POLITICAL LIBEL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8179, 22 July 1912, Page 1

POLITICAL LIBEL

NEW TRIAL REFUSED ACTION AGAINST HAWKE'S BAY NEWSPAPER. A new trial in tho political libel case Horace lan Simson (Havelock North) and the “ Tribune ” Newspaper Company, Ltd. (Hastings) was refused by the Chief Justice. Sir Robert Stout, in the Supremo Court on Saturday morning. The application was made on the following grounds: That the damages allowed at the original hearing at Hastings in March wore toosmall; that the verdict was not unanimous; that it was a special verdict, and was not put in writing and signed by the foreman of the jury;' that the findings were defective; that the of the jury was not authorised to deliver the findings and answers he did; that ■ the' verdict was against the weight of evidence. Tho jury at Hastings found that the paragraph published in the “ Tribune” 1 was a libel on the plaintiff, and also ! that it meant that he had been guilty iof a criminal offence. They gave a. verI diet for one farthing damages. ' -t i tho conclusion .of the trial his Honor ’ reserved the findings for further consideration, When. the case was argued before him in Wellington on the 13th inst. ■ three motions were made—ono by the defendant for judgment, one by the'plaintiff for judgment, and one by the plaintiff for a new trial. He would deal with the motion for new trial first. ... ■’ , ... There was no inexorable rule tnat a. j jury’s finding of damages could never | be disturbed, and if it appeared that i the" verdict was a compromise or that ; the jury had not done their duty a new trial might bo ordered. . But*in this case the.question did not arise, as_ tho jury had found that the alleged libel ' in the meaning alleged true. The I verdict was not a special one., The I only, difficulty in the finding of the- ■ issues arose from the fact that the jury i had found it' was a libel, though they I had also found that-, the words were /true in the meaning alleged by the ; ! plaintiff. It was not suggested, that it I would’ be a libel in any other sense. I His' Honor was of opinion, looking at '.the defence raised, namely, ..that. the S words might be considered as not defamatory but as - jocular, that the jury meant by. finding • the answer to issue due in the affirmative that the words were defamatory. Seeing that they had found tho words were -true it w.aa .clear that they did.net mean to | find that the plpintiff,/was entitled to ? succeed;*'-Tlw- flndiiig of danidges'dbuld not be invoked. His Honor was, therefore, of opinion that the Issues- were ■ not .defective, and that what the _ jury, meant was/understandable’; nor did he consider,, in view of the defence, that the findings:could be held to be inconsistent. As for the conduct of the foreman of the jury, his Honor said that no objection was made by any of the jurors .iri open court, and 'that it was too ,late. after the jury had been discharged, for any jurymen to say that the verdict given had not fieeii agreed to by them. Discussing the ground that the findings on three of the issues were, against the weight of evidence, his Honor said that, in his opinion, there was. evidence that the plaintiff had committed the assaults mentioned in two of the issues, and if there was evidence which twelve reasonable men might have thought sufficient, there was no warrant for a court to - set aside their-findings. .’The only point that impressed,his.Honor at the trial was whether the general charge made against the plaintiff in the paragraph was not meant to be some crime other, than an assault, and that was why ho put the separate issues. He was of opinion that it was not_ competent in the present court to say that in this case the verdict was against the weight of evidence. If, then, there were no grounds for a new trial, and tho issues put were reconcilable, the defendant was entitled to judgment, which would bo entered accordingly. Defendant was allowed costs according to scale, with £8 8s for second counsel, witnesses' expenses and disbursements. Plaintiff was allowed* the costs of ten witnesses, which were to be deducted from the costs allowed to defendant. Judgment for tho balance only was given for the defendant.