SEDDON v. TAYLOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13210, 17 February 1905, Page 4

SEDDON v. TAYLOR.

Ir is with considerable satisfaction that we are able to announce this morning that a settlement has been effected of the action in ivhich Captain Secldon sought to recover damages from Mr T. E. Taylor, M.H.lt., for the publication of an alleged slander. From the time of the abortive trial in, Christclnirch two months ago it must have been manifest to every intelligent observer—as itis now recognised by those principally concerned—that the probabilities that a definite verdict, one way or the other, would bo secured from any jury to which the issues might be submitted were somewhat remote. While the evidence which was submitted on behalf of the defendant at Christclnirch failed to establish an imputation of personal cowardice on the part of Captain Seddon upon the occasion of the Dlesbok Spruit incident, and fell far short of sustaining the charge tliat the manner in which he handled the ineii under his cliargo was not such as was justified by the circumstances, and while it is perfectly clear that the allegation that Captain Seddon's conduct had been matte the subject of a court-martial was absolutely negatived, wo should have very great difficulty on the other hand in arriving at the conclusion that the statement made by Mr Taylor to Mr Dutbie in the parliamentary lobby— the statement that really formed the gravamen of the action—was not honestly made by him in the exercise of the right of free and fair discussion by public men of matters of public interest. And that is, we imagine, the light in which the case would present itself to any ordinary jury. If so, a Continuation of the litigation would plainly have been futile. The achievement of a settlement of the case oil twins satisfactory to both parties was therefore a consummation greatly to be desired. It may readily be believed that considerable difficulties were encountered in the progress of the negotiations for a termination of the litigation, and it. is the more ci editable, therefore, to those who were engaged in the effprt to procure the withdrawal-of the proceedings from the Court that they have succeeded ill effecting a settlement. As will be seen from the tortus - of the arrangement to which the parties have subscribed, each side honourably makes acknowledgment of lu.ving acted hastily and upon imperfect information. Mr Taylor admits that Captain Seddonwasnot court-martialled, and he says that, if he had boen aware oi the facts as now established by evidence, he would not have implied anything of the kind in the speech on the 29th October, 1903, in the House of Representatives, to which, in the final analysis, the whole of the proceedings may be traced back. It is further admitted by Mr Taylor that the only inquiry of any kind that was held concerning the Blesbok Spruit affair and the death of Lieutenant Dillon was of an informal descriptioh, that Captain Seddoii was not even present, and that there is no evidence to support any allegation that the result of that inquiry was' to fasten any blame upon Captain Secldon. In effect, what Mr Taylor said was spokeii under a misunderstanding. Captain Seddon, for "his part, acknowledges that the remarks to which ho took! exception in the speech delivered by Mr Taylor in the House in October, 1903, were uttered in good faith, and lie stlso says that, had ho been aware of the precise manner of the publication of the alleged slander by Mr Taylor to Mr Duthie in the lobbies and had ho known that prior to the institution of the lawsuit Mi 1 Taylor had abstained, elsewhere than in the Hotise of Representatives, froni imputing to hifn any offence against. military law and discipline, he would not have issued a writ for damages. The admissions tlmt are made npoii both sides reveal the presence of a reasonable spirit of conciliation and involve neither party in any loss of dignity. More than that, however, they have the important result of vindicating in a marked degree the reputations of both Captain Seddon and Mr Taylor. Captain Seddon is relieved of the imputation, Which was indeed unsupported bv the evidence; that his conduct was of sueh a nature as to require that lie should undergo the

I .ignominy of a court-martial or as to 'demand that' lie should ovon suffor reproof from his superior officers; arid Mr Taylor, as a public man, is relieved of the .imputation that he malicioUs-ly and with no loftier motive than that of scoring a political point availed himself of his parliamentary privilege to utter a cruel slander, which ho afterwards repeated, against a young man on the threshold of his caroer. The admissions that imply all this are commendable on the part of those who maka them, and we have little hesitation in endorsing the view, which both..'parties have agreed to take of the matter, that those admissions 'permit an honourable settlement of the fiction, which is consequently to be discontinued. Each party, it will be observed, undertakes to pay his own costs. These «must already bo heavy, and the prospect of their being largely increased, if the litigation were allowed,to proceed, without either side being nbleto secure the satisfaction of a verdict, was probably—and very naturally—a factor of some weight in inducing tho litigants to come to terms. The expense, that is inseparable from an appeal to the law courts is not 'an unmixed evil when regard for it lias the effect of leading the parties to accept the advice of their friends and seriously to consider overtures for the arrangement, as in this case, of such a settlement as enables them botli to retire from the proceedings without any sacrifice of dignity.