THE BRYCE-RUSDEN LIBEL CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7541, 19 April 1886, Page 2

THE BRYCE-RUSDEN LIBEL CASE.

[I'.Y ELKCTEIC 'JIELKGUAPU—GorVJUGHT. I

(Keutek's Telegeams.)

Adelaide, April 17 (licceived April 17, at 3 p.m.)

Flics of London papers to hand per Chimborezo givofull details of the Bryce-Rusdeu libel trial.

Bil- Bryce was examined at great length,'and tho manner in which he gave his evidence produced a favourable impression on tun judge and jury. Defendant's counsel, in cross-examina-tion, evinced a desire to indicate that the action was brought more to clear the reputation of the Hall Government than to satisfy the honour of Mi" Bryee; but the Court refused to countenance this attempt, and reminded the jury that the question at issue was solely whether, as stated by Mr Rusden, Mr Bryce attacked women and children, cutting them down gleefully and easily. The judge (Baron Huddleston) declared, in summing up, that the defence on that point had failed completely. Mr Bryce was cross-examined very closely as to details of the Parihaka incident, counsel for the defence endeavouring to show that he (Mr Bryce) had treated Te AYhiti with unnecessary harshness. The policy of the Hs 11 Government with regard to the matter was canvassed, but the Court held that personal harshness on the part of Mr Bryce must be cited. The chief interest of the trial centred in the defence, which was generally regarded as essentially weak. Mr Rusden, in his examination, stated that he had endeavoured to write a true history of New Zealand upon material supplied him by the Bishop of Wellington (Dr Hadfield) and Sir Arthur Gordon, then Governor of New Zealand, taking his information also from Blue Books and the New Zealand Press, as well as from personal conversations with Maori natives. He disclaimed all idea of being actuated by ill-feeling or malice towards Mr Bryce personally, but maintained that the proceedings at Parihaka were of the crudest nature. In cross-examination, Mr Rusden admitted that when he compiled the history in question he had heard nothing of the slaughter of the wives and children of Native?.

but was subsequently informed of Mr Bryce's

action in the matter through Sir Arthur Gordon and Bishop Hadfield; hence he came to

write the paragraph which formed the subject of the present action. He placed reliance on the statements made to him by Bishop Hadfield and communications received from Sir Arthur Gordon. When he discovered the mistake he made in declaring that women were present he prepared an errata for the book, but gave no order to attach the errata to the copies printed.

(Received April 17, at 6 p.m.)

Mr Rusdcn also admitted that he had not supplied copies of the errata to the New Zealand Press, and that he had done wrong regarding the • statement that Mr Bryce had slaughtered women. He. stated that Ke never imputed that MrTiryce had personally! slaughtered women and children. He was "only the commander of the party of cavalry which was alleged to have committed the cruelties in question. He had been led into gross error. He maintained nevertheless that at the time of writing he believed his account to be true in substance.

The judge, in summing up, remarked that the ! jury had two questions to consider—first, whether it was a fair comment on the facts. Mr Rusden admitted the publication of matters which he now admitted to be untrue, therefore the plea was at an end that it was true in substance. The real question therefore was whether the libel partook of the nature of bonajide commenton matters of public interest. Liberty must not descend into license. Though defendant was perfectly at liberty to discuss the public proceedings of plaintiff fairly and temperately, the comments must be within certain limits when dealing with the character of private individuals. Historians had no special privilege to abuse public men. Blr Rusden never made any pretence to impartiality, and admitted his inaccuracy. Instead of apologising in a generous spirit for the mistakes, he came there into Court justifying the libel by alleging that everything he had stated was true in substance and fact.

The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff damages, £5000.