CRIMINAL ACTION FOR LIBEL.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 752, 30 July 1886, Page 30

CRIMINAL ACTION FOR LIBEL.

’'Andrew James Hoskins was on Wednesday charged at the Magistrate’s Court with having, as printer and publisher of a weekly paper called The Advertiser, published on the 17th July a malicious and scandalous libel against Sir Julius Vogel, in his office as Colonial Treasurer, by implying that the said Sir Julius Vogel had been guilty of gross jobbery and corruption in connection with the purchase of the debentures of the Waimate Railway Company, and particularly that the said Sir Julius Vogel had secretly and eorruptly participated with Major Steward in the commission paid for the sale of the said debentures. Mr Travers appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Gully for the defence. In opening the case, Mr Travers stated the circumstances which led to the presentation of the report of the special Parliamentary Committee, and quoted the paragraphs upon which the action was based. The libel complained of. appeared ‘as a'" leading article in The Advertiser on Saturday, the 17tb inst. Mr Travers then read the alleged libellous article. Counsel": alleged that" the' article .was a . gross libel, because it in effect suggested that Sir Julius Vogel was an accomplice of Major Steward’s ia the transaction referred to. It coupled the name of Sir Julius Vogel with that of Major Steward as a person whose “ political virtue was of an easy kind,” and suggested that bis conscience was of such an elastic nature as to permit him to assist in the passing of an Act which would enable him to realise considerable pecuniary advantage. It also imputed to him that he was a needy adventurer of such a type as to use his position as a member of Parliament in a way that would enable him, as the result, to. reap profit, and insinuated that he was one of those who were always on the look-out for lucrative jobs as pure matters of business. It suggested that Sir Julius Vogel had been guilty of that which should be held id detestation by the pure; and right-minded people of the Colony. A supplement, in the shape of a cartoon, was issued with the paper in which the article appeared, as proof by innuendo of the connection of Sir J alius Vogel with Major Steward in tbe article. He said that the falsity, or otherwise, of the libel was not a point to be inquired into by that Court. The facta then were ; That the publication had been proved, also the proprietorship, and that Sir Jalius Vogel was Colonial Treasurer, and the matter complained of was now explained to the Bench. The libel in fact was contained in the leading article and in the cartoon inset, and published simultaneously with that article. The supplement, he said, might have been treated as an independent libel if nothing else had appeared in the paper. He held that if the Court was satisfied with the proofs produced, his Worship should couucait the accused for trial# Mr Gully Baid the article did not contain a single word or syllable which suggested that Sir Julius Vogel had ever participated in the commission upon the transaction. He contended there was nothing in the article to

hear out the inuendo contained in the information. The whole article was a hostile criticism on Sir Julius Vogel’s action in the matter alluded to, and his statement to the special committee. There wa-i nothing in the article to apply to Sir Jnlina alone, but to the whole transaction. Mr Gully asked the Court to rule that the inuendo contained in the information had not been proved. After some further slight discussion, Mr Wardell gave it as his decision that the article in his opinion implied that Sir J. Vogel, as ColonialTreasurer, was guilty of “ gross jobbery and corruption ” in connection with the matter referred to, hut it did not suggest a oarticipa—tion by him in the commission received byMr Steward. (On Mr Travers’ application,, the information was amended to only include the imputation of gross jobbery and corruption.) Taking this view of the matter, then, he wonld have to commit the accused to* take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court.

Bail was allowed, the accused to enter Into his own recognizances of £IOO.