[criminal libel - newspapers, production methods - Roman Catholic priest, libel of]

R. v. Rowe

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

11 July 1835

Source: True Colonist, 19 February 1836[1]

            This was an action for libel by criminal prosecution, brought by the Crown at the suit of the Rev. P. Connolly, the Catholic Priest of this town, against Mr. John Pearson Rowe, Surgeon, for a false, scandalous, and malicious libel, published in the Morning Star, on the 13th of January, 1835. The Solicitor General conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Rowe was assisted by Mr. Solicitor Rowlands.     

            Michael McCabe, sworn. - On the 13th of January, 1835, I was in the service of Mr. Olding, a Printer, who was the Publisher of a paper called the Morning Star and Commercial Advertiser; I was a compositor; I know Mr. Rowe; I do not know his hand-writing; I might have seen him make a mark or two on a proof sheet. These (papers given him) are called slips; what is printed from these are called proofs; I had seen the whole of these nine slips before; Mr Nicholson showed them to me; I saw them before that in January 1835, at Mr. Olding’s printing office; they were left in the room where orders were left for me; I did not see who left them; the article shown me I set up from that copy; before I began to compose it, the father of the child there mentioned, read it.

            Mr. Solictor [sic] General. - I did not ask you that.

            The first proof is the galley proof, the last is called the revise; Dr. Rowe made a mark or two on the revise, from which the article was published; there were several alterations on the copy; I cannot form an opinion whose hand-writing they were. When Mr. Rowe brought the revise to correct, he gave it to me, and I understood what to do with it - he gave me no instructions.     

            By Mr. Rowlands. - Mr. Rowe did not give me those slips. The affidavit put in bears my signature; I do not know who left the slips at the printing office; I cannot be positive whether Mr. Squires corrected the revise or not; I do not think Mr. Olding was in the office at all, at the time I made this affidavit; some part of the alteration resembles very much the hand-writing of Mr. Squires; I cannot form a belief that they are his hand-writing.

            Nathaniel Olding. - In January 1835, I was the printer of the Morning Star newspaper; the article shewn me I have examined; I know John Peason [sic] Rowe the defendant; before the publication of this article, I had some conversation with Mr. Rowe about it; I remember his being in the office correcting the galley slips - the slips were destroyed; he had both the manuscript and the slips at the same time; this is the manuscript; I believe it to be Mr. Rowe’s hand-writing; I cannot say who brought the manuscript to the office.

            By Mr. Rowlands. - I see several alterations in the hand-writing of Thomas Squires, one is “of so indecent a nature,” Thomas Squires occasionally in my absence corrected the galley proofs, sometimes he wrote me an article.

            Rev. P. Connolly. - I am a Clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church; I was so on the 1st of January, 1835, also on the 24th of that month, and am so now. I officiate in that capacity, and have done so here and at New South Wales since May, 1820. I have read the article shewn me before; I have no doubt but I am referred to in it, wherein the name of Connolly is mentioned.

            Cross-examined by Mr. Rowlands. - According to the English expression. I am a Clerk in Holy Orders.

            Mr. Olding was called again and stated that the paper containing the libel was printed and published at No. 6 Argyle-street.

            By Mr. Rowlands. - I printed papers like that; I swear I printed, published, and sold that paper; I do not know who I sold it to; a paper might have been printed and taken out of my office; I cannot say that my man did not give that paper away; I did not get paid for all the 600 I printed.

            Mr. Rowe, upon being called on for his defence, requested to be permitted to retire with his Solicitor for a few minutes, which was granted by the Court. He then returned and addressed the Jury at considerable length, the principle tenor of which address was, the denying that the article complained of was libellous; the length of time that had elapsed since its publication, and the nature of the proceedings instituted against him, being of such a nature as not to allow him to justify.

            The Jury retired for about five minutes, and returned a verdict of - Guilty.

            His Honor then granted Mr. Rowe till Friday, the 19th inst., to prepare affidavits of the circumstances under which he published the article.