MASSEY v. THE “TIMES,”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7850, 12 July 1911, Page 1

MASSEY v. THE “TIMES,”

MOTION FOB. NBW TRIALCASE IN COURT OF .APPEAL. Tlie appeal of William Ferguson Massey from the,judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing Jus motion for a retrial of his action against the “New Zealand Times” Companv—a claim for *£‘2ooo damages for alleged libel—was opened ir* the Court of Appeal yesterday. The court was composed of Justices Williams,. Denniston, Edwards and Sim. Mr H. D. Bell, K.C., with him Mr A. Ifrray, appeared for the appellant, and .Mr *S. Solomon, K.C., with him Mr AW. Blair and Mr A. Fair, for the respondents. The libel in respect of which damages Iwero claimed to be contained jin a cartoon published in "The New 7 inland Times” on December 3rd, 1910. 'Underneath the cartoon were printed the Iwords “Hitch your waggon to a lie.”. The case was heard in the first instance by Mr Justice Chapman and a common jury of twelve. The verdict of the jurv was as follows: — (1) We are of opinion that the figure (represents Mr Massey. ?2) We are of opinion that this is a 7)olitical cartoon pure and simple, and is not libellous. His Honor directed that this -was a verdict for the defendant company, vnd a verdict was entered accordingly. Plaintiff then moved for a new trial m the following grounds:— (1) That the special verdict or finding of the jury is so > defective that judgment cannot be given upon it. (2) That the learned judge misdirected the jury in the following matters: — fa) By directing them that they might disregard the evidence of the witnesses as to the interpretation by such witnesses of the cartoon and words which form the alleged libel; (h) By directing them that even if they found that the plaintiff was represented by the figure hitching the waggon they might find that the cartoon and words were a mere political skit, and therefore did not attribute personal misconduct to the plaintiff; (c) By 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 the defendant company. (3) That the verdict was against the weight of evidence. (4) That the finding of tho jury is not a verdict for tho defendant company, (5) That the learned judge admitted improper evidence to which the plaintiff objected distinctly at the triah namely evidence of the memory of witnesses of reports of what was said by members of Parliament in a debate in the House of Representatives on tho 30th day of November, 1910, and in a debate in the legislative Council on tho Ist day of December, 1910.

The motion was heard before their Honors'the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Chapman, who agreed that none of [the alleged grounds for a new trial were Valid, and dismissed tho motion with costs against tho plaintiff. r THE APPEAL.

Against this decision plaintiff now appealed to tho Court of Appeal, Upon the grounds that tho judgi ment upon the said motion is erroneous in its findings of fact and its determination, of law. Air Bell, opening his argument in support of the appeal, said that his Honor, at the trail, put it to the jury that a slander of a political party and a politician, together was not slander on tho* politician. Ho submitted that what the jury had found was the result of this direction from his Honor. He (counsel) .traversed his Honor Air Justice Chapjiiian’s rulings as to the admissibility of (certain evidence, particularly to that ladduccd in' cross-examination by counsel ,for tho defendant. Air Bell had not concluded bis argument when the court adjourned until {this morning.