THE POLITICAL LIBEL CASE.

Evening Post, Volume XLI, Issue 112, 13 May 1891, Page 2

THE POLITICAL LIBEL CASE.

JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. Mr. Justice Williams delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeal this morning in the case of Whitaker v. Hutohison, argued about a fortnight ago. This, it will be remembered, was an appeal from tho decision of the Chief Justioe refusing to Btrike out a paragraph in Mr. Hutohison's statement of defenoe, charging fair Harry Atkinson and Mr. Mitohelaon with being indebted to the Bank of New Zealand, and with having on that account confederated and collnaively acted with Sir Frederiok Whitaker in assisting the Bank in its financial difficulties, to tho prejudice of the taxpayers of the colony. In giving judgmont, his Honour said the real question was whether evidence that Sir Harry Atkinson and Mr. Mitohelson were heavily indebted to the Bank was admissible in support of a justification of the alleged libel by the defendant on tho ground of truth. The plaintiff was Attorney- General in tho lato Government. Sir Harry Atkinson was Colonial Treasurer, and was specially referred to in the alleged libels as the person with whom the plaintiff and other members of tho Ministry were confederates. Mr. Mitcbelson was Minister for Publio Works, and it was the Public Works Fund that the alleged libel moro particularly referred to. Those two gentlemen, therefore, might be presumed to have taken a leading part in the transaction. One of tho facts, then, which it lay upon the defendant to prove was that what waß done by the Government was done nnder tbe influence and at the instigation of the plaintiff To establish this it must ba relevant to show the actual position of the other members of the Ministry in relation to the plaintiff either in his capacity of Chairman of the Board's Direotorii or as AttorneyGeneral. Tho charge against the plaintiff wa3 practically that at his instigation tho members of tho Government colleotively did a wrong. In order to prove that it was done at hia instigation, it seemed to the Court to be relevant to show that individual membors of the Government were at the mercy of the Bank of whioh he was Chairman of Directors. It might be unfortunate that tho private affaira_ of persons who were not parties to the suit, and who could not be represented at tho trial, should become the snbjoot of enquiry. This, however, might frequently happen, as, for instance, in divoroo suits. The question was really one of the admissibility of evidence. I'beir Honours dismissed tho appeal, with costs on the lowest soale.