NEW TRIAL REFUSED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7445, 20 May 1911, Page 1

NEW TRIAL REFUSED

MASSEY V. THE “TIMES ” NO VALID GROUNDS ADVANCED FOR REHEARING. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The motion for a action W. F.* Massey v. f ‘NV.v Zealand Times’* was dismissed' by their Honors the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Chapmun *in tho ■'Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. ’ The plaintiff claimed *£2ooo as damages for libel alleged to bo contained In a can-toon, published in. the*'New Zealand Times** on Decembor 3rd. Tho findings of tho jury were os under (1) s Wo are of 'opinion that the figure . represents ,Mr Massey. (2) Wo are of opinion that this is a • political cartoon pure and cAinplo, ■ and is not libellousOh these findings his Honor ordered a verdict for .defendant and entered judgment’ accordingly. ; * The-’new trial was ■ moved for upon the following'grounds;-- * (1) That the special or finding of‘the ‘jury is so -defective that . judgment cannot be entered upon, it. (2b That' tho : learned ' judge . mis- , directed, the -juix.ih the following matters: —• • ■ -'v, A(a.)- Bv direcUmr them'that they, • might disregard the evidence r of tho witnesses as to tho interpretation by such.-witnesses! of :the;eartoon and N words which form tho libel. (bl Bv directing them that, even, if -they'found that the plaintiff was • • -represented by the fipnro hitching the - waggon, they' might properly, find that the cartoon and words were a mere political skit, and therefore did not . attribute _ personal ■misconduct ito the plaintiff. (c) Bv directing them that their special‘finding was a-verdict for : the . defendant-company, and that they, upon such special finding, should give. their verdict , for tho defendant company. (3) That the verdict is against tho weight’ of'-evidenc?,: ‘ (4)- That tho finding' of-the is ’ not a verdict for tho dofonaant. com- . p*uiy. i ■: • (s)’Tliat the learned judge'admitted ; improper • evidenced' to which- 1 tho plaintiff objected distinctly, at 1 tho final, namelv, 'evidence of tho memory of witnesses’ of reports of said by members of Parliament mi a debate’ in the House of Representative*. on-Na\-cmbcr 30th., 1910, and in "a’•'debate in the LerisMivo Council bn December Ist, 10X0. 1 r

' MriHi ! D; Bell. -K:C., with; him. Mr, A. Gnivulnd Mr G.-11. , Foil, appeared in support of the motion, and ' Mr S. Solomon, K.C., with him’Mr ,A. W.. Blau, iu opposition.: ■■ • . . ~ : , ; ; .THE JUDGMENT -In the course of a lengthy judgment, the Chief Justice, dealt with the grounds Of the motion seriatim., : , The question ou the. first ground was reil.ly whether the ■ jury’s 'verdict was a -verdict for - the.; defendant. , In his,. Honor's: opinion, the jury having Tound thdt the cartoon was’ not a libel as alleged "by .the plaintiff there lie one verdict, namely, for the defendant. It was clear that the jury hod not • : misapprehended ihe issue. , ■ The statement madg in. paragraph 3 did r not adeouately represent what: the presiding judge said to.: tho jury, and in his Honor’s opinion there was no, misdirection. It was no duty of the judge to direct that in a certain event the jury must find the cartoon a libel as defined in the innuendo. .. . Ground- three was the mam one relied upon.' It was admitted‘that, the - Court, could: order -a new trial if :it came fo the' conclusion that the "writing deemed libellous was iu its opinion so libellous that no iurv. could reasonably find otherwise. His Honor did not think it could .... bo said' in tins .care that it was eo clear and unmistakable that the cartoon tmputed - to' Mr Masrty the 'circulating or the: assisting' in the- circula-fang of the pamphlet, and - that he was -a. liar, as to cc-muel the Court to say " that the: jury could' not reasonably > have found their veidiet. His Honor ’failed to see how it could ho, said that there were:, any facts that must . load to the conclusion tha't the in.rv could not have honestly taken the ;facts of the case into their consideration. ■ . ’ As for the last ground, ■ his Honor said that tho' evidence complained, of was the j putting of certain questions to-Mr Vi>7i Haast. Mr Fraser. o?\d Mr Masscv, as to wh*t took place in Parliament when tho publication v.nd issue of ihe Blnolc * pamphlet were mider discussion. Tho • ouestfons wei\v admitted on tho ground that the cartoon could not bo understood in its re-lationshin to tlie iVamphlet unless the whole facts about the latter were before the jury. Even. .• assuming'. l '.'iu the ‘plaintiff's favour that the evidence .. was not relevant, it was Clear from the ,vray the case was put to the jury that tho evidence was not relied on as affecting' tho interpretation of the cartoon. Therefore it could not be. said, that the admission of the. evidence: could (especially looking at tho summing up) have affected the trial at all.

His Honor concluded by saying that ho was of opinion that none of the .grounds for.-a- new - trial were vaiid.-and that the motion must .be- dismissed ..with ten guineas costs and eight guineas for second counsel, arid also any. disbursements. ' ' ' JUDGE CHAPMAN CONCURS. ’ Ur Justice Chapman (who presided at the hoofing of the action) said, he agreed with.the judgment of the Chief Justice, end had very little, to, * add to itThough several ‘questions had . been argued.- it seemed to -him-that there was reallv --only one substantial question, nant-elyi whether the'.verdict was against the weight of evidence, i li s Honor did not think that this had been proved. . .. A STAY GRANTED. Air Bril asked if the Court would grant him a -stay. ■. , _ “How long for r asked the Chief Jns4iTlr Bell: Par a month, if. my friend does hot; obi ret. in' order that I may have nronor time to driermi.no ‘ „ Air BLair finternioHngl: It m only in regard to costs. The Court does riot usually grant a stay m regard to oosts, but it is a small point, and we do not obieet, , The Chief Justice-- Ho do not see any objection. , , . •. . Tlic stay as asked for was granted for a month. [The full text of the- judgments of their Honors will he published in the “Nc;vZcaland Times’’ on Monday,]