POLITICAL LIBELS.
[Fkoxi Oun Special Correspondent.] LONDON, March 12. THE CHANCELLOR’S HONOR VINDI GATED. The stories so persistently circulated t< the effect that Mr Lloyd-George,, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was co-respondent in .a, divorce case, and on the brink of social and political disaster in consequence, received what should be their quietus in the law courts to-day. An action which Mr Lloyd-George had brought against the ‘People,’ a Sunday newspaper, in respect to what the ‘ People’s ’ own counsel, Sir Edward Carson, described as “scandalous and unfounded libels,” resulted in a complete apology on the, part of the defendants. In addition, it was announced that £I,OOO was to be paid to Mr Lloyd-George, who will hand it over to a charity. The libellous statements shortly were That Mr Lloyd-George was about to figure as a co-respondent in a divorce . suit. That it had been ascertained that there was no doubt as to his guilt. That he had committed misconduct with a married lady, whose husband had instituted divorce proceedings in the Court. That- the case would be heard shortly in that court, and as a result there would be the necessary social degradation and ruin of Mr Lloyd-George.-, It was also stated, that Mr LloydGeorge’s friendpwero making efforts to prevent the heating of the case in open court, but that llse" husband was deter- ' mined to proceed with it. These state : meuts culminated in January last, when an article appeared called ‘ The Price of Peace.’ It was stated that, after all, the friends of Mr Lloyd-George had succeeded in their efforts, and that the divorce suit would now be conspicuous by its absence from the cause list of the trials of the Divorcbt Court, and that the price Mr Lloyd-George had had to pay to secure this result .was £20,000. With reference to each one of these statements Mr Lloyd-George’s counsel and the plaintiff himself declared that they were destitute of the least particle of truth. Ihe Chancellor’s pale face flushed, and he was evidentlv keenly moved, as he solemnly and emphatically denied in the witness box the charges made against him. ‘ihe paragraphs are an absolute invenn’” k® said, “every line of them.” i here was no defence. The proprietors of the People’ offered a full and regretful a P°*ogy. admitting that the statements were without foundation, and addins that tne. paragraphs had been inserted wTthout their knowledge. Ihe Judge said-*he had taken the case out of its turn 'An view of the fact that the Chancellor cf l the Exchequer was deep in the preparation of his Budget, and it would be impossible for a man to do his duty while a matter of this kind was hanging over him. He thought the public were partly to blame for the kind of paragxaphs complained of. So long as there were people who loved the dirty and disgusting details of the Divorce Court, so long would there be newspapers which pandered to their passion for something evil. He thought Mr Lloyd-George had behaved with extreme moderation. After the Judge ceased speaking Mr and Mrs Lloyd-George, both of “whom were smiling, shook hands heartily with Mr Rufus Isaacs and Sir George Lewis, then- counsel. On leaving the law courts the Chancellor of the Exchequer was warmly cheered by a large crowd of people who had assembled to watch his departure. SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S LATE AGENTGENERAL.
The ex-Agent-General for .South Austiaha, tne Hon. J. G. Jenkins, brought an action for libel this week against the ‘Australasian World,’ on account of an article winch appeared in that paper on January 20, 1908, under the heading ‘ls Mr Jenkins Retiring?’ The article said then were rumors that Mr Jenkins was to b' replaced ou the ground that his directioi of the Agent-General’s Department hac been unsatisfactory, and it went on tc comment as follows on these alleged rumors:— b In London there can be no doubt that Mr Jenkins has not characterised his retention cf the important office with that energy and enthusiasm we could have wished. Whatever the cause, the fact is well known that South Australia during recent years has lost the popularity it previously enjoyed in London circles, especially during the period when Sir John Cockburn acted as the representative in London. The case for the prosecution was that -while Mr Jenkins as a. public official was open to public comment, nevertheless that comment must be of a character allowed by law, and there was no law clearer’than this: that a newspaper could not, for the purpose of making adverse comment, absolutely invent the material upon which that comment was made. Counsel assured the jury that there was not a scintilla of evidence to justify any of the expressions and specific statements made upon which this comment was based. He suggested that - this article was not due to a careles' flourish of the writers hand, but a deliberate, malicious libel, written for a purpose. The defence pleaded “fair comment.” Evidence for the plaintiff was given by Sir Horace Tozer, Agent-General for Queensland, Sir John Cockburn, the Hon 1 T. Price, Premier of South Australia (whose evidence was taken on commission) and others, denying the existence of the rumors alleged by the defendant newspaper. After an action lasting two and a-half days the jury returned a verdict for Mi Jenkins for £25 and costs.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19090420.2.29
Bibliographic details
Evening Star, Issue 14038, 20 April 1909, Page 4
Word Count
892POLITICAL LIBELS. Evening Star, Issue 14038, 20 April 1909, Page 4
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.