ALLEGED LIBEL.

Waipawa Mail, Volume IX, Issue 883, 21 January 1886, Page 2

ALLEGED LIBEL.

(BY TELEGRAPH) (special correspondent.) Wellington, Wednesday. NEWS V. WAIPAWA MAIL. Ihe action which the Evening News ana Hawke s Pag Advertiser Com party (limited) brought against the Waipawa Independent Newspaper Company (limited), was tried here yesterday before IPs Honor Chief Justice Sir James Preudcrgast and a special jury of the following four gentlemen Messrs. Campbell (of*Laery and Campbell), foreman, James Clark, David Clark, and William Fergus6on. Mr Lascelles, of Napier (with him Mr Brown, of Wellington) was for Hie plaintiff company, ami Mr Oornford, of Napier, for the defendant company. The statement of claim set forth that the defendant company published in the B aijxiwa Mail on the 21 ot of May certain words concerning (he plaintiffs as follows Napier Free thought Journal and General Scurrility Company-— (By our special reporter.)—A meeting of the directors of the above was hcl I at Waterspout s pub yesterday t in consideration cf the proprietor having forwarded an ‘ ad ), when a statement of (he company? affaus was brought forward by the man, ager who expiamed that a delay of ou. month had occurred owing to the difficulty of ‘cooking,’ so as to make it at all ore sentable, Tire directors were tolerably well pleased with the report, which Bl J°«’ed that there had only been a lost of £GBO during the last quarter, and an increase, of £l5O on the previous term. It was decided at once to establish a paper mill so as to utilise several tons of hack .1 numbers now lying at the company's j* oftoe. A letter was r ead from M. Turirlry f A*

_ nd others, representing a syndicate of ..lists who desired to buy up the cipitalists, present shareconcern as soon as P hi , the holders realised he extent t operations ini oh e l them coming peered to take w J ac( o ,. dingly '?f eK ' /to lie over for a time. Owing to allowed to J® , I]n p ll!C edented seethe extraordinary an P , resolved cessof the conceio >^«a er to make a call or o sll ffi. double the sum „ ave hitll er,o cient to sicken e _” Ttie defendbeen finding th q a meeting of ants meant there , #intifE company rhe directors ot P May, 1885. n ho ■in Naplr kept by one held at an notci r 8al( | Tom Waterwort , d concocted state--1,16 /"of the affairs of the plaintiff rnent of t ted to the said company was P tho gai(l dile otors company, an ronße nted to such false had previously com*nte and concocted s ’ had con . Bai d /7 o c .o; B ak r d a„d present a false th >! LwsnaDer was fictitious, and that &pi s printed had not. been sold bnt had accumulated to the weight of sevean tons thereby damaging tlie value ot the n rrK T U !i syndicafe of "capitalists tberehy joying fie - company!" And that tlie directors resolved to make a c o fi shillings Der share or ten shillings pcr share on the shareholders .of the plaintiff company, with intent to disgust tlie shareholders si as to sell the company s newstiaper and plant to the said syndicate of capitalists. The said publication was false and malicious,and the plaintiffs pray ■Judgment for £SOO. . _ . The statement of defence hied 18 as follows :—The defendants say that the plaintiffs were not on the Jlst Maj, 1880, and are not now, a company duly registered under the Companies Act 1880, under the name and style of the Evening News and Hawke's Bay Advertiser Cornmay, Limited, and that the plaintiffs are not the proprietors of the Evening News and llaiokes Bay Advertiser. The defendants admit that they are a registered company trading as the Waipawa Independent Newspaper and Printing Company , Limited. The defendants deny that they published the words contained in the following paragraph of'tlie said statement. And tlie defendants further deny that the plaintiffs sustained any damage by any publication as alleged. All witnesses were ordered out or court. , , . Mr Lascelles handed in an affidavit admitting the proprietorship of the Wai2>awa Mail. . Mr Cornford objected to the. amdavit being put in, although he admitted that the affidavit was made by Mr Chamier ; yet he would not admit that Mr Chamier was the manager of the Waipawa Mail. After some discussion, counsel for the defence withdrew his objection, and admitted the facts contained in the affidavit. The following evidence w*as then taken : Thomas Cowper, boarding-house keeper, residing at Waipawa, deposed lie bought the paper—(paper produced)—at the Waipawa Mail publishing office on May 22, 1885. Mr Cornford here objected to the paper being put in as evidence, as the title of the paper did not agree with the affidavit tiled. He quoted the case of Seaborne v. Wilson (New Zealand Law Reports) in support of his objection. Mr Lascelles contended that the name “ Waipawa Mail ” which was printed on every page was sufficient identification. His Honor : 1 do not agree with that. The matter was allowed to stand for the present, Mr Lascelles intimating his intention of bringing evidence later on to support the title. Thomas Cowper (continued) The office belonged to him. When he went for the rent he went there to Mr Chamier, and made the receipt out in favor of the proprietors of the Waipawa Mail. The office lias the name Waipawa Mail painted on it. He did not know whether there was any further title. He was a shareholder in the newspaper called the Evening News. He had not heard of a newspaper or company called the “ Freethouglit Journal and General Scurrility Company.” His Honor upheld the objection of Mr Cornford to the question as to what company the witness Cowper understood the libel to refer.

After a long discussiou on this matter authorities being freely quoted on both sides, the question was withdrawn. Cowper continued, The Evening News was in the habit of advocating freethouglit principles. From reading the article in question he concluded that it referred to the Evening Neivs. After the publication of tho article lie tried to get other people to take new shares in the company, but could not, in consequence of the article.

His Honor remarked here that the plaintiffs in claiming had claimed generally on the grounds that the article had damaged the value of shares in the Company, hut there should have been a specific statement of an instance in which this damage had been sustain! d. The person claiming should specifically state the fact upon which he went. He did not consider Cowper’s general statement was evidence of damage.

Mr Cowper, cross-examined :—Did not remember whether he held three or ten shares, or how much lie had paid ou them. lie did not know how many shares were taken up in the company. The prospectus of the company was before the public from October to January, but he could not say whether tho manager, Mr Sawkins, had contributed anything to the amount out of his own pocket. By Mr Brown : In his own mind he was quite satisfied as to whom the article referred. He did not know that the company was indebted to the full amount of its capital. Thus. Geo. Sawkins deposed, on affidavit that he was the editor of the Neivs. He had read the article in the Evening News of March oth, referring to the action of Mr J. D. Ormond, M.H.R., in connection with the harbor loan. He remembered something about the Evening Nave Company being mulcted in £IOO for damages. Hethoughtthis amount had been paid from a call made, but he could not say whether he bulk of the shares in the company were taken up before the paper started. He did not know whether there was a paper in Hawke’s Bay notorious for general scurrility, but there was a paper known as the Freethought Paper. The Neivs was nptorious for speaking out more freely than any other paper in Hawke’s Bay. lie was manager of the Evening News Company, and knew the Waipawa Mail , which was printed by a person named Mogridge, and published by a person named Chamier. The name Waipawa Mail was printed on the building. He remembered seeing the Waipawa paper on the 21st of May, but did not know of any journal or company in Napier bearing the name of the *• Freethouglit Journal and General S urrulity Company.” The Evening News was generally called by his enemies a freethought journal. He had no doubt that the article iu the Mail referred to the Evening News and Hawke's

Bay Advertiser Newspaper Company, Limited. The first word in the article, “ freethought,” satisfied him that the piece alluded to liis paper. Respecting the words “ Waterspout’s pub,” the article was published on the 21st of May describing a meeting at Watervvorth’s hotel held on 15th May. The directors of the company did meet at Wutei worth’s hotel, Napier, and at that meeting a statement of the Company’s affairs was brought up. He recognised the mention of Mr Ormond, which clearly referred to witness’s paper, which was strongly opposed to Mr Ormond. Mention was also made of a letter from Mr M. Turphy, which referred to an offer from witness and Mr T. Murphy, in which they agreed to carry on the business of the paper if the company did not desire to do so : also, that the statement respecting repairs clearly referred to them, a 8 they had had several breaks down. At the meeting a call was decided upon and the meeting did terminate by the chairman of directors inviting all hands to drink. The facts must have been publicly known as they were published in his own paper previous to the publication of the article. The manager did explain that there was a delay of one month In bringing up a statement of the company’s affairs. Regarding the cooking of the accounts, the man ger had explained that he could not get outstanding accounts against the eompany sent in, and this was the cause of not being able to prepare the statemeut earlier. There was also reference in the article to the loss of £6BO. The manager explained at the meeting that there was a loss of about £2OO. The allusion to the manager’s allowance of £7 10s per week indicated himself, and the reference to the honorarium of £2 10s per week to the employees was to liis employees, There was mention of the manager providing presents to Mr Ormond or the Mail. No sane person could make any mistake as to whom the article alluded to. He was quite prepared to permit an investigation of his books to he made at any time. There were no false statements made at the meeting, and the statement re the £6BO was false if it referred to liis co-mpany. There was bound to be a loss on a new paper, especially when opposed by two others ; but the paper was making money during the last few months. It was just getting its head above water when this article knocked it under water again. It was utterly false that there were tons of waste paper on hand. The amount of the call was 2s 61, and not ss, as staled in the article. Shortly after the article appeared several of tho principle advertisers took out their advertisements. No cause was stated as to why they were withdrawn. There had been no expression of dissatisfaction prior to the article. For over two months after its publication it was impossible to get any advertisements from large advertisers, some of whom said they purposed seeing whether things were going squarely, and whether the company was or was not a swindle. The Mail office was in Ruataniwa road, and had two painted boards. One contained the three words, “ The Waipawa Mail the other was a very small board at the entrance to the editor’s room, and on it there appered the words “ Office of tlie Waipawa Independent Newspaper and Printing Company (limited), D. Chamier, manager.” He had sent a letter addressed to the Editor of the Waipawa Mail , and a’so many others which were not addressed to Mr Chamier. He had also sent letters io Mr Mogridge. He had always been particular as to how lie addressed letters to the Mail , as he anticipated some slippery transactions, lie had not had any piofessional experience as an accountant, but had always managed liis own books. The advertisements of Messrs Hannah & Co., Napier, and Mr Coliain, Waipawa, were amongst those which were withdrawn from the News. The libel action brought against him by Mr Price of tlie Telegraph cost about £2OO of which amount lie stood in about £SO. He was not under any liability to the Company at all. He paid £SO as a matter of honor. There was another action pending against the News Company, and there was also a criminal libel action hanging over his head. Mr W. C. Smith, M.H.R., deposed that he was a director in the Evening News Company, and had read the article in the Mail. Mr Cornford here reminded the Court that he objected to tlie paper containing the article being used as evidence. liis Honor, addressing Mr Lascelles, said : Mr Lascelles, you should bring forward more evidence to prove the publication of the Mail. I shall allow the case to go to the jury, but I do not encourage you in the piactice of placing such slender evidence of publication before the jury. Mr Smith (continuing) : There was no paper of the name mentioned in tlie article in the Hawke’s Bay district. In his opinion the article referred unmistakably to tlie Evening News because a portion of the information contained in it agreed with what had taken place at the meeting of directors. At that meeting the accounts were properly audited and passed. There was no statement made at the meeting of Directors regarding the cooking of the accounts, or to the starting of a paper-mill ; nor was there any determination come to make a high call of either 5s or 10s, so as to disgust the shareholders. The highest call made was 2s 61.

Dr Rodolpfi von Mirbaeli, deposed that he was a shareholder in the Evening Neivs. lie took the article ia the Mail to refer to the Neivs, and consulted with the other shareholders in the matter, with the result that by arrangements with them he undertook to go down to the first half-yearly meeting of the company. He did so, and after inquiry found that there was no truth in the statement contained in the article, to the best of liis knowledge. He spoke to some persons about taking up shares, but they would not do so, several saying Sawkins “ was a rogue.” Fie explained the locality in which the Waipawa Mail office was situated. He believed lie held ten shares in the company. He could not say how many shares were allotted before the company commenced operation. He never took any trouble to investigate the accounts of the company. John Marker, residing at Waipawa, deposed—lie was a settler at Waipawa, aud acted as agent for the Eeening News ss far as the selling of shares was concerned. Me was a shareholder, and believed that the News was the paper alluded to iu the article, after the publication of which he had been unable to sell shares. Shares were taken up in Waipawa for about six mouths after the commencement of tlie paper, and the district had been pretty well canvassed before the paper started. It was thoroughly well known throughout the country that there was a libel action pending against the News at the instance of Mr Robert Price, and that would no doubt preveut tlie sale of shares.

Mr Woodinass, a printer, was called, and some discussion ensued as to whether a letter referring to the article, which lie would be asked to identify, was admissable as evidence. Ultimately Mr Lascelles thought the matter was of little importance, and the witness was allowed to stand down.

This closed the case for tlie prosecution, and no witnesses being called for the defence, Mr Lascelles addressed the jury for the plaintiff. He said he thought the case was a very plain one, and drew attention to what he termed despicable and low conduct of the defendants in damaging another newspaper simply because it

happened to differ from them in political opinions. lie alluded to the truthful manner in which the Evening News had dealt with public afiairs in Napier. He said that there must have been great damage done to the newspaper by such an article. It meant the stoppage of advertisements, which it was well known was one of the chief supports on which a newspaper had to rely, and it was the direct duty of the directors of the company towards shareholders to have the case tried, and it was their duty to bring the matter before a jury of their countrymen. He thought liis learned friend had acted very wisely in not putting witnesses in the box, for had they been placed there under the crucial examination to whieh they would have been Diit, some rather peculiar matters would lave been unearthed. Mr Cornford then addressed the jury for the defendants. He accused counsel for the plaintiffs of introducing a vast amount of extraneous matter. He did not see how anybody could be expected to take up shares in a newspaper when they were aware that a libel action was pending against it, and, therefore, he could not see what damage had been suffered. There was nothing in the the evidence to the amount of damage and the fact that one or two persons had withdrawn their advertisements was not sufficient to cause damage especially when it was a well-known fact that advertisers frequently gave the newspapers turn and turn about and so took from one to give to tho other. There was not a particle of evidence to show that the withdrawal of these advertisements was the result of the article. There was not a shareholder who gave evidence who expressed any great confidence in the News Company, and there was nothing brought forward upon which any one could say that the paper had lost its circulation. He held that the words “Freethought Journal and General Scurrility Company” were not libellous. He quoted authorities to show that a paper had a perfect right to comment on anything appearing iu another newspaper, as long as they did not impute corrupt motives. He considered that the article was a criticism, and could not be looked upon as anything else. His Honor, in reviewing the evidence, considered that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the defendants were the publishers of the paper, in which the alleged libel had appeared. The jury then retired, and after about twenty minutes deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for £l5O. His Honor allowed costs at the rate as if the case had been tried at Napier on tlie lowest scale. In the Supreme Court this morning, the case of Sawkins v. the Waipawa Mail , was called on. This was an action for libel, said to be contained in the same article which was the subject of yesterday’s action. Mr Lascelles appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cornford for the defendants. Mr Cornford intimated that the case had been settled by plaintiff accepting £IOO, without costs. The judgment was entered up accordingly.