FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS DAMAGES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12761, 3 October 1919, Page 10

FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS DAMAGES.

LORD NEWTON’S ACTION.

“ DAILY MAIL” CRITICISMS.

Before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury in the "King's Bench -Division. the hearing was concluded of Lord Newton’s’ libel action against the Associated Newspapers. Ltd., publishers and proprietors of “The .Daily Mail.” Lord Newton, who was in charge of the Prisoners ' of War Department of the Foreign Office, -complained of the following words published in “The Daily Mail” on June 4, 1918: —“We. not having the war and its horrors in our own towns, mines, and fields permit Lord Newton to treat our suffering prisoners in Germany as an opportunity for self-advertisement, acc.ompani ied hv pitiless jokes and sneers.” I And on December 2, 1918 :—- I “ Lord Newton ... in a debate, found occasion for a joke on the tragic sufferings of nnr prisoners.” The defence was that the words ; n .natural and ordinary moaning were true in substance and in fact, and fair comment on a matter of public iifterest.

1/ord Newton was. examined by Mr Hogg and denied that in the speeches referred to in cross-examination he was conscious of expressing any lack of sympathy towards the prisoners. Wore there daily and persistent, attacks against yon that attracted much public attention at the time?— Yes. The Lord Chief Justice: That, applies, as 1 understand it, not only to the North cliff e Press, but also to other newspapers?— Some of them Mr Hogg; Is this the only speech in the House of Ixjrds in which you took the opportunity of defending yourself against- the Press attacks ?—I do not think I mentioned the Press on any other occasion.

Sir Robert. Younger , the Chancery; Judge, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Deronport. Sir Horace Rumbold, British Minister to Switzerland. Sir J. F. Hope, M.P. and Dame Adelaide Livingstone were called to testify from their personal experience to Lord Newton’s interest in the prisoners, his sympathy for them, and his efforts to improve their lot. COUNSEL’S SPEECHES. Sir John Simon, opening the defendants’ case, said no evidence had been called lor the defence because they had got before them, by the admission of Lord Newton, all that was necessary for the jury to come to a conclusion. The condition of the prisoners in 1918 was a matter of the greatest possible concern. It was not a reflection, either on the zeal or public spirit of Lord Newton, to say what the “ Daily Mail” had said of Lord Newton, that hiy raillery, jokes, and humour were an unseemly and improper use of his opportunities, and were calculated to lacerate the hearts of all who were watching tor every word spoken by the representatives of the Government in the debate.

Let the Jury think (said Sir John) what it meant for people here to learn that the French had obtained an agreement with Germany by which not merely the officer but also th© soldier might hope to get bank from the clutches of the enemy. All the papers hegq,n to say: ‘ ‘ Have the Government been caught napping?” It was annoying to be told that, but was it not a pitiful thing that people who were wondering what was to happen to their relatives, in Germany should get a speech from Lord Newton, nine-tenths of it flippant, jocular, and an amusing and clever piece of raillery, not altogether unconnected with the subject of prisoners of war, but filled with Lord Newton’s pei-sonal justification in the face of the criticisms which had been made. Was it a very outrageous tiling for th© public to feel and for a public newspaper to say that that speech was a monstrous misuse of a great and solemn occasion?

Dealing with the phrase, “You might just as well expect butchers to be in favour of meatless days,” which Lord Newton had used in another part of his speech, Sir John ifckcd whether that was a joke or a sneer, and what the effect of such a remark was likely to be on some poor woman who had not heard from her son, a prisoner of th© Germans.

Continuing, Sir John Simon said: “ I Tvant to make it perfectly plain, not least to Lord Newton, on behalf of the Daily Mail,'* that 1 make no sort of imputation against Lord Newton's 2x1a, 1, devotion, and public spirit in undertaking thisiieavy task. Bnt what Ido suy is that there are occasions, of which this speech was the principal one, when, however good his motives, and however sore and tom bis heart may have oeen, ho conducted himself in*such a way as to convey the impression to a great many people that ho was jocular and light-hearted about it.” Mr Hogg, in his speech to the jury, said that Sir John Simon had addressed the jury lor an hour and a quarter on why they should return a. verdict for iho ‘‘Daily Alai!,” but he wms more than two-thirds of the way through the speech before he referred to what the actioif was about. Wbat the statements complained of meant was that the French had been quick to accomplish the release of their prisoners, but the British had left their prisoners to the tender mercies of Lord Newton- It could hardly he doubted that the words complained of were defamatory. Were they true? These words in terms accused fjord Newton of being without pity, ami joking and sneering upon the sufferings of the prisoners, for his own aggrandisement. Lord Newton, hariim been attacked by the “Daily Mail” over and over again, "now look the opportunity of “.having this foul lie nailed to the counter once and for all.” 1 here was not a single quotation from any of Lord Newton's speeches which could possibly be construed into a joke aoout the sufferings of our prisoners. THE JUDGE SUMS UP.

Summing up, the Lord Chief Justice a-,kod: Had the defendant proved' that what they said was true? .“ For mveelf.” ho said. “I am bound to say that until I heart! Sir John Simon's explanation it had never occurred to me that, what was meant was that Lord Newton was, in truth, interested in the prisoners but, bad managed to convey the impression that lie was not.” ft was unfortunate that that had not been stated earlier, without ambiguity. The defendants had now made it, clear that they admitted that Lord Newton had always taken an interest- in the prisoners, and bad sympathised with them. But the .jury would-attach more importance to the language used than to the meaning it acquired afterwards. when it reached the lawyers’ hands.

HeSovo the jury could find for the defendant?, they must, satisfy tliemthat the comment vms fair, not necessarily a comment with which they agreed. It might ho expressed’ in strong, exaggerated, and even violent language so long ag it was an opinion which a fair-minded man could honestly hold. At one time it looked as if Lord Newton said that it was the Korthcliffe Press alone which attacked him, but it was clear as the case went on that that was not so. There was a general Press attack on him. Referring to the debate in the House or Lords on May 28, 1918, the Lord Chief Justice said it might bo true that it would have been better had Lord Newton, on that grave and solemn occasion, refrained from referring in such detail to the attacks upon him. Perhaps if he had had time to reflect he would not have done it. It was quite possible that if he had carefully phrased the speech beforehand it. would not have contained the reference to the butchers and the meatless days. But the jury had -to remember that the attacks