MASSEY V. THE TIMES

Southland Times, Issue 16785, 13 July 1911, Page 5

MASSEY V. THE TIMES

FURTHER ARGUMENT, (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON. July 12. Mr Bell, K.C., continuing his argument before the Court of Appeal this morning, in the case Massey v. the N.Z. Times, proceeded to discuss the summing up of Mr Justice Chapman at the trial in the Supreme Court. He contended that the jury might have tho.ught from the summing up that Mr Massey, although connected in some way with the distribution of the Black pamphlet, might yet not be guilty of a mean and despicable action. He further complained that the judge distinguished between an ordinary libel and a cartoon, saying that if it was merely an ordinary political cartoon and aimed at the party it was not necessarily libel on Mr Massey, although the jury found that the figure represented Mr Massey. He submitted that if a class were libelled and an Individual were singled out and described or depicted as a member of sucli class it was libel on the individual. This, he said, was not made clear to the jury, and therefore amounted to misdirection likely to mislead the jury, and was ground for a new trial. He then proceeded to cite authorities in support of the application for a new trial on the ground of misdirection. With regard to the verdict, Mr Bell contended that it must read that the jury were of opinion that the cartoon was political pure and simple and was therefore not libellous. This, he said, showed that they ' had misinterpreted the law; tiie verdict was bad, and a new trial should be ordered. Further, If the verdict was good and was one for the defendant newspaper, then it was against the weight of evidence, and entitled the appellant, to his new trial. Mr Solomon said that, looking at the whole conduct of the case, the verdict was one for defendant. What the learned judge put to the jury was that they could not find for the defendant if they found that the cartoon connected either Mr Massey or his party with the distribution of the Black pamphlet. He submitted the cartoon was not libellous without an innuendo and that in order to succeed plaintiff must prove the innuendo pleaded, which was that air alassey was connected with the distribution of the pamphlet; that this was put clearly to the jury and tiiat they intended by their verdict to negative the innuendo and to find for the defendant newspaper. The Court here adjourned till tomorrow. _____________