55
Price'a repulation as an official, a profes- tional man, and a gentlemana amongst those who read the paper wherever it might oirculate ? Suspicion is a deadly thing. It is a common say. ag that there is no smoke where there is no fire, and if Mr. Price to-morrow left the government service and attempted to set up in basiness in Shanghai or Japan, would not many pareous besitate about employing him with such par. agraphe as this in their hauds P They would not trouble themselves to enquire whether the state- ments were true or not, but would act on the sug- gestion, and in choosing between two architects! they would say, here is one man whose character has never beat assailed, and here is another who, whether truly or falsely we do not know, has been accused of corruption; which of these men shall wa employ! And surely they would em. ploy the man whose character stood unassailed. It was almost impossible to conceive the enar- mona amount of mischief such paragraphs an this most necessarily do to any man in Mr. Price's position, depending as he did not merely apon his character for professonal skill, but also o his character for bonesty and integrity. What justification could there bo for the publication of such slanderous statements, so lujurious to the reputation of any living man, but proof that they were unmistakably true. That was proof that they would not have in this case, that they could not have, that the defen- dant had shrank from even attempting. If they found the paragraph was defamatory in its pur- port and effect, that it was necessarily injurious Lo Mr. Price's oharacter and reputation, thon would arise the question of malice or no malice. Ha thought bis Lordship would lay it down that whers motives are impated malice is necessarily implied, that belief in the truth of the statements, or innocent intention in their publication constitutes no defence whatever; that there can be no justification or defence bat proof and absolute proof of the truth of the allegations. It would be argued that this para- graph was a public comment by a public writer) apon a public man sud upon his acts; and under! English law it is not merely the privilege but the right of every member of the ommunity to comment freely upon all the public acts of every public man; but when those comments go beyond the public acts of the publio mau and impute inarceuary and dishonourable motives they are outside the defence of privilege. On this point be referred his Lordship to the case of Campbell v. Spottiswoode 3 L.J. p. 95. He also argued that there was no fact stated in the para. graph from which the writer would necessarily and directly infer the existence of the motives he ascribed; sad the motives so ascribed were the basest, most sordid, and vilest motives that could possibly animate a public man. But he proposed to go a faw stepa beyond the paragraph in ques. tion. This was not a single instance in the career of the Hongkong Telegraph. It had been parsistently attacking Mr. Peics, and attacking. him from every possible point of view-most of the attacks atterly motiveless, his name being dragged in where thera
WHS no possible ue- cosity for its being dragged in, where it had no obvious connection with the subject mat- ter of the article. He proposed to show from previous articles in the Telegraph, that Mr. Price had been the constant object of onuse leas and baseless attack at the hands of the defendant, and that this was not the first nor the fifth time that Mr. Fraser-Smith halim pated corruption and jabbery, private and in- terasted motives, to Mr. Prices in relation this public acts. There was one other matter bear- ing on this question of malice, which was, that if Mr. Fraser-Smith was in possession of all the information he stated in his paper he was in possession of with reference to the corruption and jobbery in the Surveyor-General's depart. ment, the natural and obvious conese for a man who had the public interest. at heart would have been to have formulated that information in the shape of, a commnaivation to the Government. It would have been, to say the least of it, while be was in possession of rumours and reports only, common charity to the parson acensed to have a-ked for an investigation in the first instance. If the Government declined to investinate the charges there was a higher power to whom they might have bean terre. till The public interest would have been fa.ly and amply served by such a course and injury to private character would bare been avoided until something definite and certain
was known.
But Mr. Fraser-Smith contented himself with
"athicking
2
up-
attacking Mr. Price's private character and personal reputation in the columns of his newa- paper; be descended to the meabuess and little- ness of attacking him one day for one thing and another day for something just the reverse, Es would call attention to one matter, which, trifling as it was, was a fair illustration of the spirit in which the defendant had dealt with Mr. Price. In a para raph which appeared oue day the defendant called the attentios of the Surveyor-General's department and of Mr. Price especially to the terrible state of Garden-road and hoped Mr. Price would lend his stupand- ous intelleet to getting that road repaired, A very short time afterwards he nobod that the road was under repair, and
short time after that again he published a para.
which graph in
he attacked and braided the Surveyor-General for having re- paired it, stating that it did not want repair, that it was a useless expenditure, and that Mr. Price had some private interest to sub. serve in having the work done. That was a spaci- mou of the spirit in which Mr. Price had been attacked, and over and over a 'ain Mr. Price bad been represented as actuated in his publie acts not by any sense of p blic daty bat by private interest and desires. The learned counsel then read and commented ou articles which appeared on the 5th February, the 17th April, 6th June, 11th July, 13th July, and 31st July, con ending that they indicated malice on the part of the defend. ant. Was it possible for Mr. Fraser-Smith, after those articles, to say that the language used in the para rraph on which this charge was founded had an innocent mesuin? The learned conu- sel also referred to a letter published on 12th October referring to these proceedings, and which he contended was intended to emphasize the ebarges which had been brought Against Mr. Price. It might be urged by the de andant that he could have no possible motive for stack. ing or villifying Mr. Price, that in his position as a public writer every good motive should be attributed to him. Of his motives they could only judge with any certainty from his conduct, and where had he written of Mr. Price with any apparent spirit of fairness, impartiality, honesty, and truth? But again, they might ask why he should attack Mr. Price. Who could tell? It might be simply to fill the columns of his paper, or it might be to gratify that hatred, envy, malice, and ancbaritablonese, which might fill the breasts of half-educated adventurers, of those who were striving to get up into a higher rank not knowing what qualifications were ne- cessary to enable them to do so and envious of those whom they could not emulate. It might be that it was some personal spite or ill will arising out of something in social life or inter. course that probably had been utterly forgotten if any sucb thing occurred. It miht ba-he hoped not that they had here the hired bravado whose calumnions dagger was sharpened and annointed by another hand. What the defend- ant's motives might be they could not tell, they had only his acts before them. The learned counsel then stated what he believed would be the tenour of the defendant's address and pre- dicted that he would couviot himself out of his own month,
The papers referred to were then put in, and this closed the osse for the prosecution.
The defendaut then addressed the court also at considerable length, commencing by animad- verting on the length of time occupied by the counsel for the prosecntion in his opening, and stating his opinion that it contained as much irrelevant matter as any very young and inexpe- rienced barrister could have introduced; that it commenced in ubuse, and ended in prophecy, the first being as unjustified as the second was ill-fouadei. He also adversely oriticised the fact that a spacial jury had been empannelfed, and suid snob a thing had not been done in a libel case in this colony before since 1859. He then pro- ceeded to deal with the allegation of malice, and he stated that he had never met Mr. Prios until he saw him in the Police Court in congeo- tion with this case, and had never exchanged a word with him. He had therefore no possible reason for malice towards that gentleman, and, as a matter of fact, he assured the jury be had Í no ill will towards that gentleman, and had ouly
writte