Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Typo: A Monthly Newspaper and Literary Review, Volume 3

[libel cases]

Mr Law's action against the investigating committee of the Bank of New Zealand, will result, says the Evening Post, in « the singular spectacle of a Judge of the Supreme Court being sued in his own Court for libel. Mr Justice Gillies, to whom the Auckland Supreme Court district is assigned, is a member of that committee, and his name was attached to the report which is alleged to have contained the libellous statements. It is rather a matter of regret that a Supreme Court Judge should have so identified himself with the transactions of a trading corporation as to render himself liable to be made a party, especially in the position of a defendant, to legal proceedings in a Court over which he presides. »

The libel action, Larnach v. the proprietors of the Auckland Herald, was heard at the Supreme Court at Wellington on the 21st January. Sir Robert Stout appeared for plaintiff and Mr Gully and Mr Skerrat for defendants. The plaintiff alleged that on July 19, 1888, defendants falsely and maliciously published an article commenting on his departure from the colony when Parliament was in session, to enter into business in Melbourne, having first asked leave of absence on the plea of illness in his family, and continuing to draw his honorarium, wherefore he claimed £3000 damages. Defendants admitted the publication, but denied malice, and said that the subject-matter of the alleged libels became, and was a matter of public interest, and thereupon they published the comments set out in plaintiff's statement bona Me for the public good, and without sinister and malicious motives. They also denied that the said publications were libellous. The evidence taken was brief, the writers of the articles complained of deposing that they commented without malice upon what they supposed to be the true facts of the case. Mr Justice Richmond in summing up said that the facts upon which comment was based by public writers must be established on reasonable evidence. A verdict for plaintiff, damages £500, was returned. A movement having been set on foot to pay the fine and costs by public subscription, the Herald proprietors declined the proffered assistance.