The Victorian Libel Case.

Southland Times, Issue 12798, 5 January 1894, Page 3

The Victorian Libel Case.

—— Mr Duffy is said to have made a capital j address to the jury for the plaintiff in Speight v. Syme, and completely wiped out the undoubtedly clever representations of Mr Purves, Q.C., for the defendant. He expressed his regret at the outset that Mr Purves should have thought it necessary to abuse Mr Speight when he found he could not shake his evidence in cross-examination. It was not only bad taste but bad tactics on Mr Purves’s part to refer Mr Speight to the story of Ananias. The counsel for the Age, of all men, should have avoided such a reference, for it was notorious that that unfortunate name was peculiarly attached in the public mind to a personage and I an institution quite apart from Mr Speight, and Mr Duffy reminded the jury of the roar of laughter which went through the colony when the weekly papers issued from the Age office inadvertently styled one of its illustrations The “ Haunt of the Lyre Bird.” He made Mr Deakin, junior counsel for the defence, feel uncomfortable by picturing the difficulty the defendant and his counsel must have experienced in preparing their case, when they found that the very first deputation to the Railway Commissioners which the Age reported was introduced by Mr Deakin, j M.L.A., and asked for a station atEssendon and a sub-way. Mr Duffy also drew atten- I tion to the fact that Mr Purves who poured I out his indignation at the condition of their finances at so many guineas per day, publicly proposed last year to relieve the colony of all its difficulty by turning it into a Monte Carlo and instituting a great State lottery, whilst the only man outside the department who had been shown by evidence to have interviewed Mr Speight tc ask for the promotion of an employe was Mr David Syme, and he did not get what he asked for. Referring to the long series of Age articles complained of by the plaintiff, Mr Duffy said the libel was composed of a number of facts mixed up with a number of fictions If what the Age said were true the comments upon Mr Speight would have been fully deserved. It was said that Mr Speight had been brought here to make the railways pay. That was true aS far as it was the duty of the Commissioners to see there was no improper expenditure of money, no wastefulness, and no roguery in their management. But Mr Speight had nothing to do with what railways should be constructed. That question Parliament alone determined. The Commissioners only had to give advice. The real object for which Mr Speight and his colleagues were employed was the management of the property put in their hands on prudent principles. Prior to 1883 the railways had been managed by political cheats, and there were chronic deficits, but the result of Mr Speight’s management was to decrease these deficits. Touching on the question of the reliability of estimates for new lines passed in 1884, Mr Duffy said in the course of building the lines it turned out that the estimates were lower than had been anticipated. Thereupon, in 1886, the Commissioners wrote, when only part of the work had been done, informing Parliament that the lines could not be built at the estimated cost. The price of the land required for the lines had been increased by the land boom. Both in a special and in their annual report the Commissioners bad pointed out what the result would be if Parliament went on with

the lines. With those reports before it Parliament chose to go and build the new lines. It was said these lines were constructed at a greater cost than was necessary. The answer was: Parliament was warned of the cost, and yet decided that the railways should be built. Mr Duffy contended that the Age had deliberately set to work for the purpose of putting Mr Speight out of office. When the Gillies-Deakin Government went out the Munro-Shiels Administration came into power. Towards the latter he had no very great animosity, as his brother was a member of it, but it was certain that the Ministry held office entirely through the support of the Age, which wielded its enormous power for the purpose of forcing the Shiels Government into destroying Mr Speight, and so it was that Mr Wheeler went to the Railway Department with the foregone conclusion that Mr Speight was wrong. Mr Wheeler wanted the plaintiff to do the impossible and to force him to report upon how to make the railways pay, and to take all the responsibility. Mr Speight actually offered to make recommendations, accompanied by explanations, but from that time his days were numbered. The Commissioners were to be made the catspa w of the Government. If the scheme succeeded the Government could claim the credit; if it failed the Cabinet could say : “It’s all Speight’s fault.” Mr Duffy pointed out how unfairly Mr Speight had been treated by the Age by declining to publish a single explanation on his behalf. When an Age representative called on Mr Speight to complain that he did not pay sufficient attention to the criticisms of that paper, he replied : “ Well, it seems to me that you don’t care much what we say ; you won’t publish our explanations.” Subsequently, however, Mr Speight sent to' 3 the Age proper official explanations as to certain charges contained in articles on the department. Those explanations never appeared in the Age, the conductors of which, however, retained the documents some time before returning them to Mr Speight. “ Sufficiently long,” said Mr Duffy, “to allow the articles to sink into the public mind.” Mr Speight ♦hen sent the explanatio •to the Argus, in which paper they appeared. This brought the Age out with an article commencing: “At last Mr Speight has been stung into making an answer.” Mr Duffy characterised such action as “ downright dishonesty, and as near lying as one could go. ” It was worth noting that although the Age did not publish Mr Speight’s communication, a copy must have been taken of it, as quotations had been made during tho case which never appeared in the Argus. Concluding, Mr Duffy addressed the jury in the following terms “It is impossible, gentlemen, to have been associated with my client, Mr Speight, without being most deeply affected by his dauntless character, his unswerving integrity, and great ability. Before this attack by the Age was made upon him Mr Speight was a prosperous man, who had conducted the business of the railways in this country with eminent sagacity and eminent honesty. And for some unknown reason—for some reason which has not been divulged, and which never now will be divulged—the Age made this attack on him. It is one thing for you or Ito speak ill of our neighbours, and it is another thing, and a very different thing, for a newspaper which has access to every hearth and every home in this country directly or indirectly to speak and write continuously in such a way as to ruin a man. What is to be thought of a newspaper which by the influence it has gained poisons the mind of tho whole community against a man—poisons the mind of the community so that a man, prosperous one day, gradually goes down and down until he becomes, as Mr Speight is here today, broken in fortune, broken in character —unless you rehabilitate it—and broken utterly, not only in fortune and character, but to some extent in health by the long, anxious, and tearing and wearing waiting from day to day endeavouring to re-establish that reputation which the Age has stolen away from him. My friend, Mr Purves, has told you that Mr Speight is hopelsss, and must be hopeless, of ever again getting employment in this or any other department of public service. Why ? Because of this libel. And how were those libels written ? They were written in absolute and reckless ignorance of the facts at the best, and flaunted before the public. And when the attention of the Age was drawn to the fact that all those statements were written in gross ignorance—when Mr Speight was writhing under the accusations and attempted to set them right—was there any apology or withdrawal 1 Not in the slightest. There was reiteration and reiteration, and at a time when it was life and death to Mr Speight. And the results w>s those facts went uncontradicted before the public on the eve of a general election. And how did the Age behave after the libels were written and the damage done ? When this action was brought did it apologise or withdraw a single statement? No; it has reiterated them over and over again. I shall ask you to give a substantial verdict, for a substantial verdict is the only thing which will rehabilitate Mr Speight—not only money, though money is absolutely necessary and vital to him, and he deserves it. If you give him anything but a large and substantial verdict it may be said you treated him contempturudy, and that you did not think the accusations were entirely unfounded. I shall ask you to say that Mr Speight has suffered all that any man could suffer from the reckless circulation of those cruel statements. I ask you for a substantial and a large verdict. That is what Mr Speight requires, and is entitled to. His character in this country, and in the other country where he may have for the future to seek employment, requires that he should have such a verdict as will enable him to make a living for himself and his family.