THE WHITAZER-HUTOHISON

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9039, 14 February 1891, Page 2

THE WHITAZER-HUTOHISON

OASE.

(Feb United Pbess Association.)

Wellington, February 13.

The Chief Justice gave judgment this afternoon on the motion made by Mr Bell, counsel for the plaintiff in the case of Whitaker v, Hutchison, for a review of his Honor's refusal to strike out the references in the amended defence to the bank accounts of Sir Harry Atkinson and Mr Mitchelson. The following is tbe full text of the judgment :—

Tbe matter complained of ns defamatory is capable of having attached to it tbe meaning that; the members of the late Ministry, Including of course Sir Harry Atkinson, who waß Colonial Treasurer, and Mr Mltcbelson, who waß Minister of Publio Works, and the plaintiff, were accomplices In so dealiu-fwith tbe revenues of the ooiony as to b3 prejudicial to the Interests of the colony and beneficial to tbo Interest of the Bank of New Zealand, and tbat in so acting there was on tbeir part a want of integrity. The plaintiff concludes the statements of claim by attaching fco fche libel the meaning thafc it Imputes to him thafc he, as a member of tbe Ministry, acted corruptly In the transaction stated in tho libel. He does not define what he means by " corruptly," Irrespective of the Imputation of an alliance, and from the point of view of th-) plaintiff being the sole aotion, the corruption might be In using his Influence as chairman of the bank over the other Ministers; ifc might be allowloK bis indebtedness to the bauk to Influence his conduct; it might be toth. From tbe other point of view-namely, that of corrupt conauct-it mlgbfc be that each member of fche allianoe was a corrupt actor. Tne defendant takes upon himself to prove the truth of the libel; that Is, tbat tho plaintiff in these transactions, acting as a mem cer of the Ministry, did act corruptly iv addition lo certain alleged matters of fact, stated In tho libel itself, ai to lhe plaintiff's relation lo the Bank of New Zealand—th-it as being chairman o! the bank, and as being a heavily and hopelessly indebted customer of the bank at fche time of these transactions. Tbe defendant in his defence, while av-erricg the truth of tbose facts, sets out additional facta which he seeks lo prove ab fche trial in support of that cberge whioh is made in the libel—namely, that members of the Ministry, including of coursi the plaintiff, wo-e accomplices iv the corrupt aotß, or that other members of the Ministry were influenced corruptly by the plaintiff. These additional facts which the defendant alleges In hia plea, but did nofc state ln the libel, are tbat (wo of those who inthe libel aro alleged to have been accomplices with the plaintiff In corrupt aots, or to bave beencorruply Influenced by him, were, bb well ss the plaintiff, so much indebted to the Bank of New Zealand as to be unable to meet that indebtedness if called upon; and tbe defence in effeefc says thafc this state of indebtedness of the three prevented theso three from acting independently, and Induced them to act in alliance, or caused these two to be influenced by the plaintiff to favour the bank at the expense of the colony. On behalf of the plaintiff it is contended that these new facts are irrelevant to any Issue. Ifc is contended that the only mat'.er for Inquiry before the jury will be tho plaintiff's acts and conduct; and ib waa also, as I understand, contended tbat tbe defendant must be limited In his proof ti those alleged facts which he states in the libel. I am, however, of opinion that as the inquiry is the conduct of the plaintiff in a corrupt alliance with others, and also a corrupt; influencing of tbe conduct of others—facts from whicli it may be inferred that there was such corrupt alliance, or such oorrupfc influencing-may be proved though euch faots are not Bfcated in fche libel; and that, lv order to prove the cotrupfc alliance or influence. It Is relevar.fc fco prove fche relationship to the bank nob only of tbe plaintiff himself but of these alleged fo be in alliance with him, or to have bsen influenced by him. The motion Is refused, with lOgs eoßts.