ALLEGED LIBEL.

Evening Star, Issue 14490, 15 February 1911, Page 4

ALLEGED LIBEL.

MASSEY v. THE 'N.Z. TIMES.' LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION TESTIFIES. ;"''•'riXlAL TO THE STAR.] .. WELLINGTON, February 15. The hearing of tho libel case against tho 'Now Zealand Times' was resumed this morning, when W. A. Bowring, of Gisborne, artist and cartoonist, eaid that ho had contributed to a number of illustrated papers, including London ' Punch.' Ho considered that this cartoon—tho subject of the present action —-was -unmistakably intended for Mr Massey, and greatly resembled this cartoonist's other depictions of the Opposition Leader. He took this cartoon to mean that. Mr Massey had distributed tho articles depicted in the waggon. He did not pay any attention io the printing at the bottom of the cartoon.

To Mr Solomon : Tt was quite probable that the words "Wo aro the party" referred to tho Opposition party. Mr Massey, in giving evidence, said that he had been a member of Parliament for nearly seventeen years. He had been tho subject of inruuncrablo-oartGons, but he had never previously brought a similar action. His idea of * this cartoon was that the cartoonist made and intended to'depicthim as tho leader of tho Opposition in the act of hawking goods in the cart round the country. Ho had no doubt himself that the figure in tho cartoon was intended to represent witness. To a certain extent the party whom he led were also libelled by this'cartoon. He had never had anything to do, cither directly or indirectly, with tho publication or distribution of what was known as the Black pamphlet, and ho would take this opportunity of reiterating the avowal he had made in the House to retire from public life if it could bo proved that he had anything to do with the pamphlet in question. Witness had mostly the initiative, and general direction of the action of the official Opposition party. [At this stage, and in order to save unnecessary questions. Mr Solomon took occasion to remark that the defendants never believed, and never suggested, that Mr Massey had anything to do with tho Black pamphlet.] Witness considered that he had been completely exonerated in the Houso from the imputation that he had he.cn connected with the Black pamphlet. He also considered that this cartoon wasacold-blooded and deliberate libel upon him (witness), inasmuch as it was meant to convey the imputation that witness was a liar and had hawked round such- goods to damage tho Government and to benefit tho Opposition. Ho thought libel bv cartoon was a thousand times wowc. than libel by letter in the Press, inasmuch as only a few of the subscribers to the papers read a leading article, whereas all saw a cartoon. Cross-examined by Mr Solomon, witness said that he saw tlie cartoon on December 3. and went- straight away to his legal adviser and consulted him about it. Mr Solomon : You did not Joso any lime?

Mr Massey: 1 don't usually waste time. I had been Void of this cartoon by scores the same day as it was published. 1 am not after damages so much as to clear my character. When the claim was first issued 1 did not notice that the imputation of being a bar had been omitted. '.Mr Bell hero interjected that- "hitch your waggon to a lie" was mentioned in the original claim. 'Hie original writ was not confined to the libel alleged to have been offered in connection with the Black pamphlet. Witness considered that the damages claimed were not half enough to cover the. libel offered. He also considered that it was a serious matter to say of a politician that he was a liar, even politically. Ho did not believe it was a fact that Mr T. K. Taylor, from a public platform, had characterised witness as a liar regarding a swoin statement made by witness. Even if so, time lull been no claim for libel made by the witness in respect thereto, but there was plenty of time, yet. Witness was quite capable of dealing with Mr Taylor. Begarding the lline charges, witness defined " Tainmanyism " as meaning corruption in his speech re those charges. Witness was not, referring to individual members of Parliament, but to the Government sis a whole. He believed even- member of the Government was honest' in his private life. Witness had no doubt that this cartoon was inspired by a member of tho Government. Mr Solonrm: How you politicians du trust one another I Witness, continuing, said that his recent remarks re a '" Government of humbug" referred to the Government politically, and not pcrißually. When he attacked the Government lie never attacked them privately, and he never hit below the belt. The suggestion had been made in tlie House that the Opposition party had been implicated in the publication of the Black pamphlet, but no member hud attaelced witness personally in connection therewith. But, as witness mainly controlled the party's funds, and as H_ic free distribution of-this pamphlet bad bcoii attributed to -the Opposition, witness considered it was a reflection on himself in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition. When Sir Joseph Ward said in the House that ho did not connect witness with the pamphlet he. believed him, but he did not believe Mr T. E. Taylor when the latter denied in the House that he had blamed the Opposition for tho pamphlet. Witness's sympathy for Sir Joseph Ward was first started when Mr Solomon had him on the rack at Dunediu for several days some vears ago. —(Laughter.) Mr 'Solomon: 1 have, been waiting for that for twenty-four hours, and now that vou have got' it off your chest we will proceed. Witness said that ho had never written a letter of sympathy to Sir Joseph Ward over the pamphlet,'as he had mentioned his sympathy in public several times. Continuing his evidence, the plaintiff said that on the 50th November the • Times' had denied an imputation against the Opposition concerning the Black pamphlet, yet the cartoon appeared on the orcl December blaming the Opposition. Between these dates Dr Findlay lutd made a great speech in the Upper House which witness considered certainly clever, but obviously unfair, and evidently prior to the issue of December 5 some subtle, influence was brought to bear on the 'Times,' causing the evident withdrawal of the denial of tho imputation by its issue of the cartoon. He admitted Dr Findlay's charge that the time of the House was wasted, but denied that it was wasted by mudslinging. He considered the, thanks of the country were due to Mr Hine for his ret ion. " Politicians took bard knocks indeed. At Tauinarumii, in a speech last year, witness charged the Government with Tammanyism. ~H<> was then speaking of tho Government's rise of public moneys for advertising, inasmuch as the Government advertising was not given to papers which adversely criticised them. The remarks also hor'c on tho appointment of men to the Legislative Council whoso only claim to such appointment was their putting capital into Government papers; also to expenditure of funds in electorates just prior to elections.

This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr Solomon intimated that he would call no evidence. Mr Bell, in his address, said that no one could say Mr Massey had not been injured bv the cartoon. He commented on tho defence, saying that this showed that not a -single respectable, honorable man dared come into Court and say ho did not' think tho cartoon depicted Mr Massov. Ho characterised the defence as absurd. In their original defenco the defendants had said the figure in the cartoon was not intended to represent and did not resemble the x'laintiff, but a number of honest, reputable citizens had come forward and said tho cartoon undoubtedly depicted Mr Massey hitching his cart to a lot of despicable lies. If tho defendants iiad unintentionally used a figure resembling Mr Massey, 'the matter would have been different, but the cartoon was purposely and'deliberately intended to depict i Mr iMassey hitching a waggon to a lie. He (counsel) -was under a disadvantage

through being unable, except from the style of cross-examination, to know tho lino of defence, and ho asked the jury to remember tho advantago opposing counsel thus Had over him. Counsel admitted that the Opposition party as a whole had been attacked, but they had been attacked with Mr Massey at their head. As to hitching -a waggon to a lie, if tho paper had said A, B, and-C were all engaged in swindling, surely that was also an imputation against each individual as well as collectively. Regarding tho Black pamphlet, all the Opposition could do was to disclaim and denounce it, and this they liad done on every available opportunity. Counsel detailed tho events in the Lower House up to December 2, when the-matter of tho Black pamphlet was referred to in tho Upper House, and Dr lrindlay proposed his "extraordinary change in tho law of libel." After Dr' Findlay's speech the 'Times' found itself in an awkward position. On tho 50th November it had denied that the imputation was against tho Opposition; then comes Dr Findlay's speech impugning the Opposition. The 'Times' could not in its leading columns turn right round again, so its vol to face was engineered by this cartoon, which again laid tho bla'mo on the Opposition, and therefore on Mr Massey. Counsel said that in other cases of a semi-political nature, notably the Bryco case, far more substantial damages had been given than wcro claimed in this case. Tho damages' now claimed were not by any means exceptional. The only way 'the jury could express'their contempt for the method of attack adopted in this case was to award substantial damages, not only thus showing their realisation of tho damage that Mr Massey had suffered, but also giving a lesson to other papers. THE DEFENCE. Mr Solomon, for tho defendants, said it was important that they should see exactly what the plaintiff claimed damages for.. Counsel had said that tho criticism was of the Opposition, and therefore the criticism was of Mr Massey in his position of Leader of the Opposition. Tho 'jury's diriy was to find for tho defendants if Mr'Massey was simply, maligned as head of tho Opposition. " Had Mr Massey claimed on that account, and proved his case, it would have been a different matter. Mr Solomon then dwelt on what ho called the volte face ol counsel for the plaintiff, who yesterday said tho defamation was not o'f the Opposition party, but of Mr Massey personally, while ho now said that tho defamation was of the party, and thus incidentally of Mr Massey. What the jury had to'lind was whether Mr Massey was accused personally of connection with tho Black pamphlet. On tho other hand, the 'Times' had always said and firmly believed Mr Massey to be an honest man." The 'Times' was one of the foremost papers of the Dominion, and was a credit to Wellington, and it. had no cause to attack an honest man like Mr Massey. This was not a political action, but a private one. Even Mr Massey himself and his lieutenant (Mr W. Eraser) when m the box could not say that this was an attack on Mt Massey personally, but was against tho Opposition. The cartoon wr.s meant perhaps to mean that .Mr Massey was politically a liar, and from what they had heard that should bo regarded as a compliment. He related the incident _of a man being awarded the prize in a lying competition for saying there once was an honest lawyer. Counsel contended that nowadays such a competition would result in the "honest lawyer" yarn and "trnt'tful politician" yarn running a dead heat; the rest nowhere. Xo paper had ever accused Mr Massey of connection with the Black pamphlet,'and such accusation only existed in Mr Messoy'smiitd. The defendants contended that the cartoon was intended to represent the proceedings of t!ie House for the two or three preceding dap. In the Lower House it was stated that thousands of Opposition supporters had perused tho pamphlet, and not one person in the Houso had even hinted that the pamphlet was distributed by Mr Massey. Had Mr Bell been able to point to one direct Recusation in the House against the Opposition, he would liavo introduced the member's name into the hearing. Regarding his not calling evidence, counsel said ho" could not have got witnesses to say anything different to what Mr Eraser had said—-viz., that it was a charge against the Opposition, and thus infercntiallv against. Mr Massey, as the Leader of the party. Defendants did not deny Mr Bell's contention that the cartoon referred to Mr Massey, hut contended that it referred to Mr Massey ;us Leader of the party, and not in any way to Mr Massey personally. Counsel' dealt particularly with the manner in which the Opposition wasted the time of the Houso with groundless accusations and recriminations, thus justifying Dr Findlay's speech in the Upper House, which w.is so admirably illustrated by the cartoon. The '"New' Zealand Times' existed before either Sir Joseph Ward or Mr Masccr entered politics, and would doubtless survive them both. Would such a highly reputable paper one day say that Mr Massey was an honest man. and four davs later'assert that he was a liar? Such a change of front would be most, improbable, and it was absurd to so suggest. Mr Massey had admitted that he had made strong attacks on the Covernment, but said that he did not attack them personally. Surely, then, what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gamier. Mr "Massey should take it that the cartoon criticised his parly and not himself, and look at his opponents' attacks in the same light as ho regarded those made by himself. People wiio lived in glass houses should not throw stones, and Mr .Massey should expect tho same treatment as he himself meted out-. Counsel concluded by expressing the opinion that but for the proximity of the Ccneral Election the action would not have been brought. Sir Joseph Ward had received numberless messages of sympathy, and Mr Massey wanted similar treatment, and was now saying: "1 ha.vo been scandalised; 1 want sympathy."

HIS HONOR SUMS UP. Mr Justice Chapman said there were no actual disputed facts, but there were disputed interpretations. On behalf of the, plaintiff it was asserted that the cartoon libelled Mr Massey, while the. defendants am-nvored that theie was not a proper interpretation. His Honor referred to an English case where a plaintiff had secured biibstanlial damages against a comic newspaper for puhlislung articles reflecting on tho moral character of a fictitious Artemus Jones, the defendants being unaware that such an individual existed in real life. Mr Massey alleged that tho libel was in tho suggestion that, he was connected with tho free distribution of a (scurrilous pamphlet reflecting on Sir Joseph Ward. The figure, which the. plaintiff t;aid was himself, wug seen hitching a donkey labelled "Ananias" co a cart on which appeared "We are the party," and tho pamphlets were marked ••free." The jury were as good judges as

anyone whether this conveyed a libellous imputation. His Honor's recollection of Ananias was that he was an unbusinesslike business man, who transacted a deal by moans of a sordid lie, and that ''Ananias" was hitched to his wife, but this Ananias appeared hitched to a cart. If the actual imputation that Mr Massey willingly co-operated in the distribution-of the pamphlets was proved (o have been eon\eyed by the cartoon, then it was a serious imputation to make against a politician. The defendants' contention was that i,ho cartoon illustrated Dr Findlay's speech deploring mud-slinging as a regrettable feature, of to-day's politics, but that if, never was. intended to impute anything disgraceful to M.r Massey personally. If the jury hud to consider the question of cfamages they would entertain tho question of whether the imputation of despicable conduct was made intentionally. Tho questions for the jury were.:

(1) Whether Mr Massey is described in the cartoon;, (2) Whether tho cartoon imputes to him that lie has, despite his disclaimer, connected himself with the distribution of a scurrilous pampldet; and • (3) If the plaintiff lias made oat his case, what damages is he entitled to?

Tho jury wero considering their-verdict at 3.30 p.m.