CHRISTCHURCH LIBEL CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 5023, 22 July 1903, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH LIBEL CASE.

*- RNMiNAIi PROSECITXON. Vcstonlay ilio Court of Appeal. co:it'FUug 01 tho Chief Justice, Justices I (iiiUiiV, bd'.wirus uiul (."oop'.r, ru.mmud Iho hearing of a Crown case reserved !>y Air Justice Williams in a prosecul.on fit. Christchurch in Alay last, against Wilfred Badger, solicitor, for crmmml libel. The question to he determined hy tlio Cuui’Li -was whether there was any evidence or case to go to the jury on the first count of the indictment on which Badger was convicted oi : publishing a defamatory libel? Badger was indicted at tho criminal sessions on an indict incut containing three counts, the first of which charged him with having published R a defamatory libd contained in a certain letter addressed and sent to Mr ami Mrs James H. Brett, Christchurch, of and concerning one Henry Slater, solicitor, Christchurch. Tho jury convicted the accused on the first count and acquitted him on the other two. Certain questions of law that arose daring the hearing of Ihe case reserved for tho Court of Appeal, and others were disallowed. His Honor aha reserved a motion bv counsel for the accused for arreht of judgment. Mr Jclllcre appeared in support of the ’Appeal and Mr Russell ((h rite church) represented the Crown.

Mr J'dlieao resumed his address on the point as to whedbrn* tho violence ar extravagance of the language used might destrov a pnvih’go teat would efhorwiso c-rite. He honed that th* 1 Court would not allow its indignation nf. the references made to Mr .Tite Denniston—and he endorsed r verv word that h-d falh'u fm’n the TV-ich in that respect to prejudice the inferences .'h*nwn from tho language Badger applied to Slater. The Chief Justice gave B as Ids own opinion that tho point to be decided War; not so much whether the excess of language destroyed privltem. as whether tho occasion was privileged. Wfint right bid the defendant +o ad'h-ess to the Bretts the statements about Shter? Mr Jel’icoe ashed the Crown to front the letter ns it would a statement made by tho defendant to the. Bretfs on mooting them in the street four years nfter tho notion—a statement in similar terms to thoso in tho loiter. Defendant was entitled to show to the Bretts that lie was blameless in tho litigation which was brought about by some irregularity—something filed that Was not a genuine document. That might hnvo given him a personal grierAnco and might hn.re mado him think that tho process of tho Court had been Abused. Defendant was ateo en+itled to bring before tho Bretts that bo had romnhained unsuccessfully to Mr Justice Denmstrm about what he considered an abuse of Court process. Mr Justice Conolly did not see bow a private letter to tho Judge could be regarded as a complaint to tlio Court. Mr Jellicoo explained that Badger had not had much practice. In his letter, he was seeking consideration from tho Bretts for the expense that had been incurred. He did not go ontsido his own interests; it was Intended to be a confidential communication and it got into other hands. Had not defendant .os a trustee in tho estate a right to explain to tho Bretts? Tho Chief Justice cited authority to show that where a person was compelled to mako in self-defence a communication that was defamatory, it was not u Übejl. Mr Jollicoe held that Badger as trustee had a right to show that ho was blameless and also to show what tho Court, bad done. Defendant imputed tho blame for filing a bad document to tho person who bad filed it. Tho Chief Justice remarked that the document was not bad; it purported to be a copy. Mr Jollicoe said tho Court acted on it ns genuine. His Honor observed that the defendant know at tho hearing of the case of Thomas v. Badger that the proper document bad been substituted for the copy. He could then boro taken proceedings to sot aside the writ, instead of waiting for three or four years and then writing this letter. Air Jellicoo argued that it was not accessary’to set aside proceedings that Were nugatory. The subsequent filing of the proper document did not make tho writ valid. The evidence showed that before Thomas v. Badger was tried defendant mado what be regarded as a complaint to Air Justice Dcnniston. Mr Justice Williams withdrew from tho Jury al.l questions of privilege which ne (counsel) submitted should have 'gone to the jury. A solicitor was a public man because bo was an officer of the public Courts. In the course of argument on the point, Air Jellicoo remarked that no country in tho world would look at a Mew Zealand lawyer’s diploma. Air Justice Edwards warmly interjected that he would not listen to Air Jellicoo, who did them tho honour of practising before them, casting slurs on the legal profession of Now Zealand. There were members of tho legal profession in New Zealand quite as capable and as honourable as any to bo found in England or elsewhere. Air Jellicoo said he did not understand this outburst.

Bj3 Honor retorted that ho would not allow counsel to speak to him in such ft manner. Mr Jollicoe repeated hi* statement as to the value of New Zealand diplomas. The Chief Justice desired to correct the statement, pointing out that in America a New Zealand diploma would bo looked at as soon as an English one. and some of the American Judges wore amongst the greatest lawyers in the world. Mr Jellicoe explained that his remark was intended to apply to the British dominions. His Honor rep'ied that there wero parts of the British possessions in which New Zealand diplomas, wero admitted, such as Victoria and Tasmania. Air JolHcoo: Not without passing an examination. His Honor; They don’t admit English barristers or solicitors unless thov pass an examination. W& have not freo trade yet. Argument was next taken on the point as to whether the statutory conditions prior to fho prosecution" had been complied with. At the oimclusion of counsel's address, the Bench held a brief consultation, after which the Chief Justice intimated that there wore two points on which the Court wished to hear Air Russell:—CO Whether the first count ought not to have averred that the wrvrd* were used of Mr Slater in his professional capacity? C2l Whether the authority to commence the legal proceedings was sufficient in + terms of the Code Act. 1901 9 AT** Russell contended that there was r*, mm-rjlete and pror.er nuthori tv ill +.lu> c.rdor-bnok of tlie Court,—that thrv had obtained an orrlar r: iv i n v Vavo to prosoonto. am] that that had hecn nut into the record liook. He .contended that

thu jury had a right to find that these' worLs libelled blazer in any capacity, 'iho judge told tnum wnai a libel was, and cna-c. if thu letter contained a enargo of unprofessional conduct against oidier it was a .ibcl; but tua-i aui uoi prevent them fioni finding that A was a note upon mm in ha*> private capacity, lie feiibmiued that the jury was en-U-icxi lo do to, and that any imperfection iu our Code had always huen held to bo cured by veruiot, and was never a ground for a writ of error. Mr Jellicoo, in reply, pointed out that section 4U5 of the Criminal Code enabled this question to he raised after tho verdict, and tho accused might move for arrest of judgment on the ground that the indictment did not s-favo any crime. As lo the point that tho jury might have found that the words wero defamatory of Sla-Ler as a private citizen, ho emphasised that the Judge had specifically dealt with the question iu ids direction to thu jury. At tho conclusion of caiimstete closing address judgment was reserved, and tho Court adjourned until 10.30 tills morning.