THE RAILWAY LIBEL SUIT

Evening Post, Volume XLVII, Issue 14, 17 January 1894, Page 4

THE RAILWAY LIBEL SUIT

In regard to the decision of tho jury in the groat Speight - Syme libel suit, awarding damages to Mr. Speight upon one of tho cloven counts submitted, the correspondent of the Chnstchnreli Press says that tbe division in the jury-room was five enthusiastic Speight mon, tbretr enthusiastic Age men, and tour who went ono way on one count and ono way on another. The count upon which tho jury agreed was that known as the stores libel. The Age had declared that je250,000 worth of stores and material lay in the Newport shops that should not bo there at all, and that piles of canvas, carpet, shootings, Ac, lay there that were ont of date, and were of no uso. lac Ago, in its defence, did not seek to justify this libel, bringing no evidence in favour of it; whilo for Mr. Speight, the railway storekooper swore the total stock was only about JBI2OO worth, and thoro was not *50 worta that was ont of date or useless. Tho Judge, therefore, told the jury plainly that the Age had entirely failed to prove this statement upon which they accused Mr. Speight oi ruinous incompotency. " Nevertheless, three of tho jury persisted in desiring to find a verdict for the Ago, oven on this count, and ono of tho nine who favoured Mr. Speight on it would only give him J6IOO damages. Another important count was that in regard to the increase of the working cost. Tho Age assorted that when Mr. Speight look charge of -the railways the average annual wage was i! 102, and that under his regime it had increased to £143 per head. The Jndgo pointed out to the jtity that it this assertion were true it would bear out all that had been said of Mr. Speight's extravagant management, but ho also pointed out that the Age had completely failed to sustain the statement. They had arrived at tho figures by a wrong method of computation from tho railway estimates. They had divided the total estimate for all railway expenses by tho total number of employes at the respective periods, bat tho Judge pointed out that under this method the more employe's Mr. Speight had at work tho losb would the average wages be brought out. A man with one servant whoso annual honsehold expenses wore .£SOO would thus bo paying an annual wage of i; 500, while if he lad two it would be only £150, and so on. Upon this fallacious method of reckoning the Ago had declared Mr. Speight to have built up a rotten system of management which it was little 6hort of miraoulous the public had so long been dolnded by, and it was impossible that ho could remain in his position. Yet tho jury could not agree that in this matter tho Ago had wounded Mr. Speight in repntation. The principal libel was in regard to political influenco. The Age asserted that billets had beon conforred, freights reduced, BtatioDjsitos fixed, and so forth, at the command of mombors of Parliament. The cntiro evidence only established three cases of political influence in the eight years of Mr. Speight's reign. Mr. Fox had' received a promise that a plumber should get employment, Mr. C. Jones bad succeeded in getting a claimant's long over-due account paid, and Mr. Mason had been promised that when local railway requirements had been decided upon the member for the district should bo told first, so that he could convey the news to his constituents. It did not appear, however, that this was carried ont in any instance. As regards putting on extra trains, reduoing freights, or any important matters of that kind, there was absolutely no ovidenoe of political influence. There were sevoral libels, of course, that were matters of opinion, such as whether lines had been extravagantly constructed, expensive stations built, or too much train mileago run ; but on all these matters Mr. Speight was able to bring engineer aud export cvirlonoe strongly in his favour-as against that of tho Age reporters and outside engineors, whose oxperionco in somo instances was ludicrously scant. The great mass of the publio feel that Mr. Speight has been most unfairly treated by the jnry. The trend of publio feeling was shown by the fact that when from two of tho theatre stages it was announced that tho jnry had found for J57000 in Mr. Speight's favour, tho announcement was received with thunders of applause. Mr. Speight is determined to fight the action to the end, and has already given -notice that ho will proceed to a now trial on the ten counts on which the jury disagreed. The Age presents an estimate of the total costs in tbe case. The defendant's costs will bo within a trifle of £21,000, of which the largest items are counsel's fees £6000, solicitors' expenses £7000, jury feos £2268, official shorthand writers' costs £360, special trains and incidental expenses for jury £770, English Commission £430, witnesses' fees £500.