LATE MR JOHN BEYCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15672, 27 January 1913, Page 4 (Supplement)

LATE MR JOHN BEYCE.

THE BKYCE v. RUSIBN LIBEL ACTION. A MEMORABLE LAW-301T. j The death of the Hon. John Bryce, tviuch. occurred at Waiigauui last week, recalls many stirring incidents iu t<ew Ifealaml political history. Probably no ovent in his ions career attracted inoro widespread puolio interest or was more tuoiougluy cnaraciensiic of the determination oi the man than the libel action which he conducted in IMo against li. W. Rusden, cue author of "Tiie History of New Zealand." in this book, which was published in several volumes by Messrs Ohapmaa and mall in 18&S, the author scarcely over referred to mx Bryce without some 6noering or opprobrious opituet,, but the libel action was Based chietiy upon ono specJic passago wnicii contained a really dastardly charge. "Tlio literary cravers lor b'ood," wrote Mr Kusdon, " were 60on to be gratified on The West and East Coasts by events, of which some were not ouicially reported or told in Mr Gudgeon's ' Remiiiisoences of Wars.' Lieutenant Bryce, who was in after years a .Native Minister, distinguished himself. Some women and young children, emerged from a pah to hunt pigs. Lieutenant Bryce and Sergeant Maxwell, of the Kai Iwi Cavalry, dashed upon them and cut them down gleefully and with ea6o. . . . Bryce earned among the Maoris a title which clung to him. They called him ' Kohuru' (the murderer)." Another passago on which a good deal of stress was laid during the trial, and. which clearly indicated Mr Rusden's rooted hostility to Mr Bryce, was in the form of a' little disquisition on cowboys. "The occupation of a cow herd gives scope for the humane and for the brutal. If the lad be kindly, he will reolaim the erring cow in kindly manner; if he bo uihuman, he will inflict as much torture as he can by hurling stones at the eyes of the patient beast which unwittingly offends him. Hl3 aamirera have not cared to record much of Mr Bryoe'e boyish days; but his conduct as Native ALnistcr justifies the inference that ho was of the interior order of cowboy." Mr Bryce, as it happened, was not the type of man to allow such damaging and unwarranted statements to be published about him without taking up the cudgels in his own defence. In his desire to invoke the most impartial tribunal and the most authoritative judgment he could obtain he had his case tried in London at the Royal Courts of Justice before Baron HuddJestou and a speoial jury. A great deal of oviduneo was taken by a special coinmis-. sion in New Zealand from Maoris and otners who had been concerned in a skirmish at Jdandiey's woolsned, in the Waitotara district, in November, I860; for it was to tnis incident that kusdeus statemunt about tne cuiting down of women and children ' gieeiully and with ease" reierred. A very strong bar wa6 engaged uy ooiu parties, and uie case was tought out with tne greatest keenness daring eignt days. ihe piaintm was represented by Sir litnry James, y.U., M.P.; Mr Murphy, y.U.; and ale iyrrell fame; and the aelcuaaiit, by sir John Gorst, Q.U., M.P.; sir itiumrd Websiet, Q.C., M.P.; and Mr Jidww Jones; and iu commencing hi 3 suimumg up Baron Huddleston remarked that 0110 point upon which they must all agree was that everything which the power 01 eloquenco of great advocates could bring to bear upon the case had been brought bet ore the jury by the threo counsel who iiad addressed them—three of the most eminent men at the Bar. The judge also expressed satisfaction at the clearness of perception and the power of intellect displayed by the four witnesses examined before them, and remarked that all of these, by their reputation and their character, reflected credit on the colony from which they came. The four witnesses who appeared in London were the plaintiff and tho defendant, Sir John Hull, and Mr Richard Uliver, of the New Zealand Legis-' lative Council. In addition to the plea of justification, the alternative defeuce was raised that tho expressions complained of were fair comment upon a. public man, and upon matters of public interest, made bona fide and without malice. In the course of the evidence it came out that Mr Rusden's source of information for the gravest of his libels was Sir Arthur Gordon, then Governor of New Zealand, who quoted as his informant Bishop Hadfield, who in turn relied on what he had heard from Dr Fcatherstone, Superintendent of Wellington Province.

It was not attempted to prove at the' trial that Mr Bryce was a murderer. _ On the contrary, it' was shown conclusively that Mr B'Vce did not cut down women and young children cither gleefully and with ease or gloomily and with difficulty. There were no women present at all at tlhe Handlcy's woolshed« affair, and the age of tho "children" concerned was, to say the least of it, uncertain. Tho statement as to the' nickname by which Mr Bryce had been known amongst the Natives was not perhaps refuted quite as plainly as tho more specifio charge; and, indeed, the very meaning of tho Maori word said to have been used was left up to the end of the trial, in 6ome obscurity. Sir John Gorst and Sir Richard Webster (for the defence) advanced the remarkable doctrino that any assertion about a public man is legitimate if tho person making it believes ,it to be true; but, fortunately, Baron Huddleston lent no countenanco to this monstrous proposition, which seems to spring from confusion between statement and comment. Mr Rusden went so far as to set up a counter-claim for £2003 in respect of having been called, as was admitted, "a, liar, a slanderer, and a coward" by Mr Bryce, and claimed further compensation for the stoppage of tho sale of his'-book.

On the eighth day of the trial the jury, after a retirement of only 15' minutes, brought in a verdict for the plaintiff for £5000 damages. Sir J. Gorst immediately applied for a stay of execution, and on June 15 and 16, 1887, the motion for a new trial was heard by Justices Field and Manisty. Mr Rusden addressed the court with considerable ability, occupying tho time of the court for nearly a day and a half. Sir Henry James, representing Mr Bryce, said he had been instructed not to tako more than a full indemnity for the costs and expenses to which Mr Bryce had been put in leaving New Zealand to bring tho action. Ho would ask nothing further than the sum of £1531, making in all £2531 in substitution for the £5000. The defendant agreed to accept tihris, and to make a completo retraotion and apology. Tho result of the trkl was eagerly welcomed bv a largo section of the London press, which had evidently become strongly sympathetio with Mr Brvce. " Such," remarked the Times, "is the penalty attached to writing contemporary history, though rarely has it been so heavily paid. The historian must not exclaim 'Kohuru' and 'hurl stones' against living men, or he will get into trouble. He must rather exhibit that humanity and kindliness which Mr Rusden. recommends to the oowboy." , Tho Saturday Review congratulated Mr Bryce on having triumphantly vindicated his character, contributed to the general knowledge of New Zealand politics, and helped to establish a valuable doctrine of law. The weak points of the defence were ably summarised in the following pointed sentence by a writer in Trntih:—"lt is a question who comes wore* out of the affair —tho colonial Governor who privately writes libels of one of his own Ministers; the bishop, who tells one story in publio and another in private, both gross exaggerations; or the historian, who endeavours to find authentic authority for these libels, fails to do so, but nevertheless repeats them, with additions and omissions whidh make them far worse, and then, when ho is convicted of untruth, refuses to withdraw o: apologiso for them.''