THE WORTHINGTON LIBEL CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5434, 9 December 1895, Page 2

THE WORTHINGTON LIBEL CASE.

SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS. A NONSUIT. The action for libel brought by Arthur Bentley Worthington against John Thomas Marryatt Hornsby and the Sun Newspaper Company was called on for hearing before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston and a special jury of twelve at the Supreme Court this morning. There was a large attendance of spectators, the gallery being full, and a considerable number of persons occupying seats in the body of the court. r The plaintiff claimed .£3OO damages, i.e., jfilOO each in respect of articles published in the Sun on August. 17, 24 and 31 respectively. The defendant pleaded that the statements in the articles were true. The plaintiff appeared in person. Mr Joynt, instructed by Mr Hunt, appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff applied for an adjournment. His Honor pointed out that Mr Worthington had filed no affidavits in support of the application. The plaintiff said that he was not aware that such was the practice. His Honor said that affidavits jshould have been filed, but he would hear Mr Worthington. The plaintiff said that the case had been set down for heaving while the defendants were taking steps to procure a commission to table evidence in the United States, The plaintiff would have joined in this. The commission, however, was not to issue, and. the plaintiff had expected the atterir dance of a material witness from America. Late on Saturday night it had beerf ascertained that this witness had not arrived. The presence of this witness was absolutely necessary, and much of the evidence conr sisted of records of Court proceedings and United States Army records. A witness had been brought from Australia by' the defendants, at considerable expense, and the plaintiff was desirous that the evidence of this witness should be taken on commission, in order, to save expense. With regard to the position of the defendants, he thought that he was entitled to refer to the fact that an application had been made for the liquidation of the Sun Newspaper Company, and to the fact, of which the Court had taken judicial cognisance, that the defendant Hornsby was impecunious. . His Honor said that he had not referred to the defendant Hornsby as being impecunious. He had merely remarked on the fact that he was editing a struggling paper.The plaintiff said that as toimpecuniosity, he could meet the defendant on the same basis himself. ' ; His Honor asked for how long the plaintiff wanted an adjournment. ■ • . . » The plaintiff said that as much of the evidence he wished to bring consisted of authenticated copies of official documents, it would require about three months to obtain it. He would point out that the defendant would not be prejudiced by delay. . , Mr Joynt opposed the application, for adjournment. He said that the real grounds were not- those stated, but the want of funds. There were heavy expenses to be met — jury fees and others. ■ • • ■ . ' His Honor said that he understood the . .jury fees had been lodged. . , ■ - T^e Registrar, said thejrhad not. - •/ ■ Mr Joynt said that copies of records from the United States would not be evidence unless affirmatively proved. Even if they were, it would not be of any use to produce records of the position of the defendant in the United States army. Tjtie defence was quite ready to go on, had incurred considerable expense, and had brought over an important witness from New South Wales, and had to maintain her till she had given her evidence, and to send her back. He did not think that the defence should be subjected to the great and enhanced expense which would be necessitated by an adjournment. The) case was now on for trial on the date which had been applied for by the plaintiff, who also had obtained the special jury. He commented on the, fact that the San Francisco mail had arrived on Saturday morning, and that copies of the records relied on by the plaintiff had' not arrived. The application should have been made on Saturday, after, the mail arrived. He might say that his learned friend, Mr Bruges, had given him to understand that a discontinuance would be filed. The plaintiff said that he had not said that the records would arrive by the San Francisco • mail. What he had said was. that he had not knoAvn till he»received a letter by the mailc' Taturday that the witness on whom 'he rolied was not coming. Mr Joynt had no riglri to assume that he (the plaintiff) had received his letters by the mail on Saturday morning, or that he . had not given the real grounds of his application. He (the plaintiff) > thought j that the learned gentleman had forgotten that ,the venue of the case 1 had been changed from the. streets. It was well known how the funds for the defence 1 had been worked up, but the plaintiff was not going to be forced into going on. f His Honor said that, of course, the plaintiff could not be forced into going on, but the question was, What was he entitled., to invthe •position ? The present application tv^-s quite out . of Court, as \t was unsupported by affidavits. .Would the plaintiff give some intimation of what he proposed to prove if he lodged affidavits. ? The plaintiff said that he would prove what he had already stated. He had received a letter by the San Francisco mail, and would lajr it before his Honor, in proof of what he said. The letter was handed up to his Honor, who, after perusing it, asked what the witness whom the plaintiff expected would prove. The plaintiff, said that the witness would prove his whole life — his life from eight years of age. His Honor said that he did not see how any man could know all about the whole life of another. ; t The plaintiff said that the witness had known him during the period covered by the articles in the newspaper. After some further conversation the plaintiff said that he would accept a nonsuit. His Honor said he thought that that was the wisest course. Mr Joynt said that he thought that, under the rules, the plaintiff was not entitled to a nonsuit at this stage. He suggested that the case should be called on, and that the plaintiff should not appear. His Honor pointed out that the case had already been called on, and that the plaintiff had appeared. Mr Joynt said he would prefer that the case as against the defendants should be dismissed. He cited Rule 267. The plaintiff said that he thought that under Rule 259 the Court could grant a non-suit. His Honor said he was of opinion that the Court had power to grant a nonsuit now. Mr Joynt said it did not greatly matter how it was done. He would not press his application. His Honor said that he did not thrak that sufficient grounds had been shown tor an adjournment, but the Court could grant the nonsuit. The plaintiff would therefore be nonsuited. The Court then rose.