HESS LIBEL, ONE THOUSAND FOUNDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11950, 26 April 1902, Page 2 (Supplement)

HESS LIBEL, ONE THOUSAND FOUNDS.

MR. BOTTOMLEY WINS AFTER A FIVE DAYS'TRIAL, ' Mr. Hohal'io Bottomley has won his,libel action against Mr. Henry Hess, and secured judgment for £1000 and costs. The whole sitting on March 8 was taken up with addresses by Mr. McCall, K.C. (for defendant), Mr. Bottomley, and Mr. Justice Grantham ; all three were followed with the keenest interest by a crowd of city men. In his speech to the jury Mr. McCall asked them" to decide, not whether miscroseopio portions of the libel were true, but that Mr. Hess had practically justified everything hecharged against Mr. Bottomley. Unfortunately, the latter had taken advantage of a technicality to retain his books, and for that reason the defence had to work to some extent in the dark.

The learned counsel was bent on reviewing Mr. Bottomless connection with the Hansard Union scandal, and was dwelling on the distinction drawn by Mr. Justice Hawkins between the acts of a man who might be acquitted on a criminal charge and yet be liable for taking secret profits when the plaintiff intervened, and Mr. McCall had to drop this part of the subject.

He dissected the various company projects with which plaintiff had been associated, and ended with an appeal to the jury that they should approve what Mr. Hess had done —"what every honest and honourable, man would do,"

Mr. Bottomley then reviewed the case from his point "of view. He took early opportunity to retort on the K.C. for his remark about the books. As Mi. Hess had pleaded justification .he must surely have had material to prove, his plea, and therewas no reason why his (Mr. Bottomley's) books and banking'account should be dragged in as evidence.

His lordship had the final word, and its/ fjrst syllable was one of congratulation to the jury on the imminent close of their task.

He defined the libel as " gross and serious" — venomous," in fact, and unless it could be proved to the hilt plaintiff was entitled to substantial damages; he was not asking for " special" damages. The conduct ol some of these companies was hard to follow, and the jury had to consider the general conduct end character of Mr. Bottomley and the way in which he had acted in reference to the particular matters under review.

As to the Hansard Union no one had & right to say that the plaintiff was not entitled to rely on his acquittal ; that was a most intricate case, and Mr. Bottomley did very well in the conduct of his own defence. Some people might believe that Mr. Bottomley had not behaved all through that affair in the way he should have done, but this jury had nothing to do with the Hansard case. He (the judge) could see no justification, for example, of the charge that plaintiff was using money wrung lrom the public" to bribe the South Hackney electors.

In regard to these financial transactions over which so much bickering took place his lordship thought the best thing for the public to do was—leave them severely alone ! His hope also was that this trial Would mark the signing of peace between these two gentlemen.

The jury were absent for twenty-five minutes, and then returned with a verdict for plaintiff, damages £1000. Mr. Bottoniley's victory was applauded in Court, aud he "was heartily cheered by a gathering of people in the Strand when he drove away.