ALLEGED DEFAMATORY LIBELS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12269, 13 May 1903, Page 7

ALLEGED DEFAMATORY LIBELS.

CHARGES AGAINST RICHARDSON AND BELL.

PROCEEDINGS AT THE SUPREME COURT.

ARGUMENT AS TO THE PLEAS.

A FURTHER ADJOURNMENT.

Tns charges against William Richardson IU <J William Join? Bell of publishing defamatory libels of William John Baker, licensee of the Alexandra Hotel, Chapel-street, whit* had been adjourned from day to day, were again before the Supreme Court yesterday, when legal argument as to the pleas of accused and the replications put in by the Hon. J. A. Tole were taken by Mr. Justice ' Oonolly. Mr. Tole appeared in support of ; the prosecution and the accused conducted their own cases. THE CHARGES. William Richardson was charged with publishing two defamatory libels concerning Baker on February 23 and March 7 last respectively, the first consisting of a letter headed "Killing no Murder" and signed "W. J. Bell," and the second of u sentence forming part of an article in reference to the same subject. Bell was charged with libel in respect to the letter published on February 28 and signed " W. J. Bell." Tiro letter, which formed the- subject of the first charge against Richardson and the charge against Bell, read as follows: — ■> Sir,—The Alexandra Hotel. Chapel-street, is fast losing its victims by drink. Within the last ten months two men and two women— ' ■who were heav> drinkers at this hotel—have died, and there is now in Chapel-street another of its victims expected to die. As regards the 'dying victim, the landlady is getting afraid • of losing a good customer, and is supplying her with beef tea, etc. One of the four customers referred to died suddenly this week, and her mother (who was anothei victim of " the Siune hotel) died in the asylum a, few months back. The daughtei, who died this week, was treated in the hospital a few months ago for chronic alcoholism, and was then in a bad way. Another of the four victims, who also dropped dead, was carried home dead drunk the night before he died by the porter of the hotel, with pockets loaded with bottled beer." Anothei of the victims was a blind man, whom the publican actually used to lead into tie hotel from his home next door." The second alleged libel, published on March 7, was as follows: — ..... Our correspondent has supplied us with the names of four victims whoso death may be attributed to the drink supplied ehiefly nt the Alexandra Hotel. . . . THE PLEAS. Richardson's plea, which was put last week, was as follows He is not guilty. 2. That ■the alleged defamatory matter, if published by him, was true, and that it was for the public benefit that the matters charged should be published in the mariner ana' at the time WhOll they were published. 5. Such publication was to the public good for the following reasons: (a) That the public are deeply affected by the drunkenness, disorderly conduot, or immorality of any section of the public, and have a right to know in what manner the various hotels in the city of Auckland are conducted, so as to bo in a position to require the police to suppress crime, drunkenness, riotous, disorderly, or immoral conduct on the part of any person or persons or section of the public induced or caused by the excessive indulgence in intoxicating liquors or by the improper conduct or management of hotels licensed in the said city (b) the public of Auckland are affected prejudicially by such conduct and doings as mentioned in the said alleged libel, and have a right to be informed fearlessly of any breach of the Licensing Acts or of the Police Offences Act, or of any other statute affecting the peace, ordei and sobriety of the public, or in any way affecting the public morals; (c) the defendant, in his capacity of a publisher of a newspaper, has a "duty to perform in making the public aware of any breach of the Licensing Acts, or of any misconduct on the part oi any hotelkeeper in the conduct of his business.

The plea put in by Bell was identical in terms with that of Richardson, with the ex- .- caption that the last paragraph (c) was : omitted.

THE REPLICATIONS. The replications put in by Mr. Tole in reference to the second and third sections of each of the pleas, set out:. "That the said plea and the matter therein, in the manner and form as the same are therein pleaded and set forth, do not disclose any facts in support of such pleas, and that such pleas are insufficient ur.der the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment Act, ISOI, and are otherwise bad in law; and, further, as to the pleas, if sufficient in law, of the said William Richardson, by him secondly and thirdly pleaded, the said William John Baker, who prosecutes as aforesaid, says that he denies the said several matters in the said second and third pleas alleged, and says that the same are not, nor are nor is any or either of them true, but that the said William Richardson of his own wrong, and without the cause and matter of defence in his said second and third pleas alleged and set forth, committed the offence and published the libels in manner and form as in the said indictment mentioned."

The two accused sat together, the legal arguments applying to each of the two pleas.

MR. TOLE'S ARGUMENTS.

Mr. Tole, in addressing His Honor in support of his replication, submitted that the plea of accused, so far as the second and third sections of it were concerned, was bad. He quoted section 6 of the Criminal Lode Act Amendment Act, 1901, and argued that i* distributive plea such as that put in by accused could not bo accepted. A plea of truth and justification must be one and enure, and one could not be pleaded or proved without the other. Secondly, he submitted that the alleged facts on which a pica of truth and justification was based must be set out with great particularity. In the publication complained of it wa.3 broadly stated ™* f our victims of the hotel referred to had Oietl, But there was no statement as to the names iof these foui persons, when or whore «ey died, what they died o f, oi anything at all about them. What answer could the fft-? 60^.' 011 give to a genera] statement like MM? They could only suppose something as w»ig alleged and then deny it in a general Sea l,c!l a VafeU ° plea could not bo ac " His Honor i The accused does tot pretend to set put facts. He alleges reasons and not facts. ■*&«?*?. to , tho third c,ausp °f the plea, setting forth that the public had a right to Know in .vhat manner the various hotels of fie city were conducted, Mr. Tole submitted tort no such right existed. itS>?w£ u k l ibat '- ovcry person look of Cr„ P? I ,* -° "? quiro into the induct We JL th «dti 't would boa KK f d he did , not know whether ' w»e right .to do so existed. j effiS U s* - Mr - Tole s , aid °™ waR no andM h not -°f °c r border], conduct, malf«. he nght of thc P" blio in these mater newspapers could; if they chose, rePolL n P ubhshln i? any portion of the C »f a F° Urt i P oce , edlD9 - Coming to the hi "lament in the plea as to the duty ol «8 publisher of a paper to make the public ware of the matters mentioned, Mr. Toft ■Hon ad been decided years ago that an StW.° t publisher had 110 greater right oi imiciem than a " ordinary individual, wis Honor: The right of the publisher oi * newspaper in these matters is cxactlv the «w e a T B the right of you and mo, or anyone ■!n„ A- 1 , 0 " 080 to write to a friend slanderrag a third person, although that letter may S' K°, beyond my friend, it is the publication of a slander, for which I should be m.»? T. a cnm l nal Prosecution and punishment. It would be monstrous to suppose wat if, instead of writing a private letter * contrived to have it printed and inserted "* a newspaper and thus road by perhaps 2™ ds ° % rSOn -! J nstead of only one Person, I should not ,be liable then It til u?- be th ° u S !lt b many people thai P u .}*! °i a nowspaper has some Privilege beyefnd that of a private individual, out he has none whatever. He is a member "J the public and has the same rights as «hei members of the public; no more ana no less. Mr. Tole submitted that the mattoi of notei management was not one of public- inWest, as defined by law. A licensed publi4 ? M not a Public man, and the security »«♦ administration of the licensing laws rested upon the vigilance of the police ana wt upon the publisher of a newspaper. He ■contended, finally, that His Honor's judgmerit m regard to the points raised slioulc. «> nnal, and that the accused snould not be allowed to plead ovei, or, in other words, !°,P ut nan amended plea. The Act proTWecl for ft plea and a reply, but there was B0 Provision for auv amended plea. „* ? Honor said that the. accused, instead Pleading facts, had pleaded reasons. It might be a question of whether he should im allowed to strike out his reasons and substitute facts. It wat very unfortunate that "ie aocusod had not been able to secure counsel.

Mr. To: Well, he cannot lay any charge at Your Honor's door on the ground of the want of indulgence, as yon further adjourned the matter yesterday for his convenience. Your Honor hat also been tola that the pleas were drawn up by a skilled lawyer. His Honor: But there is no lawyer here. If the pleas were drawn up by a skilled lawyer it is a pity that ho is not here to support them. The accused is at a disadvantage in having to argue against a gentleman of your experience, Mr. Tole. Mr. Tole: I have got to argue the case, lour Honor. I would not be doing my uuty if I did not do so. His Honor: I know that, Mr. Tole. 1 cannot help it if accused has not been able to secure counsel. I.ICHARDSON'S REPLY. The accused, in his reply to Mr. Tole, referred to the latter's -elaborate statement and extraordinary list of authorities," and said it seemed that the Crown Prosecutor's object was to get him convicted on a technical point instead of on an honest ana straight-out issue. He was sure His Honor would never bo a party to anything of this kind. The only feeling he (accused) had was. one of intense indignation that the Crown Prosecutor should take up a position so unEnglish. His Honor said that Mr. Tole had submitted an argument on points of law, ana it was for the accused not to indulge in in temperate language, but to show, if ho could, that the arguments adduced were no. sound.

Accused: I have not such an extensive law library its Mr. Tole has, and if I had I would not have had time to study all the books. I trust, Your Honor, you will aiu mc and act as my learned counsel in this case. (Laughter.) His Honor said he could not do that. His position was that of judge. Accused: And is not one of the functions of a judge to see that justice is impartially administered ?

His Honor: That is so, but that is not acting as counsel. Accused: When a layman like myself is put upon a charge of committing a criminal offence and ho is too poor to employ counsel, it is Your Honor's duty to see that no unfair advantage is taken. His Honor: That is so; but I have not seen anything unfair in Mr. Tole's arguments.

Accused: Some of the eminent lawyers of this city say that the old-fashioned forms ot plea, as demanded by Mr. Tole, are not now required. His Honor: I cannot take that statement. If they have that opinion you should pay them to come here.

Accused: lam without means to pay them, and they won't come. His Honor: Very well, then, you must argue the case on its merits and not tell me what someone has told you. Accused: I want Your Honor -to know that I have consulted eminent barristers in this city. I submit that the libel complainec. of is amply covered by the pleas. The Crown Prosecutor has no right to demand our evidence before we go into the box. His Honor: The Act says you must show facts; that is the point. You have set forth no facts.

Accused: What about the first part of mv plea, "He is not guilty ?" Hi's Honor: That is all right. Accused asked whether ho would be permitted to amend his plea by striking out a portion and putting in facts. His Honor: I am afraid the plea is ah bad. I must look into that point, as well as into the othei point to sec if I can give you leave to amend. My present opinion is that the plea is bad, but I will not decide that offhand. If I decide that it is bad I shall then be glad, if I can, to give you laave to put in an amended- plea. I am not sure that I can, ns the authorities quoted by Mr. Tole seem to say that I cannot. "Accused: "Would that mean that I woulu be shut out of proof of justification ? His Honor: If I arrived at that conclusion it would. Not having set out facts you could not give evidence of it. Accused: I do not think any jury in the universe would convict a man under such circumstances.

His Honor: A jury lias nothing to do with it. We are discussing law now. Accused: And all I can say is that if that is the law it is an outrage on intelligence and on the nation.

His Honor: Do not use such strong language. I have to obey the law and so have you. Accused: Will Your Honor assist mo by saving what you would take as a plea ? His Honor: I am not yet certain whethei I can give you leave to amend your plea. I will be glad to do so if I can. The letter published alleged that four persons died as the result of drink supplied at the hotel. You should have stated the time of the death of each person and have shown the cause of death in each case. Accused said there was a case in Wellington on all foura with his and a similar plea to his had been accepted. His Honor: I cannot tell whether the case is of the same nature or not. That ease is not before this Court. Accused said that no names were mentioned in the alleged libel or in the indictment, and that therefore he did not see why he should be required to put them in the plea. Ho asked His Honor whether he would adjourn the case until the next sittings of the Court, and not place him at such a tremendous disadvantage as having to appear with his mouth stopped. This was a travesty upon justice. His Honor: It is your own plea. I will consult the authorities. Accused: I have no wish to proceed further on the matter of plea. THE CHARGE AGAINST BELL. William John Bell, on being called upon, said he hoped His Honor would allow the pleas to be amended if they were held to be bad. Everything would then be stated specifically. He wished to formally state that the pleas were not bad. His Honor: You do not propose to argue the question ? ~,.„, . Accused: No; it would be idle for me to argue against counsel. His Honor adjourned the matter until ten o'clock this morning, and said he would , in' the meantime consider the points raised by Mr. Tole.