DEFAMATORY LIBEL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14212, 13 May 1908, Page 2

DEFAMATORY LIBEL

«■ STRICTURES BY A JUDGE. (PIR UnITM PKRBS ASSOCIATION./ WELLINGTON, May 12. Defamatory libel was the jiaturo of an offenco for which Arthur ltettxm caiiio | bnforo Mr Justice Coopor to-day [or sen- I tenon. " j Mr Gray appeared for the prisoner, and , i stated that big client was charged with pub- | lishing a dofamatory libel against William ; James Pollock, at one time clerk in a ' ' Government office. The libel was alleged ' ] to be contained in a letter written by Beeson to Mr Hayes, head of '■the department in which Pollock was oihploycd. In tho letter containing the alleged libel ho observed that tho honour of the civil ser- , vice, of which Pollock was a. temporary member, was involved, and demanded that , a searching inquiry should bo nmdo into , the allegations. No inquiry was made ! because Pollock say.l he intended to toko ! > proceedings. Ho was either allowed or asked to resign, Criminal proceedings followed, and tho prisoner was committed for trial. Beeson pleaded justification, and took upon himself tho onus that tho charges woro true. His Honor would recall that at the trial evidence of a damaging des- I cription on Pollock's character was given and not contradicted. In tho end his Honor put issues to the jury, and in respect of those issues tho jury found that two of tho charges were true. Included in tho evidence at the trial were some letters of Pollock's, containing boasts of hie influence over girls, of his immoral dealing with women, and other matters. Notwithstanding all tho evidence at tho trial Pollock did not go into tho box to 6ubmit himself to cross'-examination. Ho had never doniod any of tho charges that Beeson had made against him. The maximum paifllty was 12 months' imprisonment. Counsel submitted that his client should cither be admitted to probation or convicted and ordered to como up for sentence when called upon. Evidence as to the prisoner's moral character was given by Mr J. G, W. Aitken, M.P., Professor , Kirk, and tho Rov. T.' H. Sprott. Mr Wilford, for tho prosecutor, said that the evidence as to conduct' showed what malicious acts a respectable man could do. Tho only point he wished to emphasise was: Did tho defendant do this in tho public interest or in malice? Beeson had written to Pollock on ono occasion, saying that no one understood the science of etatogy and tho technicalities of revenge better than bo did, and along tlwso lines Pollock would bo completely outmanoeuvred and outwitted at every turn.Counsel alleged that what Beeson had dono he had done malioiously. Ho pleaded justification, but the statute said that if justification was pleaded, and was not proved, then the court must consider ' whether or not tho action of the defendant had not been aggravated by tho plea. His Honor stated that in this case he repeated what, lie said at the trial. That the conduct of the prosecutor wan of tho woret possible description, as was shown by his own letters, and tho fact that tho jury had found one of the graver charges established. Pollock was a man whoso conduct was such that it was utterly impossible to kcop him employed in a piiblio oftioD whore girls were likely to associate with him. At the same time his Honor said to tho jury, and he saul now,, that the prisoner * was acting Trom mixed motives, and tliofo was evidence in his letters of a strong personal feeling against Pollock, whioh did not arise entirely out of a feeling of abhorrence at his moral character. But there was also in his mind a desire, mixed with the desire of illfeeling against Pollock, to purify tho public service. Tho jury found that ouo of the charges of gross immorality was not proved. Another, however, was proved. Had tho prisoner been content to have rested his charge to Mr Hayes upon the circumstances involved in this proved charge, and Jiad tho jury found that it was not for tho public benefit that the matter should have been published, ho would havo granted a new trial. Where a prisoner's guilt was aggravated by his plea of justification his Honor must look at tho fact that tho jury established the fact that tho prosecutor was an immoral man, who hod been guilty of an attempted criminal assault upon a person not actually a blood relation, but closely connected with him by marriage, and at a time when ho was' omployod at an office where there were young yirls. His Honor said the prisoner must lake tho consequence of hie act, and he had no hesitation in saying that whatever may have been tho dominant motive tho consequence of his act had been in the publio interest; but ho had boon convicted, and properly convicted, under the act of 1901. Ho would deal with the case in this way: Ho believed that the prisoner's act had produced a good result—it ha<l resulted in a public office being purified of a man who would no 'longer bo a menace to tho morality of a publio office. His Honor would fine tho prisoner 20s. He thought, that the punishment, while it indicated that the prisoner had committed a breach of the law in making his statements too wido, it aleo indicated that tho man whoso action resulted in tho publio good would not be punished severely because he had overstepped the mairk. Ho had to take into consideration all the circumstances of tho case. His Honor then raised the question of ccsts, and 6aid that the plea of justification had boon part proved and part disproved. It was clear that tho prisouor could not got costs unlsss ho was acquitted entirely. Tho amount was eventually fixed at sgs, and the prisoner was discharged on Mr Gray undertaking to pay the money.