BRYCE v. RUSDEN.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3588, 31 March 1886, Page 4

BRYCE v. RUSDEN.

A good deal of speculation has been indulged m as to tho approximate cost to Mr Ruaden of tho libel action recently decided against him at tho instanco of Mr Bryce. A little reflection cannot fail to show that the trial m tho long run -will cost Mr Rubdon a pretty penny for costs of the case irrespective of the heavy damages rendered against him— £sooo. From a most trustworthy source we lenvn that prior to Mr Bryce sailing for England ho was out of pocket to the extent of £1000; nnd, tho case being taken at the Middlesex Se3sion, before a speoial jury, Sir John Herseliel, the plaintifE'3 leading counsel, would require a retaining feo of nt least £500, if not something moro, as well as the assistance of two junior counsel, with proportionally ]e33 fee?. The trial cxtoncled over eereral days, and consequently the attendance fees of counsel, witnesses' expenses and so forth would swell tho amount to n. considerable degree. By one of the highest legal authorities m New Zealand it is computed that the court and incidental expenses on Mr Bryce's sido alono would total £3.500, and the expenses on the other side could noi well be less, so that altogether it may reasonably be assnmed that tho cost to Mr Rurlson, including tho amount of the damages specified, cannot be under £12,000 0r£13,0 0. In this aspect tho offer of Mr Rudson to compromise the matter by paying £1000 is manifestly absurd. It may bo mentioned further that the cost of tho Commission which took evidenco here eomo fiino ago was born by each party m equel proportions. — Ee'ning Press.