MR LARNACH'S LIBEL CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 8398, 23 January 1889, Page 6 (Supplement)

MR LARNACH'S LIBEL CASE

VERDICT FOR £500 DAMAGES,

Wellington, January 21 The case in which the Hon. Wm. James Mudie Larnach, M.H.R. for the Peninsula, sought to recover two sums of £1500 each from William Scott Wilson, Joseph Listou Wilson, and Alfred George Horton, proprietors of the New Zealand Herald, Auckland, for alleged libel in leading articles in that journal on the 19th and 21st days of July last, was heard to-day in the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Richmond and a special jury of 12. Sir Robert Stout, with him the Hon P A Buckley, for the plaintiff; and Mr Gully, with him Mr Skerrett, for the defence.

The first article begins thus:—" The incident reterred to by our Wellington correspondent in relation to the absence of Mr Larnach from the Assemoly and his continuing to draw his honorarium, illustrates a phase of parliamentary life that the public of New Zealand should take to heart. It shows an instance of the unscrupulous dealkg with public moneys which has unhappily been too characteristic of parliamentary proceedings in the past, and the thanks of every honest man in New Zealand are due to the hon. member for the Buy of Islands Mr Hobb?,, for his manliness in undertaking this uupleasaut duty of exposing the scandal " The article goes on to say that everybody knows that Mr Larnaeh has left the colony and entered into business in Melbourne, and concludes as follows :—" Despite the fact that Mr Larnach has actually left, he apparently continues to draw honorarium by a series of ' leave of absences ' obtained on the motion of members in the House. In the latest motion so made the permission is asked on the grounds of illness in his family. Illness, not exactly in a member's fa c m! ly T i)ufc of himself, is, under the fifth clause ot the Parliamentary Honorarium and Privileges Act, a ground for a member's being granted leave of absence, and consequently dra\vin<* honorarium when absent. It is a sheer and shameless excuse for plundering the country that this alleged ' illness in his family' is put forward by a member in the House. The statement may or may not be a fact—most probably it is not—but that it should be adduced in Parliament, and that, witu the exception of'Mr Hobbs' apologetic; protest, no voice of indignation was raised will go to confirm the fast-grow-ing conviction in the public mind that Parliament as it exists should be swept away and give place to something else with a better comprehension of the fitness of thing?, and more in accordance witn the common sense of the community." The second article complained of asserted that the plaintiff's object in returning to Wellington was not to resume his parliamentary duties, but apparently to give a banquet to the heads of the departments of the civil service • and it also maintains that Mr Fish, in the face of the fact that Mr Laruach's absence hitherto had been on account of business, and that he was leaving to pursue that business, asks for leave of absence "on account of illness in his family."

Defendants admit the publication of the words complained of, but denied that they were published maliciously. They said that the subject matter of the alleged libels became and was a matter of public interest, and thereupon they bom fide for the public good, and without any sinister or malicious motive, published the words complained of.

Sir R. Stout addressed the jury at some length, and in the course of his remarks referred to the statements in question as being about the cruellest and grossest libels that any paper could possibly have perpetrated on any man, more particularly upon a public man. Dr Coughtrey, of Dmiediu, was called to prove that Miss Larnach's illuess was the cause of plaintiff being called away to Dunediu. Mr Gully submitted that the evidence which the doctor was called upon to give was quite irrelevant, inasmuch as the defendants admitted that there had been illness in Mr Larnach's family. He contended that such evidence was intended by the other side to enlist the sympathy of the jury. Sir It. Stout said that he would ask Dr Ooughtrey who it was that called Mr Laruach from his duties at Wellington. Mr Gully objected to the question on the grounds that the fact could not possibly have been known by the writer when the article was written.

Some argument ensued, and Sir U. Stout withdrew the question. Dr Ooughtrey thereupon stood down, and the plaintiff was called. His evidence was very brief. He f aid he had been iv Parliament about 13 years, and the Herald had always been strongly opposed to the party to which he belonged. He returned from Victoria in May last, and left again for that colony in October. When he returned to Wellington he was shown the first article. This was after he had been called away to his home after coming back from Melbourne Never in his life had he been in the habit of sending in a claim for honorarium. He never troubled mush about it. He gave an order to get it, and never troubled himself as to what was given him.

Cro«-examined by Mr Gully: Was absent in Melbourne at th>: beginning (J f tliu session. He returned about May 31, having in the meantime amuigcd to tcfctlo in Melbourne. Ho stayed a few days in Dunediu on account of his daughter's illness and reached Parliament about Juu-« 7. On May 30, Mr Seddon moved that leave of absence be gran ted to witness on account of urgent private affairs. About July 2nd witness was peremptorily summoned by Dr Coughtrey to return, and remained till the doctor told him it was safe to return. He got back about August 7. Before leaving on July 3, he gavo a banquet to some civil servants. He told them in bis speech ho was glad to have the opportunity now he was out of office, of giving them pome return for their courtesy while he wns Minister' He told one gentleman who spoke on the matter that ho was leaving the colony. He could not say whether it wan generally known. Some of his friends iv the House knew it. At the time of the banquet he had uo idea he would be called on to go South so soon, and actually had to >u> upon receiving an urgent letter from the doctor without seeing his friends. On the 18th July Mr Vish moved on witness' behalf, and at his request asked for leave of absence for witness ■Saw from a Diniodin paper a brief reference. ro the speech Mr Hobbs made on that occasion of a somewhat, derogatory nature and sent him a telegram on the: subject Afterwards read the full report of the speech on August 14. He brought up the Herald's articles in the House a3 a breach of privilege. He did not remember seeing .i third article in the Herald of the day after this debate. After putting the matter in his solicitor*' hands he received a telegram fioni defendant:! stating that the articles were written under a misapprehension and iuteuded \o deal generally vilh the subject of huuiiraiium, and not to

r-il-fl■!)!! Sir L-.niac.ili. He sens mi answer to IheeuYet tbatth" matter was iv his lawyers' Inn-Is. Ho was aware both the telegram'and answer appeared next H ay i,, a SonMi'TM piner, bM'.li,.;-,:,! !;..-.v,v ;,,••. ~!:' - -.-.< l; ;( m.

K>'-i!\,r.r.iiiei! !>y .Sir 1{ Sio.if : Tliuii;.'!i .s.'l f.li d mi I'.U-llxmuii', be sil1. had larp: inren-hrs in New Ziv.l.'.ud. I lis c;;mtitueuts debited that he should

still retain his seat. He telegraphed to Mr Fish to get him leave of absence; because he found he would have to remain in Duuediu longer than he expected—till, iv fact, his daughter was out of danger.

Mr Gully, in opening the case for the defence, said the articles were written purely from materials supplied by the Herald's correspondent in Wellington, who had reported the statement made in the House of Representatives by Mr Hobbs, who had said plaintiff had left Parliament and Wellington aud was about to leave the colony, and wanted to know if he would receive his honorarium. It had never been shown that plaintiff had not left the colony, and defendants knew nothing of it till the breach of privilege debate on Auggst 14-. He called

George M'Cullough Heed, who deposed that he was leader writer on the Herald's staff. He wrote the. article in that paper of July 10. He knew Mr Laruach had given a farewell banquet to the civil servants on June 30, before the article was written. He first knew^plaiutiff had returned to Wellington about August 13, ail apologetic article was inserted in the Herald on August 15, and a telegram sent to Mr Larnach by the proprietors which had already been mentioned. This was done voluntarily. There was nothing telegraphed to him to the effect that Mr Larnach was going to^take legal action. He was in no way actuated by personal malice against plaiutilf.

William Berry, editor of the New Zealand Herald, said he wrote the second article complained of. Ue corroborated Mr Reed's evidence. He assumed the telegrams on which the articles were based to be true.

This was all the evidence called. Mr Gully asked his Honor to direct the jury whether the articles were justified upon the circumstances which the writers had before them.

His Honor said he thought he would also have to direct them to find whether there was any solid foundation for these facts. They must bo certain defendants had taken reasonable steps to assure themselves tbut the facts were right. Mr Gully quoted the decisions of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in which he laid it down that public writers, even if they fell into some error as to facts, were privileged, so long as they honestly believed the information on which they commented to be correct.

His Honor said he hardly thought the cases quoted were applicable. The fact that a public writer was misinformed would not save him from the consequences. They were in the eyes of the law volunteers.

Mr Gully, addressing the jury, said it was admitted by the other side that there was no personal malice, aud he argued that the evidence had shown that the writers of the alleged libels had reason to believe that the reports on which the articles were based were correct. Let them put themselves in Mr Heed's place, and be thought they would agree that he was justified in believing that Mr Larnach was absent from the House aud Parliament without any intention to return, and that the motive for the leave ' of absence was to enable him to draw his honor- "< arium. As to the contention that newspaper writers ought to verify their information, he pointed out that such a thing was absolutely impossible. He asked the jury to find there was reasonable ground at the time for writing the article, though it unfortunately turned out that the facts were not altogether right. Then, even supposing they found otherwise, he urged that a handsome apology had been made in the columns of the Herald, and a private telegram of a similar nature sent to plaintiff directly defendants were aware of the mistake, and it was difficult to see what else the plaintiff could wish. Sir R. Stout said Mr Gully's speech was simply an appeal to let off defendant as lightly as possible. According to the paper's own correspondent's telegram it was clear plaintiff had not left the colony, that he had not drawn the honorarium, and that there was illness in the family; yet these points were all denied in the articles complained of. There was, in fact, no foundation whatever for the libels. They were directly contrary to the statement of the Herald's own correspondent himself. Moreover, when Mr Hobbs found that he was wrong and apologised, what did the paper do? It slated Hobbs for apologising, and reiterated its offensive statements. Instead of coming into court aud stating like honourable men that they found they were in the wrong, they had up to the last attempted to justify their misstatements.

His Houor summing up said a distinction was made between a fact and comment ou fact. A fact must be established on reasonable evidence. He read a number of instances from the law reports to make the position clear, amongst them Bryce v. Rusden. It was admitted tho articles complained of were written under three misapprehensions of fact. The most serisus of these was the denial of Miss Larnach's illness, whereas she really was seriously ill. This was quite indefensible. No doubt it was clear Messrs Reed aud Berry were writing under a misapprehension, but he did not suggest that w.-is any defence; though there was little doubt they wrote with bonafiles, still that whs no consolation to the person aggrieved. With reference to Sir R. Stout's suggestion that defendants should have come into court aud confessed, it was probable this course was not taken because they were advised they could establish a defence on the plea of fair comment, but this, ho thought, they could scarcely do. The jury, after 40 minutes' absence, returned, and tho Foreman asked what amount would carry costs. The Judge said it did not signify as costs were in. the discretion of thn court. The Foreman said they were all agreed upon the verdict, which was for plaintiff; damages, £500. His Honor awarded costs on the middle scale.

(From Oue Own Cokiiespondent.)

Wellington, January 21. Tho heavy damages awarded by ths jury to-day to Mr Larnach in his libel action against the New Zealand Herald excited a good deal of surprise as the utmost generally expected was a verdict that would just carry "costs; but much of the evidence as to the general impression prevailing at the time the article was written— upon which defendants hoped to effect mitigation of damages—was ruled to be inadmissible, and hence the verdict.