"STUD" TRAMWAYS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15098, 22 March 1911, Page 7

"STUD" TRAMWAYS

DECISION REVERSED,

A FURTHER APPEAL

Press Association—By Telegraph— Copyright,

LONDON, March /20. The Court of Appeal decided in favour of Sir John Benn in his appeal against the .verdict of £12,000 damages" for alleged libelling of the patentees of the stud system of tramways, on the ground that Sir John's atta-ck on the system was not personal, but as a member of the County ■ Council. ■ . '

Further notice of appeal was given.

Tho action against Sir' John Bonn, leader of the Progressive party in the London '' County Council, which occupied 13 days ■ ■ ■ -...; in tho King's Bench Division before Mr/ ■■...■"'. Justice Ridley and a special jury, resulted . '-■; on December lin a. verdict against Kim, ■f, 1 < tho plaintiffs being, awarded £12,0C0 dam-V .■ : . ages. The plaintiffs wore Mr W. Griffiths ■: ■~ '' and Mr B. H. Bedell, tho originators uf •.' . ; the G.B; ("Stud") t'urfaca. system of efec- 1 ' ■: trie traction, which the London County - > ; >,, Council decided to adopt in the Mile End X IVJE'd, tho Moderate party being at that ~ 7vtime in the majority on the council. . , ....'.: The action against Sir John Bonn was '■ ( ~' for alleged slander and libel, iii respset of 1 : ■■. speeches and writings in newspapers, in ; , .■.•:'■■'; which the system laid down in tho Mile -. .': Emd road was described by him as a. .. ■•/.■.■'■ fiasco, allegations being made that studs ! ~-'y-' ': discharging electricity had been the cause . -■','} of injury to horses and persons, and were ■-. a eourea of danger. Two of the four speeches containing, tho alleged slanders , ,"■■'■■' were made, at meetings of tho. County Council, in respect of which Sir ijohn Benn ■• '.; pleaded privilege; ono was delivered at ' '.'_.'■■ a public meeting at Milo End road in . ' ', December, 1908; and the fourth was at a ' ..... hou-« dinner in the National Liberal Club. Tho last sponch, according to the ovidence. -. . contained three passages:—"When tho M«lcratcs came into power 18 months ago / they wero in possession of a sohemo for . ■' the installation of tho conduit system, frail Gardiner's Corner to Bow Bridge. But ~ they were bent on doing something cheaper, ", ' ' something pf tlieir own, in order to prove p" ~ ■ to London tha.t the Progressives, oven in '' their tramway administration, wore wast- " j. V fill; and so they set up What waa known . : "* as the G.B. syetein. You know tlio tor-'j. ,, .' riblc storj- of tho Milo End road fromV, ; June 25 to July 12 last. . . . Whv not ;' start' next week ripping up this mis- '■ chicroua and iinpossiblo system, and put '■ ■.. dawn the Progressive conduit, which has .-. *■'.'■ dtao so well lor London?" The alleged .'•'.- i' ;,•'. libels were in a signed article contributed ;, by Sir John Bonn to the Da.ily Chronicle, '• in which it was said that the tramway , : . ' "catastrophe" in the Mile End road should ' i.'•' l>oa.r the label " Moderate," and in a lettor to The Times. • .

The line was opened on June 25, 1908,. ■ and in a short time the London . County ; Council abandoned the system. The plain- - tin's' cqk> was that they had been ruined / by this experience, and they attributed this ■':, effect to the defendant. Ih their evidence ' tho plaintiffs alleged that their system was never cflieiently installed. The judge : pointed cut to the jury that the meetings '.' of tho County Council were a. privileged- ': occasion, and if it wero not shown that in his'speeches there Sir John Benn was moved by a corrupt or wrong motive, , tho ; ! jury must find in regard to those speeches for him. :

The jury considered its verdict for ovef . two hours, and gave answers to the following questions:—" "ft'ero the words de- '.'j 4 faniatory?—Yes. Did they refer to the"': '■ plaintiffs?— Yes. Wcro they expressions of "- opinion or statements of fact?—Of fact r - JHd they state that tlio system generally ' ; : . was a failiujc or only that "the system was .'■' so as laid in tho Atile Kndi read ?—Botil ■■ So far as the words were statements of fact, '~ woro they true?— Many untrue. Was the- \ defendant actuated by malice in using the ' ' ' • words or any of them?-Yes, except k tho "' London County Council syseches. Did the : . plaintiffs sufibr any special damage?—Dis- •' ugrccnrejit. ■ So far Kβ,the words were- ex- ' . •' pressiens of opinion, were they fair com- '• nient on facts truly stated?— Pacts, not ' ; ' comment. General damages?—£l2,ooo, to : Ik divided equally between tho two plaintiffs. ■ . .

The foreman raid they thought the cues- ■" turn before tlio Jast fell to tho ground after the answer to tho third nucstion. Mr Urtcr submitted that it amounted) to "No " Mr Justice Ridley said, ae to the question on iraioh the jury had: disagreed, he would leave it y whoro it was. ■ Judg-mont was entered for file plaintiff? for £6030 cadi with costs. Sir Edward Clarke apphtd for a stay of execution, with ' ; a view to an oppjal. A stay \ m granted TwT u tllat s .°° urlt - was Siven for ibOM. It was estimated that the total costs in the caso would be near £10 COO.