fullest confidence in them. If knaves wero protected honest men in publio positions must expect now and then to suffer. His Honour pointed oat that there was a distinction between allegation of matter of fact and comment on a matter of fact. Statement was not common t. Writers must ascertain that the material upon which their artiohs are based are correot, and speeohes made by members of the Legislature wero not to be tiken as correot unless writers knew them to be true. There were thrco misapprehensions on the part of the writer of the first article. Firstly, that tho farewell dinner given by Mr. Larnaoh meant that ho was leaving for Melbourne immediately ; secondly, that Miss Larnaoh waa not ill ; and thirdly, that the application for leavo was made with the sole oojeot of obtaining honorarium. People m Auckland and other paits of the colony wero not so well informed about the movements of the legislators as resident* of Wellington, and it was easy to see how the leaderwriter had fallen into the mistake of floppoaing Mr. Larnach was leaving the colony there and then. That Miss Larnach was ill at the time was quite true. Sir B. Stout had shown that the application for leave of absenoe had necessarily b' m made to avoid Mr. Larnaoh being guilty of contempt of the House. Ou investigation it did not appear that Mr. Larnaoh had any intention as to pecuniary matters. His Honour pointed out that the artiolcs contained some very objectionable passages, and wero written upon the radical misapprehension he had referred to. What he had said so far might seem to impress the jury as heavily against the defence, but there were, no doubt, in this case matters to be taken into oonsideration, at all events Xi regarded the amount of damages, which was a question rather for the jury than for him. His Honour pointed out that there was no evidence to show that there was any il\ feeling or Bpite e^ainst Mr. lirnaoh, but tbat there was evidence showing that there had been misapprehension on the part of those gentlemen. There was little doubt that they were bona fide under the *mpresBion tbat whit they wroto was true. After the publication of the artiolcs the defendants published what must be regarded as a recantation of all that had appeared about Mr. Larnaoh, and they had ako sent an apology by telc;^aph to Mr. Larnaoh, who, however, refuted to be appeased. In concluding his Honour said he hoped that thoio who wrote for the publio press would learn the distinction between statement of fact and comment upon foot, beoause if they did not they would bo perpetually hearing aotions of this kind. The jury retired a few minutes after 4 p.m. They returned at 5 o'olook and asked what Amount would carry costs. His Honour said that any amount would carry costs. The jury then roturned a verdict for plaintiff for .£500— .£250 on eioh count. Coata were allowed on the middlo acalo, and two counsel were certified for.