SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 204, 29 July 1932, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

TRIAL AT AUCKLAND. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, July 28. As tlio sequel to the unemployed demonstration in the grounds ot Parliament House on September 16, George Budd and Ernest Frederick Thomson appeared at the Supremo Court to-day on a charge of publishing a deramatory libel of Police Inspector Lander. The alleged libel was contained in a pamjihlet entitled “War,” that was distributed at a meeting in Auckland in October, and it referred to Inspector Lander as a “liar and perjurer,” when ho said lie was not armed while on duty during the disturbance. After detectives had given evidence, counsel produced a photograph ta.ken during the disturbance. Both detectives said they considered that Inspector Lander, who could be seen in the photograjih, was not armed, and the man indicated by counsel was not Inspector Lander. Counsel then said it was clear a mistake had been made by accused. They had seen the photograph and had believed the man carrying a baton was Inspector Lander. After further evidence had been heard counsel for accused said the astonishing thing was that the Magistrate had even permitted the prosecution for criminal libel. Inspector Lander had his remedy through the civil action for libel. The Crown Prosecutor said the law of criminal libel had been brought in only in 1901 because it had been found necessary to restrain irresponsible and dangerous persons from libelling men in public positions. His Honour described the case as a comparatively simple one. The statements against Inspector Lander were that he was a liar, that he Perjured himself, and that lie attacked defenceless men and women. It was open to the defence to seek to prove that the statements were true, but tliGy liiitl not don© so. If tlicso words had been published it would bo absurd and impossible to suggest that they were not defamatory. The main defence was that these two men were not responsible for the publication and distribution of the paper, but there was the direct evidence of two police officers implicating Thomson, and the name of Budd was at tlio bottom of the paper. The real question was: “Is this a defamatory libel referring to Inspector Lander? After three a.nd a-half hours retirement tlio jury returned to ask if a verdict of publishing was found against Budd and of distributing against Thomson, woujd both bo that if Budd published the libel lie was gui ty, and if Thomson distributed a libellous document he also was guilty. The impossibility of reaching an agreement was reported by the foreman after a retirement of 4,,- hours. His Honour discharged the jury and said accused would bo retried on won’t allow them bail,” he told counsel. “They can stay where they are.”

DECLARED HABITUAL CRIMINAL.

Per Press Association. NELSON, July 28,

Found guilty of breaking and entering the Globe' Hotel and stealing £9. a quantity of liquor, cigarettes and coins, Edward Davis was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour'and declared an habitual criminal. Mr Justice Blair said it appeared that accused since 1915 had spent more of bis life in gaol in Australia than out.