FURTHER EVIDENCE.

Colonist, Volume LIII, Issue 13032, 16 February 1911, Page 4

FURTHER EVIDENCE.

MR 11ASSEY IN THE BOX. , COUNSEL'^ ADDRESS. [Umted Fbess Association.] Weiiinstcrt, Pel). 15. Tho Massoy-"rlimes'' libel cato vas resumed this morning. W. A. Bowiing, aitist and caitoouist, considpicd that tlio oaitoon mi» doubtodly ■flapirted Mi ll(icsry <h~triluung ilio articles shov, n 'm the wagon. It was possible that the words "we are the party" were intended to show that the Opposition Party were distributing the contents of tho wagon. Mr Massey, the plaintiff, was the next witness. He said he had been in tlie House of Representatives nearly 17 years. Although he had been often politically cartooned, lie had never before brought, an action. He had no doubt the figure was meant for liim. He had never had anything, directly or indirectly, to do with the publication of the "Black pamphlet," and he would retire from public life if it could bo proved to the contrary. He did not consider that the discussion in the House absolutely exonerated witness from the imputation that lie had been connected with the ' 'Black pamphlet." Ho considered that the cartoon was a cold-blooded and deliberate libel on himself. To Mr Solomon: Immediately he saw the cartoon ho went straight to his legal adviser, and the writ was issued the samp day. He did not knowthat the original writ was confined to a claim in respect of the imputation with regard to the "Black pamphlet." He had not seen that Mr T. E. Taylor. recently characterised him (witness) as a liar regarding statements made in the House, but if so there was plenty of time to deal with Mr Taylor. He (witness) had referred to the Government as a whole when speaking in regard to .the Hine charges. He believed each member of tho Cabinet personally to be honest. He believed the cartoon was inspired by a member of the Government. He had heard it said that the pamphlet was distributed, not only for gain., but mainly to damage Sir Joseph Ward. A number of members had reflected on the Opposition in connection therewith. Mr lay lor, in the House, at a, late stage ot the discussion, denied having blamed tho Opposition. As lie (witness) had expressed sympathy in the House with Sir Joseph Ward in regard to the pamphlet, ho did not consider it necessary to write him a letter of sympathy. He considered the "Times'" remarks two days before the publication of the cartoon to bo only a qualified denial of the imputation He considered Dr Findlay's speech in the Council to be clover, but unfair. Witness considered that Tamnianyism was such actions as the Government refusing to give an advertisement to the Opposition papers, appointing to the Legislative Council men whose only claim to distinction was their sinking money in Government papers; and also the reckless expenditure or public monies just prior to the election. This closed the case for the prosecution-. Mr Solomon said he called no evidence for the defence. Sir Bell, addressing the jury, said that the fact of the defence 'callinu: no evidence showed that no -honourable citizen dared to conic to court a;:<l dony that the cartoon depicted Mr Masyey. If the. defendants had unintentionally used a figure resembling Mr Masso.v it would have been different; but the figure had been purposely and deliberately depicted showing Mr Massoy "hitching his wagon to a lie. 1' Counsel admitted that the Opposition party as a whole bad been attacked; but it had been attacked with Mr Mißsey as its head "hitching a wagon to a lie." Mr Bell then referred" to Dr Findlay's speech in the Council, and attributed to it the change in the "Times'" attitude from the 30th November to the 3rd December. The only way the "Times" could execute the

volte face without opciily recalling tli^ ' article of the 30th November, it took Advantage of ; jthd ,th©, cartoon wa« printed, llcferriug to the question, of damages, counsel pointed oTit that Jhoro fehoUld bofair li&avier damages than \Tei-*J claimed in .this 'jafiG) ,#hich waa considered partlj7 political, ior. much Jieafricr damages were granted in most libel actioi 3.. .. : Ml1 Bolomoni for clefendants, said n was important iv sco ttliat ihh -t plaintiff claimed damages for. Counsel *■ had said that the criticism was of tho Opposition, The jury's duty was to ' find for the defondants^if Mr Alaasey wire shiipi.y inaiigiied as ttift liefld of the Opposition, as Mr Massoy had not claimed on that account. Mr Solo- . mon then dwelt on what he called the volte face of counsel for plaintiff, who, yesterday, said that the defamation ft was not of tho Opposition party, but *■ of Mr Massey personally, now saying that defamation was of the party and thus incidentally of Mr Massey. Tho "Times" was a reputable paper, and a credit to any town, and surely 6Uch a paper would not attack a man without cause. Even Messrs Massey and Eraser in evidence said that it was obviously an attack on tho party, qualifying this by saying that this dragged in Mr Massey. The cartoon, perhaps, was meant to . cony.ey that Mr Mas'so.y was politically a liar, and .that politically should evidently have been taken as a compliment, taking Mr Massey's views of politicians as given that morning. Counsel had not called evidence becatiso defendants did not dispute that the cartoon depicted Mr Massey politically. The plaintiff's own witnesses had said that the cartoon referred to the party. Counsel concluded by saying that Mr Massey should treat the attacks by his opponents in the same light as liis own attacks on others.