A LABOUR MEMBER'S LIBEL ACTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10127, 9 May 1896, Page 2 (Supplement)

A LABOUR MEMBER'S LIBEL ACTION.

A FARTHING DAMAGES.

Mr. Justice Hawkixs and a special jury concluded a few days ago in the Queen's Bench, the hearing of an action, Wilson v. Golllcon and Rogers, in which the plaintiff, Mr. J. H. Wilson, M.P..soughtto recover damages for libel in respect of a pamphlet published in 1894. The pamphlet gave extracts from, and commented on, an article in Seafaring concerning the plaintiff. In the course of this pamphlet many charges were laid against Mr. Wilson, accusing him of being deficient in the accounts of the Seamen's and Firemen's Union, and also giving a false statement of those accounts, Moreover, they accused him of inciting crowds to wreck a street during a recent dock strike. In one passage it said, " When you see a man suing for libel papers which have only accused him of mismanagement and refraining from suing another that denounces him virtually as u liar and a thief, it is uncommonly like an admission on his own part that he is a liar and a thief. He was, furthermore, accused of having deserted a ship and stolen a ship's boat. There was also a charge against the plaintiff of embezzling and disappropriating large sums of money when he was generalsocretary of the Seamen's and Firemen's Union. For these charges the plaintiff claimed £5000 damages, an injuction to restrain the further circulation of the pamphlets, and an order for their destruction. The defendants pleaded justification in general terms, and on certain points said that the plaintiff had put a wrong construction on the pamphlet. At any rate, it was a fair and just comment on the conduct of the plaintiff.

Mr. McCall, Q.C., Mr. W. M. Thompson, and Mr. Storey appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Cock, Q.C., and Mr. A. Llewellyn Davies for the defendants.

The plaintiff was not put in the box, and counsel on the other side therefore declined to call evidence. .

Mr. Justice Hawkins, in summing up, pointed out that the case stood in a peculiar position owing to counsel for both the plaintiff and the defendants declining to call witnesses to enlighten them upon the questions at issue. As the libel had been published, and as there was no evidence to justify the statements that had been made, the only duty of the jury was to assess the damages which they thought plaintiff was entitled to. The plaintiff said that he had brought this action to clear his character, and yet he gave them no ovidence upon which they could act. Nevertheless, they must find for the plaintiff, and they must award him some damages, otherwise there was nothing to give judgment upon; but whether they should award him the smallest coin in circulation in the kingdom or one million of money was a matter that was entirely and altogether within their discretion.

The jury, having considered the matter in private for ton minutes, returned with a verdict for the plaintiff; but before giving damages they said that but for what his lordship had told them they would not havo given a verdict for the plaintiff at all, as ib was against their wish to do so. Mr. Thompson submitted that the jury had no right to make a speech to his lordship. Mr. Justice Hawkins: They were asked if they found a verdict for the plaintiff, and they said yes. The damages are, of course, entirely for them, and they will now assess the amount.

The Foreman : One farthing. Mr, Justice Hawkins said that he would certify to deprive the plaintiff of his costs ; bub, as to whether he should order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the defendants he would take time to consider the matter, as the case was an exceptionalon.