In cross-examination, witness said that-he did not regard the matter particularly from plaintiff's point Of view when editing the report. He treated it as propaganda agai Marshal Lu, -and did not think it necessary to consult plaintiff. The report stated that Lu had "received" money, not that plaintiff had "given" it, and this might have meant its being obtained by compulsion. The word "alleged" was not necessarily used by newspapers solely for the purpose of avoiding legal liability.
merely indicated that the words following were not proven. Wit ness: maintained that it was quite justifiable for a Chinese to support one; or other of the parties if he thought there was a reasonable prospect of its winning and settling the quarrels of China.
Mr. Ward—Do you suggest it was justifiable in the circumstances ind. considering plaintiffs position as a Chinese! enjoying the protection of the Settlement?
Mis Lordship Do is Lordship: Do you suggest, Mr. Ward, that because a Chinese lives in the International Settlement therefore he should" be debarred from taking part in polities it 'Mr. Ward—Only as rogirds the situation then existing' between those two factions. (To witness) Do you say it was not defamatory jggest that plainti®' was taking declared to be a rebel by the de facto Government in Peking?
Witness—Not in the least defamatory, in the circumstances then The Tea Party yer to further questions, id the words did not} necessarily mean that plaintiff was "voluntarily" assisting Lu. The money might have been forced from him, or might have been a loas made to an agent of Marshal Lu' against proper security. As to the) shareholders' letters on the subject, it was no concern of theirs if jplaintist chose to lend Marshal Lu '§400,000 of his own private funds. He repeated, this would be a perfectly proper thing to do if plaintiff [thought it would help towards the establishment of a stable central government.
In re-examination, witness reeal-Ied'an example of money having: been obtained in the Settlement. force: this being in 1923, when Chen Chi-met also called a "tea party" merchants, asked for money, and when told by one that he "thought" he could let him have Tls. 1,000, tapped the table with his revolver fand said "Think again."
Counsel's Closing Addresses This concluded the evidence for the defence and Mr. Reader Harris addressed the jury. He contended that the words were not learly and obviously libellous and Diat their meaning had been greatly stretched ahd exaggerated by counsel for plaintiff, Reasonable interpretation had been avoided and the only bad meaning emphasized order to give the report a def motory sense. Tt was alleged that the report made plaintiff out to. be 'a man who was. not fit for his important business positions, but they. saw that he had lost none of his many offices as a merchant and banker, and his personal appearance clearly' showed that he had not been very greatly harmed by. the report. Plaintiff had exclaimed against the suggestion that "ho [subscribed money which would assist in the slaughter of human beings, but counsel pointed out that many admirable people subscribed to the great war loans, devoted to the same purpose, without incurring stigma, Bad as it might be, war of his acts and words. If the words used are defamatory in that sense, then plaintiff is entitled to some re-aration at your hands.
We know that the words complained of were written and pubished in the "North-China Daily!
News." We know that the statement {that Marshal Lu had received money from him was false, and it has never been suggested it was true. We also know' that the words referred to the plaintiff, so that we Jeome back to the position, Were the words defamatory that is to say, would any reasonable man understand the words in a defamatory sense? The question is not, did some men understand it in a defamatory sense, or did plaintiff understand it in a defamatory sense, The question is, would the ordinary readers of the paper, as reasonable) men and not as political partisans, understand them in a defamatory sense? And it comes down to this do you as reasonable men repre senting a body of reasonable men understand them as defamatory?
Meanings That May Have Startled Now in this law of libel there are leases where words which in themselves are Innocent may, by all the jelrcumstances in which they written, have a defamatory meaning. put upon them; in certain circumstances quite ordinary words may be Jdefamatory. You must therefore consider these words first as they! appeared in the in what is called their primary sense, their) natural and popular sense, their] plain and popular meaning. You have to Lok at the article as it stands, remembering you should Took at the whole article from start to finish, and say whether in its plain and popular meaning you find it has any defamatory meaning 30] far as plaintiff is concerned. If you answer that question in the negative, and say it has no such then you are entitled to the words in the light of the jelrcumstances in which they have been published and ask yourself this: Considering the manner and occasion of publication, the persons to whom the publication is made—the general readers of the paper— and all the attendant circumstances, jate they defamatory, not in any. meaning at all, but in the meaning which plaintiff' has chosen to put upon them? Those are the only two meanings you are asked, of can be asked, to give an opinion upon. Are the words in their plain and popular sense defamatory? Do they tend, can they tond in any way to bring plaintiff into hatred ridicule or contempt, or injure his reputation? If you answer that] "No, or if you answer that-"Yes, you consider further the question: Did they bear the meaning which has been put upon them, (a meaning which may possibly have ferences from the words, bearing parties in leaving things as they are in mind the occasion and eircum.|at the present moment, and that if tances of their publication? Plaintiff|business men would come forward, bound by the meaning which he]a better state of affairs might be has put forward.
He is not allowed brought about. Iam not. saying bring forward any other meaning whether. it is right or wrong. T and I have considerable am merely stating the opinion held doubt whether reference ought to/by most people, that if men like Mr. have been made to the suggestion|Fu Siao-en were to help, the state that at one time or another Mar-lof the country would be improved. wrod a rebel by the Mr. Fu says he takes no interest in Peking Government, That was not] pol: tics and that is one of: the rea-alleged in the pleadings as part of] 0s why he objected to the state-and T advise you tolment that he was assisting one sid Tt seems to me that Mr. Ward hai one too far in suggesting that Set Down Without Malice Chinese living here should take no art whatever in Chinese polit Comment has been made upon the meaning of the word "received,"
What the Public Thought that Marshal Lu received $400,000. from plaintiff, whose name is Tt not for you gentlemen to various consider which side was right or charitable organizations, members Wrong, or to express an opinion, of the local gentry and Mr, Vu His political opponents did not like Ya-ching, also alleged to have|it. Naturally not, but that is no con-contributed to the same fund, You|cern of yours. It is not suggested must put your own interpretation that the alleged 1 had any great on the word: whether it has the ord- effect upon the people here, Tt is mary meaning, or any other, Now|Rot suggested that Mi Chi or we know that plaintiff is a pro-|any members of his or the man in Shangh Commission Foreign Affairs had living in the French Concession and, 8®Y feeling yairist Mr. Fu owing ferrying on business there and into this report. As fr as the the International Settlement. The Mfect of libel is eoncerne you must Daily News" ig a|temember that written words are prominent daily newspaper elreul worse than spoken words, they ing widely here, The Treaty Ports,|farther and are very dificult. to "ap. [catch up, A man may see one issue Seared on its front page on October of & newspaper and not the next, and 8. Looking at the attic ac'it stands, You must take this into, account, Without any regard to the accom-Commenting on the letters anying circumstances, you must ceived by Mr. Fu Sino-en, his 'Do these words in so|Lordship pointed out that it' was far as they relate to plaintiff, stated) not known how many shareholder of a prominent Ghinese the letters represented, and that {gentleman ina leading foreign news- way quite possible a number of paper, do they tend to bring him people approved of the action 0 "hatred, ridicule or-contempt?" tributed. to plaintiff. "None of the Tt is not suggested that words writers had been called as witness were published with any ced idea Hix Lordship then reviewed the gainst plaintiff. You have been told cireumstaneen in which the report fof the circumstances in which the was published, emphasizing that article was obtained and published,|thore was not the slightest sugges-been told that Mr.|tion of the "North-China Daily Green regarded it as Kiangsu pro- News" having any ulterior motive in You must ask yourselves publishing the report. It had Keen whether it is defaming Chinese suggested that inquiry should have gentleman to have it said of him|been made as to the accuracy or that he is taking an active financial otherwise of the report, but to this part in an armed conflict proceeding reply was made that it we not two parties struggling fof considered in any way to power in his own country?
As to that it was regarded as the secondary meani you must al Lu, der what the position was at There was] Damages and Questions f Jury the time of publication, fan armed conflict, civil wa pro- His Lord: then directed the jury treas, with considerable fighting and on the question of damages, of which ess of life on both sides and con-there were four classes: siderable hardship and distress for (1) Vindictive damage really the population within the fighting amounting to punish me! but those 'War cannot be carried on did not enter into the picture in this without money and no doubt con- ase, Teibutions to the war chest of either (2) Contemptuous damages, side tended to prolong the strug-indication of the jury's' opinion that gle, though you must remember|the case never should have been that contributions might also tend brought into court. to end the struggle on one side or (3) No damages, indicating other sooner than if contributions that proceedings had yean rightly were withald. These struggles do|brought but that the plaintiff had fand must upset business, specially suitored no damage:
[sometimes served a good end, there was no libel in suggesting that a man provided funds for prosecuting a war.
Mr. Ward, for plaintiff, spoke of the harm done to his client, a peacefal citizen not wishing to be mixed up in politics, being reported as voluntarily and actively assisting Jone side, and suggested it was a mere pretence on the part of defendants to suggest that his action might be construed as being in the general interest. He was one of many whose only cry to the contending factions was: "for God's /enke go away and leave us in peace."
The Judge Sums Up In the course of a lengthy summing up, his Lordship'said: In the first place I think we should congratulate ourselves, on the press jwe have in China. The court is jrayely occupied with cases of this nature, and I think there have beer: only one or two during the years have been here. In this case you have only two matters to consider: (1) Is the article complained of, the! words in so far as they refer to plaintiff, libel or not? and (2) if you find libel, what -damages: is -he wnd|startled some of you when you first heard it); did they mean, as Jsuggested by plaintiff, that he was "voluntarily and actively assisting Marshal Lu in the conflict between the provinces of Chekiang and' Kiangse," that plaintiff was ''voluntarily and actively promoting the continuance of the unhappy state! of violence and turbulence in his}
Proper person" to hold the positions which he held in' the business world in Shanghai, that he was "not a peaceful citizen," and that he was "not a fit and [proper person to carry on business in the International Settlement or the French Concession?" That is! Jwhat you are asked to say these words and this article meant when read in the light of all the circum. stances under which they were published,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.