AUSTRALIAN NEWS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11540, 29 March 1898, Page 6

AUSTRALIAN NEWS.

[From Our Correspondent.] (By Telegraph from the Bluff.) MELBOURNE, March 23. A LIBEL CASE. A libel action, based on a paragraph, by "Oriel” in the Argus, came before the Victorian full court on Monday. The plaintiff, P. K. M’Caughan, formerly a member of the New Zealand Parliament, claims .£SOOO damages. Plaintiff was one of the guests of the Governor at a fancy dress ball at Government House, and the defendants published some verses relating to his appearance as La Fayette. Plaintiff contended that these versos were defamatory, but in paragraph 3 of the defence the defendants pleaded that the words complained of were published merely by way of a joke, and were not intended, and were not read or taken by anyone as a reflection upon the plaintiff. In paragraph 4 it was. pleaded that, the words complained of were published howl "fide and without malice as: and for fair comment upon matter of 'public interest. Plaintiff applied to Justice A’Becket on Feb. 23, to have both these paragraphs struck out, as disclosing no reasonable answer to the action, and he also asked that certain particulars given under paragraph 4 should be struck out or amended, on the ground that they tended to prejudice or embarrass a fair trial. The learned Judge, however, simply directed that “injuriously” should be inserted after the word

“ reflecting ” in paragraph 3, and that the wording of paragraph 4 should be transposed so as to read that the words complained of were “ fair comment upon a matter of public interest, and were published bonOj fide and without malice.” This the defendant consented to, and the application was dismissed. Against j this dismissal the plaintiff appealed. Mr Mitchell urged that counsel for the plaintiff had been unable to suggest j that the words complained of contained | any innuendo. Mr Justice Williams said i that he was struck by a line in, which ; reference was made to the plaintiff as “ a' j mountain of moving brawn.” Mr Mitchell: j Brawn is merely muscle. The Chief I Jristice: They might just as well have j referred to him as “• A mountain of moving ! sausage meat.” (Laughter.) Mr Mitchell submitted that the defence that the words | were only published by way of a joke was j one that was reasonably arguable and j should not be struck out. They might be ■ asked to prove it from the plaintiff’s own | witnesses. For instance, the to i Mr M’Caughau as “ about eight feet high ■ in his boots,” and to his back being “an I acre of broadcloth blue,” could ' not be

j taken seriously. Before being struck out j the defence must be shown to be frivolous | and vexatious. The Chief Justice, in ■ giving judgment said that the action was ' for libel in the publication of what, on its face, was a humorous rhyme which would be very likely to entertain, but which, nevertheless, might give very plain . offence to the plaintiff or his friends ' and members of his family, or those j more directly in sympathy with him. i Therefore, on its face, it would be impos- ■ sible to say that it was not susceptible of i being libel. Plaintiff’s appeal was al- | lowed.

THE TICK PES(T. Strong confirmation of the value of inoculation against tide fever is reported from the M’Kay District. Inspector Hancock recently inoculated a number of cattle on St Albans Station, which is a clean run. A month niter inoculation the cattle were placed with a number of uninoculated cattle in badly infected country, remaining five weeks. The result was that many of the uninoculated animals died, while the inoculated cattlS were "in. perfect health and condition after twenty-one days. • COLLUSION IN A PIVOECE -SUIT. In a divorce suit in which Arthur Newland petitioned for divorce from Theresa Newland, on the ground ‘of adultery with John McCarthy, and obtained a decree nisi and .£3O damages, the Crown solicitor of New South Wales intervened, on the grounds of , collusion between the petitionerand_ ' respondent. Evidence was ijfiven that the petitioner and respondent ’ were frequently together since May last, during and immediately prior to and after the trial, anil M’Carthy, the co-re-spondent, stated that,he burst open a bedroom door in a certain house in consequence of something he had heard, and found Newland and his divorced wife there. This evidence was corroborated by other witnesses. His Honor said he believed that there had been collusion between husband and wife for the purpose of obtaining a divorce contrary to justice. The decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage was therefore rescinded, also that portion directing damages and costs against the co-respondent. The petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of intervention.