UNKNOWN.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 169, 11 September 1886, Page 3

UNKNOWN.

Aajaptidn^pjiallegedjibel^b.roug^y.^ii ar.jm^ogel, aghast Messrs, %R^jr^oi||e and $fe morning., Mr Travers for^ tbej plj*insiff, and.Mr)s. { D., B§U ioy ,ise defen-, <Uhtt! •'"<•• 5.<- „ •„•*> >- *-, '-, .r t "?*ghe plaintiff claims that, dn'JulyciO>*the defendahCs'published an artu'Je?erititled: i( Aj EtaFßhsineeß," and that defendants meant tH&'rcby that? the plaintiff, as Colonial* Trea-i Stftfer/hiftdicOrrnptediand, with a viewtode-; if&ng rterVohUl benefit therefrom,, pfombted) tti'e plU«ing I'by1 'by *he House of Representatives; o? s f l?ew Zealand of an Act passed in 1886,; intitqled District Railways Purchasing Act, 1885, and the Colonial Treasurer; bdttraptly,, and with' Vf lew to deriving personal benetic, aerefrom, "negotiated 'with William Jukes Steward; a member of the House ! of : Re, p^egentativesfbr the colony of *New ,Zea« land, then acting as agent of the Waimate; Railway Company, of -pertain "bonds whichJiad. been iaaued to^the^Gbmnuy in payment for the WalmatOtiiliway,; schedule -tQ the said Act, and Bid after*; warde co»pfetcdj9ttehpurchaBe,'^erhad, as: BochiCoromal Treasurer, secretly shared or; agreed to share with the said Steward in certain commissions paid, or to be paid, to' Steward Us such agent by the said Wairjaate', Railway ; Company for his services in^tbe passinftgbfiaid Act, and in effecting the sale ofldflbenture bonds to the plaintiff as, Colonial Treasurer. In the second cause of' action the defendants published an article! coricerniug the Colonial Treasurer entitled, " Stirring Dp the Mud," and that on the; 17th July the defendants aleo published, a woodcut - having special referenceto an * article, snd on which said Woodcat or print the plaintiff was represented as occupying in relation to the matter of eaid bonds a disgraceful,, humiliating position, and that the defendants meant, thereby that the plaintiff, as such <3610n!al Treaeut er, was guilty of corrupt and Improper conduct in negotiating for and in completing the purchase of certain debentures Durcjiaeed for himas Colonial Treasurer frßm William Jukes Steward, member of the House of Representatives, then acting as a&ent for the Sale of such debentures, and that 'his conduct otherwise in relation to the purchase was so corrupt, disgraceful, and improper as to bring the Government of the colony into disgrace and contempt, and to render him (the plaintiff) unfit to con tinue to occupy the office of Colonial Treasurer of the colony; wherefore the, plaintiff claims to recover from the defendants in respect of the first cause of action the sum of £1,500, and in respect of the aecond cause of action the sum of £1,500. • The defeodanta in their statement of defence, deny the plaintiffs allegations, etc , and hold that the matters referred to in the articles set forth in the statement of claim *re matters of public interest and concern ; thatthe alleged libellousatatementcontained in the ! said articles were fair comments on all' matters therein referred to, and' the same 'were pnblsihed Dona fide for the public benefit, without any sinister or malicious motive, and without negligence, and in honest belief of the truth thereof, and of every part thereof. Mr Travers opened the case for the plaintiff mt considerable length, and quoted authorities to show that one man had no Tight to impute to another, whose conduct might be fairly open to ridicule, base or sordid motives, and also to show that mere laoneet belief in the truth of what was not said was not sufficient justification unless ■there was some foundation for the justice of that belief. He th6n went on to review at length the' negotiation relative to the Waimate Railway. Evidence was taken to show the impgeseipn conveyed to certain people on reading toe articles, but it was not of any importance. Mr Travers then called Sir Julius Vogel, APho stated that he was plaintiff and Colonial Treasurer of JSew Zealand. . As Colonial Treasurer he purchased certain debentures from the Waimate and Rotorua Railway Companies with the result that the credit to the oolony was about £10,000. The debentures were purchased at 93 net for every 100. There ban been a considerable gain to the colony. The debentures were not available for use in Englaud till next year. The transaction was favourable, as the debentures wereprevented from being hawked at Home. lie had no personal interest in the transaction whatever. Cross-examined by Mr Bell, the witness field he returned to the colony the last time early in 1884. Wifcn-ss came out as director of the Agricultural Company, and was probably chairman of directors. He had a mission from that Company to the colony. Xt was not part of his mission to sell part of the Company's land to the Government, "Witness could not say whether, there was not £30,000 of rates outstanding. Witness -was elected to the House after the dissolution of 1884. The only person who spoke to witness about the district- railways wa3 Mr Henry Driver, who was his bitterest political opponent. He could not remember any other person speaking, to him about them before he joined the Government. After he became Minister 'he thought itv had received a deputation from Auckland about the .Rotorua Railway and the J^Bhburton Railway. , In- September,; >'l 854, moved the second leading of the District Railways. Act. He could .not recollect whether it passed that > year. He could not tell anything about the of 1884, as it had parsed out of his memory. [The , Bill was then' handed to *vitnedf,and, " Hansard" of September, 1884, which showed that the Bill was rejected by the Legislative Council.] , Witness, on reading it,' said it looked like a rejection'; 1 but sometimes af tec the Legislative Gouncilhad thrown out a .Bill, it was passed 'by the House, Witness afterwards said that. he remembered that a le&olution was paeßod in -the Houae authorising the Government to pvrcha^erailway debentures.; Along discuswon followed; . Witness said itivas unfair to examine him on " Hansard," as he was often .away from the Housei Sir J. Vogel said that ho corrected his speeches before they . appeared in "Hansard," but would nob «4y that, they were a .correct record of what he a*id, as , speeches . were sometimes so abomio&lly reported that|wholesentenceshad .to be atrUck outjin the proof; In 1885, witness /brought in the District Rail Wajav Act, and toe Government agreed upon the purchase of the debentures. Hetboughtthe negotiations TOre condreteTrmstiTy^bTMr Richardson, *nd while witness was in Canterbury and JDunedrn ? h^o^cjbedridri Mr 1 Richardson. The District Railways Purchase Bill of XBB5 waft pent back to the House amended H Wtfie^tfghf W "tße^Cotncil to -;%li« oHj§;e%eim t! ag^ r «^n£t|»e

*BxrUtsk"'otit)reHtoreu'"to TiiofrtJilK"""' W itness j examination. «In^i?^ily : to^Mr' Bell's oroas examination witness eaid that he had been ■^m®Tted vHHWi* to^PtesffMor years ; that -he-— • wrote his firstf article in 1834,, He f jiad been editor o£ papers^Sn?l*m B&i l&M&ftfhil f or libef brought against "~himr He had written^ Be.v>rol «H,tictoa ! tacftitijiifcHMr , M«gandr9\ft '4 candidature for the in tendency ft Otago" years back. ' He always* wrote con-; 'BOieritiously. 4 •Sdmepressmendidnoti- When, > the report ?wa.§ fii;Bt rea.d ( Mr Peaopck.made a personal .explanation, and Mr Stew'aro alscj macie'a personal'' expl'anatidn,''aa& Sir R. Stout i spokef^andj moved' » ( :r«isdlution: ;.^itnes^ had, seen .the- resolution, v and ap-| proved of "it in the Cabinet, but it was ar'rariffeii'Vy'the' Cabinet* 'that Sir R. Stout should riniove \th% resolution ias : . an 4 amend • tnent on the resolution for the adoption of the r«poH/ n *"he t5 re 1 46Mi6n J ' r wdB"'put' ao quickly f that witness toad'hovopportunity to , speak. . He,,,bel^ey,ed^th.atthe fir^et article insinuated that , he and Mr . Steward had shared tKe coriitriissioriV' i ' i ' l '"'"' ' "'' •- Mi\ Bell, prodpced>theif Appendix ', to the Journals, , of th,e general A/jeem,blyj t for,lBB£, .to show that. Sir Vogel conducted 'the negotiations i&'connection with 'the 'pur the'ltotoraaratiwayi -' \ - < Iwitnesa i said be>lwa* concerned in ; these, negpti^tions, .together wjith hiscoileaguei,' while in iCuckland, Was also connected/ with' "the ' negotiatiods ' for the purchase of the ' Waimate line while tin ,£}ttned\n. ■'■ ; Witness, spoke : during the debate on >,; July 16th, . and certified to the; Correctness of the "Hansard" report of his speech.! .Witness -had , not* eaid he .could see nothing .improper in; what Steward bad - dorie W hat he eaid before the' Committee was that he, did not see any harm in Steward getting a commission so long as it did not influence the. action he took |n Parliament;. ,,. lf it did, .then he would be guilty of greafi iniquity^ Jn the course of hie, evidence Hep had also stated that he was not aware Steward was getting any commission on account of the Waimate Railway, but when he came to deal with the Kotorua Railway he would probably claim it,' L as he was not a philanthropist. The other paper in this city which he had mentioned in his speech as having indulged in hostile comments On this subject, and ' which he had threatened with • libel proceedings, w«8 the "New Zealand Times." He had not changed* his mind yet as to whether he should still proceed against the " Times." He declined' to say whether the "Evening Press" and "Timea" were newspapers that the Government would care to go to in order to indicate the policy the Government 'wished them to take. The " Otago Daily Times " had alao published" an article against him in connection with this matter, but it bad apologised. He-examined by Mr Travers : Witness had no interest in the Bill except a public interest. H» considered it absolutely necessary in the public interests that the me&eure should be passed, and while the Government were of the same opinion as he had charge of the Bill took no more pains than he would have done in the caa of other Bills entrusted to him by the Government. The negotiations entrusted to Major Steward wert? limited to the fixing of the price at which the debentures were to be issued. It was only recently that this price had been ascertained. He was distinct in bis belief tnat the intention of the writer of the article was no other than to convey that he (witness) was to get part of the money. Mr Bell called no witnesses' for the defence. Mr Trovers, for the plaintiff, then addressed the jury. The defence had not ventured to suggest there was not a scintilla of imputation cast upon Sir Julius, as member of the Government, in advocating the passage of the Bill through Parliament. He argued that, the article complained of was based upon very slender material, and the charges contained in it were not borne out by the evidence taken before the Parliamentary Committee When first Mr Steward approached the Colonial Treasurer offering the Waimate debentures, the latter was unaware of the existence of the letter written by F. Slee, sepretary of the railway company, to Mr Steward. < Had Sir Julius known the terms of that letter, the negotiations between Steward and himself would have come to a speedy termination. He dwelt at length upon the report of the committee, and held that nothing in it reflected upon Sir Juliua'e action , The article had not attacked Mr Steward alone, but had connected Sir Julius with him, and attributed corrupt motives to both If the, Colonial Treasurer was guilty of any impropei motives in passing the bill, tben Mr Travere argued' that all the members of the Government were equally guilty, as they haij jointly agreed to the passage of the measure. Everyone, Mr Travera said, knew that the colony was indebted to Sir Julius Vogel for the interest he had taken in its welfare; and could any sane man suppose for one moment that in a small matter, such as the' purchase of the debentures of the Waimate Railway, he would be neglectful of the interests of the colony ? The colony bad not lost by the transaction,, but, on the other hand, the terms arranged by Sir Julius Vogel had been the means of saving the colorty some three or four 'thousand pounds He characterised the article as unfair and dishonest criticism, and the charges were unsupported by evidence. There was no justification for, the article wh'ateoever, t and the plea of ' fair criticism had not bean sustained.' Corrupt motives such as f .were jContaiued. in tho at tide should hot. be hurled at a gentleman occupying the position, , of Colopia} Treasurer, unless they .were backed up wifK 'proofs, and, while he agreed, with, the liberty enjoyed by the Press, it's criticism should be just. Th&jxticle, the subject of the action, he suFmilted showed a wanton disregard of by which conscien- : ttous writers' B&cfuld*'bff guided, and, he ! asked tor the careful, consideration of • the jury. Mr Bell", *lor the '■ defence,' said the issue was a momentous; one, .and .that .the action Was an attempt; on, the part of the , Government to niuzzle.tho Pjrees. Tho jury would have' to consider, whether? the ; word a in, the article would bear n ijhe meaning placed upon them by the plaintiff. .He submitted they did riofc.and cited j>eyeral,ca*es in support of his argument.,,, He dwelt at: length ;-0n? the privilege of the ]?re,BH,and explained the law op .the aubjecti, The article was; a criticism C(f a public man, apd was a.criticism'of what .took place lit Karliameqt, ,«nd. he intended to ask Hia.fHonprtp^direct^the jury that it was therefpre privileged*- f He., referred to the Distriq b ways, jPujrehasing Bill , which' y^a, rejected' by $i\e LeaislfltiveiCounoildn I^B*,! and, h,e, quoted fromis,f(,Hpn&6rd" extracts fr»map^echoB k made y against the Cpunpinocßij . H« nie^tiqried themto ißjbpw^i; thairtrthsi \ wjitf j:*|Qf i.the Article i was justified, i^fbiia jprijiiciajxib,* aa ,the,-bill was by th'' X»r)gi?lativo; Councillors i with tho,grayeBt sy apioiop, ;vBo then detailed the intrpduption pf'H4no.therjbill«the;{f6llowing Wfisipnj- 1 '^»j^Ma^a*Mwri^4p/ whioh;/it r yrwi'< veMsd&.V'X *. H<S ;; ftgain •'fquoted , from ope ecneo ;v; v made ,*» agakins|i' i the ■ ! jbilli] In,tth4

house in the former Chamber, and those of the; !M*?Kse«iSm^^ through both Chambers?* Thf Be%tocWFsj pape^ Aeyßr^ttrilu|ed v (W|honourable ' oon.|'| ducVio SWiM VoIdIT^TM critioisms on w£r^rf#fflS&Wfl£<& to? • vV efcjtfg wM^&pefcsy ibSibatklaiefet fev6r«<fj^li| <in^New^e*iUa%d had^hdvetfseWdidlwin'ifc&ej fpWcW^&f theKWaiofate taebWu«&>Ntf ;a'etloWi<Hhaa«hao / t' bfeen^co^m^upefo^ai^ti (Wetn.^ 'Iq^was^.be -wildest? exagfisi&ttpW<td 'say'tthfitf' the i^ttrip'iit^i^^orruj)!} LmoeivelftolSirM^uHtis^yogfel.f^ojH^^qoot^ vf rom frriade' by /, theMfßrptnier <*• aftd ( , 'Majoofc&kirifeOTf "when! the 'rrep'oitefyval vprej, 'Btmted/td Parliament,' ■i#l t whichv v »thcsy 'said 'the re'pbb'fc appeared" to; casfc;a» 'refltbtionfAjii *two itiemberssof the^floruee-4vi{i.^ ehe«'pol-i oniab'T'reaWarer.andvvtho'.member^fQrnW'a'i^ matek»'*> The action hadubeen trough tjtnoC >to fill iheppoketfl ofSiriJuJiuB;!bufc.f6rs«be ■purpose of crushing a paper I struggling/for oxistence, and alao to gag^ /the ,' Opposition Press.'; 1 He failed to ! Beo,ions the iaots which ' had b«i9t) adduced, , that a verdict ■ could be 1 returned 1 foD jthe plaintiff; ,t ;,, , \» > n>t*<> '. i The Chief' Justices in^summingiup,(Baid 'ifc'waaffor thbf jurjr>tot«ay whether; improper .tnoti'vesi had « 'been! imputed. i"Keading ( the report of the Select Committee,- he>cama''to the oonclui»pn^ha^the.firet.pQrtion reflected on Mr Steward, and the latter part drevtj attention to the'extraordinary'O pinion entertained^sf,9|F/[ttliuB, Y^Bli.^itli, regard to the position of memoers of" PafliamentJ The first artiplo was the one on whioh it appeared to Him that 'the plaintiff rested •his paae. The ( second 'article' was^onlyiai oriticism re the. .^Y.aimate ,debentur^s and the opinion held by Sir Julius re* ndembefs.^ 'With- re'gard''tO' ! the cartbon ' published in' tjhe *'JKr,esB.'' /.besdefence contende4 that it' was only a representation or drawing pi what bad been written in' the " fivetiing Post " the night. before^ while on the other bandit might be said the Colonial Treasurer required whitewashing, from the opinion 1 by re \thnl po^ition | of! member;e. ( The first arjbicle contained , a good^d^al; 'The > first portion 6 hiatory', of how the, Bill was, paaaed, but BJis/^onor failed to ' see, any imputation /that, n Sir Juliu^ nad acted with the view of motives. , "With regard to .the* inferenpe i in/t his article, that, there, w"ere dubious influences at ; work to paea the'' "bill, it was for the Jury /to say if that was a reflection on the Colonial .Trsmaurer which, is not, met by, facts. The article also wqot on t9 aay that there waa something wrong ( with', the whole matter up to the last, and jbhe f writer evidently intended to convey that all the members of tho % Government should refrain from any negotiations with 'other railway companies., It was not always the direct' language that was. used that was the sting of the article, but generally the language ueed in an indirect manner, and the plaintiff contended that the latter part of the article suggested that the Colonial Treasurer. received a portion of the commission. The article said it was not clear who got the money, and if the writer conveyed 'that meaning to ordinary readers who did it mean, and who participated in a this commission ? It was clear that Mr Steward received the whole of the commission, and .be had denied that anyone shared it with him. What cduld the imputation mean ? Th«c ,wad the. question <the jury would have to decide. If Mr Steward received the whole of the commission that wan a fact which the jury would have to consider. ( It, was a recognised right of writers to comment on the doings of public men, but such comment munt be fair and justified by fact. There was, however, no rule on ; the matter, and those who availed themselves of the privilege mut-t do so with moderation, and, if reckless, must stand the consequences. When a writer expressed himself on facts concerning public men, and d\d so in a mariner that showed no malicious spirit it was not actionable. Mis Honor then directed the jury on the law of libel, and also, should they find for the plaintiff, as to damagea. The jury retired at half -past ten p.m., and after an hour's deliberation they returned .with a verdict for the defendants. Costa were allowed an the higheßt scale. v