THE TIMES LIBEL CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9131, 13 August 1888, Page 6

THE TIMES LIBEL CASE.

DETAILS OF THE TRIAL. SENSATIONAL LETTERS. MR. PARNELL'S DENIAL. London, July 6. The chief political event of the week has been found in the Law Courts. The libel action O'Donnell versus the Times newspaper, began on Monday, before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, and was concluded yesterday. Mr. O'Donnell, the plaintiff, was member for Dungarvan in Parliament in 1880. It wß s his luck or misfortune during 1883 to get across with the Parnellite party, and finding that he had no chance of being re-elected for Dungarvan he withdraw from political life. Later on he disappeared from England, and it has been understood for some time that he was living quietly in Vienna, still working as a journalist. The trial drew a great crowd to the Law Courts, and daily the case was followed by a mob of notabilities. It was understood that Mr. O'Donnell meant to call Mr. Parnell and other of the Irish patriots with whom he used to associate, and there was talk of the possibility of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Trevelyan and other Home Rulers being seen in the box. The defence on its part was also to be supported by a vast array of witnesses, including numerous Irish officials and police. O'Donnell was represented by a single advocate, a barrister quite unknown to fame; while on the other side were the AttorneyGeneral. Sir H. James, and three other members of the bar. , The case for the plaintiff was briefly put. The allegations of the Times were to the effect that the contitutional leaders of the Irish party, if not themselves guilty of crime, were in close association with men like Egan, Sheridan, Frank Byrne, and others, now safely beyond British jurisdiction, who during the dark days of 1880-82 were certainly concerned in crime. In all the proceedings 0 Donnell was not ouce mentioned in the articles, and the most serious observation of the Times in respect to him was in reply to a letter of the plaintiff. Mr. O'Donnell is naturally desirous to clear himself from the charge of associating with murderers, alluding more particularly to Byrne. The modest claim of £5000 damages made by the plaintiff was consequently found to involve proof of the suggestion that O'Donnell was a constitionalleader of the Irish party, and hence evidence was given in this direction by Mr. Lucy, of the Daily News, Mr. Jas. Owen, formerly member "for Newcastle, and Mr. T. Burt* M.P.. among others, who each stated in turn that he regarded the plaintiff as a leader of the Parnellites, and thought he was libelled bv the articles in the Times. At the same "time the witnesses generally admitted that they knew nothing of 0 Donnell's status bevond what they saw in the House of Commons, that they were not in the secret of his relations to the Parnellites, and were ignorant as to his connection with the Land League. Of course, these very serious omissions could have been supplied by the plaintiff himself and Mr. Parnell. The Irish leader was in Court, but to the intense surprise of everybody present, after it had been promised that O'Donnell should be called, the case for the plaintiff was suddenly closed, with very doubtful evidence of the journalists and politicians only. The Judge showed general surprise, and went the length of warning O'Donnell's counsel of the serious risk his client was running in staking the issue upon the testimony put before the Court; but the warning had _no result, save to bring out a sort of promise that the plaintiff would appear later on to give rebutting evidence. This was clever in a way, since it placed the defence at enormous disadvantage. The Attorney-General expected I to cross-examine the plaintiff, possibly Mr. Parnell, with a view of filling tin certain gaps in his own proofs, and he was obviously nonplussed and disappointed that the opportunity anticipated was not open to him. On the other hand, the absence of plaintiff gave him matter for much stinging reflection and comment in his address to the jury when opening the case for the Times. Of course, he made most of this chance. The learned gentleman spoke for a couple of days in developing the defence. Nothing but amazing vanity, or something worse, conld have induced him to bring the action ; but the Times shrank from nothing, and was still willing to meet in open Court those whom it had really aimed at. The AttorneyGeneral repeated this as an important matter lin his instructions. Something was known of the strength of the charge made, but much had been reserved which he now proposed to reveal. At the same time, he had to observe that nothing would induce the Times to make known the sources of its information. This was an obligation of honour, and to fail in it would not only be disgraceful, but would probably lead to assassination. Hence the seeret would be kept, even if it cost the limes the verdict. The Attornev-General produced some remarkable correspondence between Messrs. Parnell, Egan, and Carey, the informer. Certain parts of it made a profound sensation, and at least produced a feeling of bewilderment. Counsel took care to insist in advance on the genuineness of the letters, including the fac simile of the letters denounced by Mr. Parnell in the House of Commons, and promised the jury every opportunity by the evidence of experts and direct comparison with other writing, the authorship of which was admitted, of forming safe conclusions in regard to them. The correspondence beizan in the days of 1881. About lb' months before the occurrence of the. Phoenix Park tragedy in February, 1881, Mr. Parnell was in Paris with Kgan,*and according to the letter writ 1 ten by Egan to " Mat " Harris, he there ; agreed to make further advances to what was , known as the fund of the league. He agair . mentioned further that Mr. Parnell and lu [ had met with O'Leary, the Fenian, and thai they all agreed that prompt and decisive action was called for. In June of tin i same year Mr. Parnell wrote to the plaintif 1 O'Donnell in reference to another applicatioi " from Egan, to this effect:—" I see no objec ! tion to giving the amount asked for. Then I is not the least likelihood of what you art ■ apprehensive of happening." The body o r this letter was in the handwriting of Mr. A » Campbell, then acting as Mr. Parnell's secre i tary, but the signature was that of Mr Parnell himself. Other two brief notes fron ' Mr. Parnell seemed to relate to Brennan'i expedition to the West of Ireland. Ii r October, 1881, Mr. Parnell was lodged ii ' Kilmainham, which he shared with Brennan Dillon, W. O'Brien, Sexton, and others. I t few days later, on the 25th October, Egai 3 wrote as follows to Carey, the informer :- s " Dear sir, —I have by this post sent M. £200 3 he will give you what you want; when wil J , you undertake to get to work to give us valu< ' for our money The Attorney-General suggested *gested that M. was the man Mullet, win 3 was afterwards sentenced to ten years' pena servitude for complicity in the Phoenix Pari murders. Counsel next read two letters fron -i Egan to Carey, backing Carey in his attemp ' to get elected to the city council in Dublin and forwarding him money.

Then came the great sensation of the trial, in the reading of the following letter, said to have been sent out of Kilmainham, and dated January 9, 1882 :—" Dear Egan,—What are those fellows waiting for. This inaction is inexcusable. Our best men are in prison, and nothing is being done. Let there be an end to this hesitancy. Prompt action is called for. You undertook to make it hot for old Forster and Co. ; let us have some evidence of our power to do so. My health is good. Thanks. Yours truly, Chas. S Parinell." The Attorney would not say who wrote the body of the letter, but he asked the jury to believe that the signature was what it professed to be. Dealing summarily with the remainder of the speech, I may say that counsel showed further that when Frank Byrne fled the country to avoid a trial on a charge of complicity in the Phoenix Park murders, it was Mr. Parnell who sent him a cheque for £100 from the funds, to enable him to make good his escape. It would be proved that since the moral guilt of Sheridan, Egan, Byrne, and others was obvious to all men, the leaders of the Irish party were in regular communication with them, and had received money from them; therefore that the articles of the Times were; true in fact. But it was not in this way that the Times wished to meet those whom it had admittedly libelled. As soon as the Attorney-General had concluded, the Judge declared emphatically that he would not allow the charges against Mr. Parnell : and other persons not before the Court to be tried in this case, and he shortly added that at present there is no case for the Times to answer. He was really surprised that any man calling himself a man should for his purposes want to try a case in this way. There was a brief discussion between the bench and O'Donnell'a counsel, and ultimately the latter asked for an adjournment to consult his client on the situation which had arisen. This was allowed, and when the Court resumed, it was found that counsel gave up the general libels, but persisted with those in which plaintiff was personally mentioned. Thereupon the Attorney-General scornfully said he would not attempt to prove his defence. As a consequence counsel for the defence proceeded to address the jury; but it was clear that the game was nn for himself and for O'DonneU. The Lord Chief Justice, without further ado, pointed out that in none of the articles on " rarnellism and Crime'' was the name of the plaintiff mentioned, and that al! which had been said about him arose out of letters of his own sent in correction of the Times. Yet he had' never thought it

necessary to go into the box to say he had suffered a single farthing of damage by what had appeared. It seed hardly be said how the verdict went. The jury instantly found for the defendants, and added, in reference to the allusions to the plaintiff. VV e think thev were justifiable criticisms. Judgment was promptly given for the Times with costs. As to the general effect of the action upon the public mind, more may be usefully said when it is known what Mr. Parnell replies from his place in the House of Commons this afternoon. Yesterday he was in consultation with Sir W. Harcourt, and it is understood that he -will deal generally with the allegations made against him in the course of the Attorney-General's speech. Nothing short of a declaration that he has issued a writ against the Times will satisfy the public conscience, and that Ido not expect. An to O'Donnell, he professes that he conducted his case upon the lines nettled between himself and the Farnellites, and that he is quite satisfied at having compelled the Times to say it has made no allegation against himself, especially in that he has demonstrated what' he is pleased to consider the utter weakness of the general case of the Times against the leaguers. Unfortunately for this statement to the public, Sir. Parnell repudiates so much of it as is attributed to him. Then what about payment of costs? O'Donnell really owes something to Ids reputation after all. Egan has telegraphed from America denying the authorship of the letters attributed to him. In the House of Commons to-night Mr. Parnell declared that he attended the law courts prepared to deny the genuineness of the letters read by the Attorney-General, and which he now characterised as forgeries. He ridiculed the idea that he had written the letter attributed to him from Kilmainham, and denied having ever given money to Byrne except a subscription to his testimonial fund. Mr. Justin McCarty then stated that he had sent Byrne a cheque for £100 in the way of business in exchange for smaller cheques and postal orders received by Byrne for the National League of Great Britain, which had not a banking account.