A Curious Libel Suit.

Evening Star, Issue 8769, 9 March 1892, Page 4

A Curious Libel Suit.

A libel action has been commenced against Messrs Alfred Douglas and Co., proprietors of the 'Geelong Advertiser,' by Mr William Robert Anderson, a local alderman. The alleged libels were published in connection with the candidature of the plaintiff for the mayoralty of Geelong. The first ono was as follows: —"Time was when a MannersSutton or a Normanby satisfied the ambition of the elite of colonial society. That is no longer the case, and in municipal matters we ought not to be satisfied with a class of men for mayors who are utterly unable to realise the duties which attach to so honorable and responsible a position. A man, for instance, who is sober only by accident, and who is eo amorously inclined that ho cannot enter a manufactory where women are employed without embracing the most buxom of them, is scarcely the creature that we should select to prenide over our municipal affairs. . • . We therefore utter in time

a word of warning, not to the burgesses, who unfortunately have no voice in the seleo ion, but to the town council, who will be held seriously responsible for what they do at the forthcoming mayoral election." The meaning the defendants intended to convey, according to the plaintiff, was that he was an individual so destitute of intelligence and personal dignity, and of the ordinary sense of duty and responsibility, that he was wholly untie to De appointed mayor, and would degrade and discredit the office. Plaintiff also considered the defendants meant to give out that he was a person of such habitually drunken habits that it was only by some accident which restrained him from access to intoxicating liquors that he was ever sober, and that he had so little control over his amorous propensities that on entering a place of business where women were employed he was accustomed to seize or embrace such of them as he chanced to fancy. Owing to this misconduct plaintiff could not accurately or appropriately be described as a man, but was a creature, praotioally of a lower order than mankind, and an individual wholly unworthy of being elected mayor. Owing to the nearness of this publication to the election the plaintiff had not time to disabuse the minds of the councillors with regard to these charges, and was compelled to withdraw his candidature, The defendants also published the following, which the plaintiff took to be applied to himself:—" If we tell the burgesses that their money has sometimes been voted away by a man so drunk that he could not possibly have known what he was doing, it may possibly induce them to ponder over the statements of the chairman of the Finance Commiteo of the Council."

On March 13, 1891, defendants further published the following: the Council affect a happy unconsciousness of having any black sheep in the fold, and they innocently ask us to enlighten them further on the subject. . . . We will

give them all that they ask for, with possibly something added, but in doing so we shall expect to be indemnified against any action that may be taken upon it. If the Council are then in a position to prove that we made a false allegation we will make the fullest possible amende. We think, however, that when they have taken counsel with each other they will conclude that to give the indemnity we ask for would be a risky proceeding, and that they had better seek out their black sheep and whitewash him, and for the credit of the Council generally put him upon his.good behaviour." Plaintiff considers he was referred to as the black sheep in question, He states he has been greatly injured in his credit and reputation as councillor and chairman of the Publio Works Committee of the Council, and claims L 2,000 damages.