GREAT LIBEL CASE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3604, 19 April 1886, Page 3

GREAT LIBEL CASE.

BRYOE V. RUBDEN.

(By Cable — Reuter's Agency.) (By Egectrio Telegraph— Copyright.) (E«ceivod 3 p.m., April 17th.) j Adelaide, April V?. Files of London papers to hand by the gteamship Chimborazo give full details of the Brycs-Riisdon libel trial. Mr Bryce waß examined at great length, and the manner m which he gare evidence produced a favourable impression on the Judge and jJurv._ The defendant's counsel, m cross-exainin&tion, evinced a desiro to indicate that the action was brought more to clear the reputation of Sir John Hall than to satisfy tho honour of Mr Bryce, but the court irefiped to countenance this attempt, and reminded fche jury that the quesfcipn at issue -was solely whether, as stated by Mr Kusden, Mr Bryce attacked women and children, cutting J.hpm down gleefully and easily. Tho Judge, Baron Huddlestone, declared m summing up that the defence on that point had failed completely. Mr Bryco was crossexamined ypry closely as to the details of tho PaTitiaka incident, counsel for the defence endeavouring (to show thjjt he (Mr Bryco) had treated Te Whiti with unnwM»sary harshness, and the policy of the Hall Government with regard to f,hj» matter was canvassed, but the Court held that personal harshness on the part of Mr Bryoe must be cited. The chief interest of this trial centered m tho defence which was generally regarded as essentially weak. Mr Eusden, m his examination, stated that he .was sndoavouring to write a truo history of New Zealand, upon material supplied him by the Bishop of Wellington (Dr Hadfield) and Sir Arthur Gordon, tho then Governor of New Zealand, taking hia information also from the BJup Books and New Zealand Press, as well as from, ppraopal conversations with Maori natives. He diflcl<j.ime4 *& ideit of being actuated by ill-feeling or maiicys towards Mr Bryce personally, but maintained the Jjr.Oj

ceediDgg at Parihoka were of the cruellest nature. In cross-examination Mr Busden admitted that when he compiled the history m question he hod beard nothing as to the slaughter of tho wires and children of natives, bnt was subsequently informed of Mr Bryce's aotion m the matter through Sir Arthur Gordon and Bishop Hadfield, hence he came to write tho paragraph which formed tho subject of the present action. He placed reliance on the statements mode him by Bishop Hadfield, and the communications received from Sir Arthur Gordon. When he discovered the mistake' he had made about tho women prasenfc at the woolahed he prepared a list of errata for his book but gave no orders to attach the errata to the copies printed. (Beoeived 6 p.m., April 17th.) I/ATEB. Mr Busden also admitted that he had not supplied copies of the errata to the New Zealand Press, and that he had dono wrong regnvding Mr Bryco and the women. Mr Buaden stated that ho had nover imputed that Mr Bryce had personally slaughtered children, only that the commander of the party of cavalry was alleged to. have committed the cruelties m question. He had been led into gross error, but maintained, nevertheless, that at the time of writing he believed his accounts to be true m substance. The learned Judge m summing up remarked that the jury had two questions to consider. ) The first was whether it was fair to comment on the facts m the Busden publication, which were now admitted to be untrue ; therefore' the plea at tho end that tho publication was true m substance was the real.questionl Therefore whether the libel partook of the nature of a bond fide comment on matters of public interest, liberty must not descend into licence, though defendant! was at perfect liberty to discuss public proceedings. Plaintiff must be fairly temperate m: bis comments, which must be within certain limits, when dealing with the character of private individuals. Historians bad no special privilege to abuse public men. Mr Busden had never made any pretence of impartiality and had admitted his inaccuracy. Instead of apologising m a generous spirit for his mistakes, he came into court justifying the libel, and alleging that everything he had stated was true m substance and m fact. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff 5 damages £5000.