CRIMINAL LIBEL

Evening Star, Issue 11891, 20 May 1903, Page 7

CRIMINAL LIBEL

In the trial at Christcburch of Wilfred Badger for criminal libel against Henry Slater, solicitor, Mr Jellicoe, in concluding his address for the defence, said that judges had been at one time successful advocates, and he would ask jurors to remember that a leopard could not change his spots. Addressing the jury, Mr Justice Williams said he had been a Judge for twenty-eight years, and had not been a successful advocate before. He stated that the case seemed to have arisen from an unfortunate misconception on the part of Badger; yet a lot of rubbish had been spoken about proceedings on forged warrant. There was absolutely no evidence that Slater had been guilty of professional misconduct. It really seemed unfortunate that Badger had taken such a wrong-headed view of the matter from the start, and that he had made no apology or explanation. Mr Jellicoe asked His Honor to reserve for the Court of Appeal that part of his direction to the jury which involved law—namely, that there was no justification on the grounds of privilege or on the grounds that Slater was: a public man, and that there was no evidence in support of the plea of justification. His Honor said he would reserve the points. The jury returned a verdict of "Guilty" on the first count of defamatory libel in the letter, and "Not guilty" on the other two counts alleging certain meanings in printed extracts. Sentence was deferred until the points reserved had been decided. Defendant was admitted to bail in one surety of £IOO to, surrender himself at the first sitting of the Court in Christcburch for criminal business after decision by the Court of Appeal" on the questions reserved, or at such .other time as the Court of Appeal might order.

The trial of William Richardson on a charge of libel was continued at the Supreme Court, Auckland, yesterday. After calling two additional witnesses, accused closed his case. Mr Tole then called rebutting evidence, contradicting various statements made by witnesses for the defence as to the general conduct by the prosecutor of his hotel. This evidence was not concluded when the Court rose for the day.