The Thames Star. Resurrexi. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1894. A MEMORABLE LIBEL ACTION.

Thames Star, Volume XXV, Issue 4649, 1 February 1894, Page 2

The Thames Star. Resurrexi. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1894. A MEMORABLE LIBEL ACTION.

In regard to the decision of the jury in the great Speight-Syme libel suit, awarding £100 damages to Mr Speight upon one of the eleven counts submitted, the correspondent of the Christchurch Press says that the division in the jury-room was five enthusiastic Speight men, three enthusiastic Age men, and four who went one way on one count and one way on another.

The count upon which the jury agreed was that known as the stores libel. The Age had declared that £250,000 worth of stores and material lay in the Newport shops that should not be there at all, and that piles of canvas, carpet, sheetings, &c, lay there that were out of date, and were of no U6e. The Age, in its defence, did not seek to justify this libel, bring no evidence in favor of it; while for Mr Speight, the railway storekeeper swore the total stock was only about £1200 worth, and there was not £50 worth that was out of date or useless. The Judge, therefore, told the jury plainly i that the Age had entirely failed to \ prove this statement upon which they accused Mr Speight of ruinous incompetency. Nevertheless, three of the jury persisted in desiring to finding a verdict for the Age, even on this count, and one of the nine who favored Mr Speight on it would only give him £100 damages. Another important count was that in regard to the increase of the workiDg cost. The Age asserted that when Mr Speight took charge of the railways the average annual wage was £102, and that under his regime it had increaeed to £143 per head. The Judge pointed out to the jury that if this assertion were trug it would bear out all that bad been said of Mr Speight's extravagant management, but he also pointed out that the Age had completely failed to sustain the statement. They had arrived at the figures by a wrong method of computation from the railway estimates. They had divided the total estimate for all railway expenses by the total number of employes at the respective periods, but the Judge pointed out that under this method the more employes Mr Speight had at work the less would the average wages be brought out. A man with one servant whose annual household expenses were £500 would thus be paying an annual wage of £500, while it he had two it would be only £250, and so on. _ XTpon this fallacious method of reckoning the Age had declared Mr Speight to have built, up a rotteu system of manage-! ment which it was little short of miraculous the public had so long been deluded by, and it was impossible that he could remain in his position. Yet the jury could not agree that in this matter the Age had wounded Mr Speight in reputation. The principal libel was in regard to political influence. The Age asserted that billets had been conferred, freights reduced, station sites fixed, and so forth at the command of members of Parliament. The entire evidence only established three cases of political influence in the eight years of Mr Speight's reign. Mr Fox had received a promise that a plumber should get employment, Mr O. Jones had succeeded in getting a claimant's long over-due account paid, and Mr Mason had been promised that when local railway requirements had been decided upon the member for the district should te told first, so that he could convey the news to his constituents. It did 1 not appear, however, fch&t this was carried out in any instance. Ab vegards putting on extra trains, reducing freights, or any important matters 1 of that kind, there was absolutely no [ evidence of political influence. There were several libels, of course, that were matters of opinion, such aa whether lines had been extravagantly constructed, expensive stations built, or too much train mileage run; but on all these matters Mr Speight was able | to bring engineer and expert evidence | strongly in his favor as against tbat^ of tiie Age jrepprters and outside engineers, whose experience in some instances was ludicrously scant. The great mass of tho public feel that Mr Speight has been most unfairly treated by the jury. The trend of public feeling was shown by the /act that when from two or three theatre stages it was announced that the jury had found for £70.00 in Mr Speight's favor, the announcement wag received with thunders of applause. Mr Speight is (determined to fight the action to the end, jand has already given notice that he wj}i proceed to a new trial on ten counts on which Jbhs Jury disagreed. The Age presents an estimate of the costs in the case. The defendants

costs will be within a trifle short of £21,000, of which the largest items are counsel's fees £6000, solicitor's expenses £7000, jury fees £2268, official shorthand writers' costs £360, special trains and incidental expenses for jury £770, English commision £410, witnesses'fees £500.