MASSEY V. N.Z. TIMES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3217, 13 May 1911, Page 5

MASSEY V. N.Z. TIMES.

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. WAS THE JURY PROPERLY DIRECTED? [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, May 12. The motion for ;a new trial in the libel action, Massey v. “New Zealand Times,” in which the plaintiff claimed £2006 damages for libel arising out of a cartoon, the verdict going for the defendant company, is being heard by the Full Court to-day. Briefly stated, the grounds of the motion to set aside the verdict are that the finding of the jury is so defective that judgment cannot be given upon it; that the Judge misdirected the jury; that the verdict was against the weight of evidence; that the Judge admitted improper evidence, namely, evidence of the memory of witnesses of reports of what was said by members of Parliament in debates in the House and Legislative Council on the 3rd November and Ist December respectively. Mr. Bell, with him Mr. Gray and Mr. Fell, appear in support of the motion, and Mr. Solomon, with him Mr. Blair, in opposition. Mr. Bell, in opening his case, submitted that the Judge’s words were not sufficiently guarded; that he did not sufficiently warn the jury that if the cartoon was a libel in fact a politician was in exactly the same position as any other person, and that the jury may have been misled by supposing it to be a political skit. Regarding the admission of evidence of memory, counsel he had asked that “Hansard” should be put in. Mr. Justice Chapman : “Obviously it should not have been. You have been a member of Parliament yourself, and you have seen speeches you did not recognise as exactly corresponding with what had been said.” Tlie Chief Justice stated that Mr. Bell must contend either that the verdict was for plaintiff or no verdict at all. Mr. Bell chose tlie latter course. Mr. Solomon then addressed the Court. THE VERDICT RESERVED. Later. Mr. Solomon, K.C., for the defence, said it was impossible for any reasonable person to come to any other conclusion in view' of His Honor’s direction than that the jury intended to find for the defendant. Mr. A. W. Blair submitted that the cartoon was subject to quite another interpretation than that Mr. Massey personally distributed the Black pamphlet. The interpretation was not, and never •had been, that Mr. Massey had personally distributed free copies of the pamphlet. Mr. MasseV s figure was simply used to typify the Opposition party in the same way as the donkey was used t» typify the National Association. . Mr. Bell having replied, their Honors intimated that they would take time to consider their verdicts.