Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Issue XVI, 3 December 1879, Page 4

In our Australian telegrams, of yesterday's date, it will be noticed that the Melbourne Daily Tdeyrapli, was successful in its action against the Hon. Mr. Berry, Premier of Victoria, for slander, obtaining a verdict for £25, which will, of course, carry costs. The circumstances out of which the lawsuit arose are rather singular. On his return fiom England, Mr. Berry was entertained at a banquet, aud during a speech thereat he charged the Opposition Press of tho colony with wholesale corruption, Iu justification of the statement he said that a gentlinan, who was a fellow-traveller with him on the voyage horn", told him that, with the exception of the Avjin, the entire C mscrvative Press of Victoria was subsidised by an association, of which he was himself a member, aud to the funds of which he was a contributor. The Melbourne Daily Telegraph took up the gauntlet, and commenced au action for libel, claiming £5000 damages. After various i attempts to burke the case, it at last came on for trial, when the man who was qmtcd as the authority for the statement turned out to be a myth, and the association a mere flight of fancy. In fact Mr. Berry uoither • defended nor explaiued his statement. The

jury bad too strong a senao of courtesy to convict a Cabinet Minister of lying, let nun down easy, with £25 damage., an i found him guilty of what the Americana term " imparting an unwholesome BivHHn™ t> tho truth." The Telegrupk thu.cZ 8 ments on the trial : —"Tne whole story wai au elaborate aud disgraceful invention, which its author dared not appear in court U substantiate or even explain. It is manifest therefore that the jury unfortunately failed to grasp tho importance of the case properly appreciate the responsibility which was placed upon them. Had they supported their opinion that Mr. Berry hid been gailtv of falsehood with a penalty of £1000 thev would have given a substantial guarantee that they had no sympathy with slanderer," and that they considered it was incumbent on a Minister of the Crown, a? wll at anv other man, to speak tho truth. There mu=t be £1000 or £2000 of tho Embassy money still to the good, aud the jury missed au excellent opportunity to make Mr. 3e rry dis." gorge some of the political pluuder."