Libel Actions.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7543, 16 May 1903, Page 8

Libel Actions.

— o(Per Press Association ) AUCKLAND, This Day In the libel case this morning Judge Gcmolly, referring to Richardson s method of conducting hi* case, said he was surprised at his own endurance. Richardson said that if iw s Honour would let him have a iai- hei■nig, there would not be a quieter man in the colony. Judge Conolly : That is an abominable assertion and a false one Detective MaciTalion deposed that as tar as his observation went the Alexandra Hotel was as well coro tic ted as other hotels in the viciXAPIER, This Day Suinming up, the Chief Justice,"in the libel case. Eagleton v. Daily lelegraph, was particularly convincing. He said a newspaper did not mai:e an untrue statement if the utcis were true. It was only whethere was something- untrue said aijout a man that it constituted linel. it must be a direct choice of misconduct, not simply that there were reasons why he was not fit to take part in m.biic life. The jury iuuku ta^e il as true then that Eacoton had ! Jvo!i bating, and if tho law had been properly carried c.v m Aapier—lns Honour did not blame the police, for perhnns th-v had not been able to obtain the necessary information—tlien plaintiff ought to be in g aolj . VH \ ' I>o was liable to three'months' inipnsonmerit for each oiience. If so he was a man who ought to be in ffaol. According to the StatuteLaw no was not fit to take a prominent part in public affairs and were they to say that a newspaper ought to be punished for expressing that opinion ? I t was not for h^s Honour to express an opinion upon restrictions placed upon gamblinby Government, but they could not say there was no moral side to this question when they knew the history of what gambling had done. They kn_-w hundreds of youths who were ruined by thus "burning-. tho> candle." They saw them often coming up for sentence. He put it to the jury as fathers would they like to see their sons going into a '•tote" shop ? And if there was nothing morally wrong- about it winshould not their daughters and their sons go in there ? And did they mean to say that a man who offended against the law as plaintiff had done, who ought to have been in gaol, was a man fit to take a prominent part in local affairs in Napier.