“TIMES” LIBEL CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2302, 22 September 1908, Page 2

“TIMES” LIBEL CASE.

JOSEPH BURKE SUES THE GISBORNE TIMES GO., LTD FOR £250 DAMAGES. PIAINTIfF IN THE BOX FOR THREE HOURS. INTERESTING EVIDENCE IS TAKEN AND THE COURT ADJOURNED TILL TO-DAY.

Tiie civil action in which Joseph Burke, licensee of tlm Record Reign Hotel, Gisborne, sutd the Gisborne Times Company, Ltd., for £250 damages for alleged libel contained in a. paragraph detailing a “lambing-down” ease, was commenced before 1 Lis Holier Air. Justice Edwards and a special jury of four yesterday. The Court was crowded all day, intense interest being taken in the proceedings. The Bar was largely represented, all the available seats being occupied, and many legal gentlemen sat in the body of the Court. Air AV. L. Rees, instructed by Messrs Rees Brothers and Bright, appeared for the plaintiff', and Air G. Hutchison, with Air. Blair, instrucod by Messrs Blair and Sainsbury, appeared for the defendant Company. THE JURY. The following special jury was empanelled :—George Smith, Arthur ’ George Robinson, Janies Grant, Thomas D. Baker. The following gentlemen were challenged : —By the plaintiff’s counsel: C. R. Sheet, A. Lange, E. Clirisp, C. D. l’iesse, G. D. Malcolm, H. Andrew. By counsel for the defence: J. S. Sheridan, C. F. Kcrnot, A. D. Robinson, R. M. Harper, AV. R. Clarkson, and H. Patterson. All witnesses were ordered out of Court. STATEMENT OF CLAIM. The plaintiff, by his solicitor, Harold Ernest Bright, says:— 1. That ho is the holder of a Publican’s License under the Licensing Act now in force in the Dominion of New Zealand carrying on business at the “Record Reign” Hotel in tho Town of Gisborne in tho County of Cook and that the Defendant is a Company incorporated under the Limited Liability Acts carrying on business at the Offices of the Company in Reel Street Gisborne. 2. That Hie Defendant on the 27th day of August last falsely and maliciously printed and published at Gisborne in tho Newspaper called “The Gisborne Times” at of and concerning the Plaintiff an the conduct of his business as a Publican a false malicious and defamatory paragraph in the words and figures following:—

Pearson n fencer on Pnkowhai station (snim to Gisborne with the intention of proceeding to Auckland on the sth day of that month. On the said 3rd day of August he went to the Record Reign Hotel, being then in possession of a cheque for £37 18s ifiid £5 6s in cash. The Plaintiff permitted him to become intoxicated-* and while in that condition the said George Pearson gave the said cheque to the Plaintiff. The said. l George Pearson remained as a lodger at the said hotel until the Bth day of August 190 S and was intoxicated during nearly the whole of that period. On the said last-mentioned day the Plaintiff told the (saidi George Pearson that his money was gone and sent him away from the said Hotel giving him a few shillings. On the following day the said George Pearson being ill and unable to woi'k returned to the said hotel and lodged there for three days and was then sent away by the Plaintiff without any money. During the time that the said George Pearson lodged! in the said hotel the Plaintiff paid for a suit of clothes for the said George Pearson and also bailed him out of custody when ho was arrested for drunkenness. Except as aforesaid tho Plaintiff has never paid nor accounted for any part of the proceeds of the said' cheque to tho said George Pearson. During the period referred to and for several days after In's return . , Pakowhai station the health oi tlie said GeorgfrPearson was seriously affected as the result of such intoxication.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES. The answer of the above-named plaintiff, Joseph Burke, to the interrogatories for his examination by the above-named defendant is as follows:

“In answer to the said interrogatories 1, the above-named plaintiff Joseph Burke, make oath and say as follows : -(1) George Pearson, referred to in the statement of defence, became a lodger in the Record Reign Hotel kept by me this deponent as licensee on August 3rd, 1908. (2) Oil August 3rd 1908, the said George Pc-arson handed to me this deponent a cheque as stated for £37 18s to cash for him. On August 4th, 1908, tho said George Pearson gave to mo this deponent £2O in cash for safe custody. No further or other moneys were received by me this deponent from the said George Pearson. (3) On August 4tli, 190 S, I this deponent cashed the cheque for the said George Pearson by giving him £2 in cash, by paying one Robert Robertson at the request of the said George Pearson £2 Os 6d, and by payment to the said George Pearson in cash Jhe sum of £33 17» Gd. With regard to tho aforesaid sum of £2O 1 this •deponent accounted for the same to the said George Pearson as appears in answ.T No. 6 hereof. (4) The said George Pearson remained as a lodger at the Record Reign Hotel from the 3rd to tho Bth days of August, 1908, and from the 9th to the 12tli days of. August,. 1908. On the 12th August, 1008, the said George Pearson had not given up his room but did not spend tlie night of the 12th at the Record l Reign Hotel, and did not again become a lodger. (5) The said George Pearson loft tlie Record Reign Hotel on Saturday, August Sth, 1908, voluntarily and of his own will, and the said George, Pearson was not sent away by me this deponent. (6) The sum of £2O handed by tlie said George Pearson to me this deponent on August 4th, 1908, as aforesaid, was paid to or on account of the said George Pearson in the sums and on the dates following: 1908, August sth, cash, £2; otli, cash, £1; sth, cash, £2; 6th, cash, £3; Gtli, cash, £3: 7tli, cash, £2 ; 7th, • cash, £2 ; Sth, bail, £1 ; Sth, board and lodging, £1 ; Bth, cash on leaving,- £3; total, £2O. (7) 1 this deponent have no sum or sums of money in my possession belonging .to the said George Pearson. MR. REES’ OPENING. Mr. Rees, in opening the case, said the meaning of the paragraph, and tho words attached, was an innuendo. The jury would see that, the facts wero very simple. On August 3rd the mail came to town to plaintiff’s hotel. He had ia cheque for £37 18s, which the plaintiff took and kept. He did not give him any money, but bought him a suit of clothes, and he kept tlie man drinking until a few days afterwards, then told him that his money was gone. If those were facts, well and good. The defendants deny, firstly, that tho plaintiff is tlie holder of a publican’s license. Tlie defendants do not deny they published the paragraph, but deny that- the words concern. the plaintiff. His Honor would direct them as to whether the evidence showed the words applied to the plaintiff or not. Tie proposed to put in rebutting evidence on the plea of justiiioation. Tho defendant company says tlie words are true in substance and in fact, and they undertake to prove them. Tho defendants say they are content to prove tho truth of the statement if the jury thought the paragraph referred to plaintiff, it was true that the paragraph did not mention names, but mentioned certain facts that could only bo identified with tho plaintiff. The time, and lb© absolute amount of the cheque, were fixed. The facts were more fully set out in tho justification than in the printed paper, and the plea showed it was intended to apply to Joseph Burke, and not to any other hotel keeper. The defendants had been asked by Mr Bright (solicitor) t 0 disclose the name of the offender, for the publicans of Gisborne desired that one publican should bo fixed upon, to show that the facts were not facts, hut merely imagination and did not apply correctly to any local publican. The defendant company afterwards published' the correspondence between them and plaintiff’s solicitor and commented upon that correspondence. Ho would call tlie Town Clerk and the Clerk of the Licensing Bench (o prove that plaintiff was tho holder of tho license of the Record Reign Hotel, lie would go strongly into evidence to prove there was libel. Tlie plaintiff said the facts are not true. When the paper was asked to give tho name of the offending publican, they referred plaintiff’s solicitor to Mr G. J. Black, and he would tell the jury what ho told the paper, whether lie told the name of the" publican or the hotel where the offence was alleged to take place. The solicitors did not deem it their duty to run after Mr. ißlack. That gentleman was under no obligation to te.ll what ho had said. “However.'” continued counsel, ‘‘lie did not need t 0 tell us but lie will have to tell you gentlemen of the jury in public what he told the editor in private, and prove that the editor of the paper knew all along that the plaintiff was the person pointed out in the paragraph. He would call plaintiff’s employees to prove that the libel applied to him, for there were enough facts in it to point t 0 plaintiff, but the facts were so distorted as to bo untrue, Ho

A local station-owner called at this office yesterday to give particulars of a “lambing-down” case. He states that « man employed as a fencer on his run came into town a fortnight ago on liis way to Auckland for licet week. He had awages cheque for £37, as well as £7 JOs which lie obtained by selling bis horse, and after an absence of a littlo over a. week lie landed back at bis employer’s run with an empty packet, and suffering from a severe attack of delirium tremens. His statement is that lie got liis cheque cashed by a Gisborne hotel-keeper, who gave him no money in return, but simply permitted him to got drunk. AVhen he had been drinking for a few days the landlord sent a man with him to a. local clothing establishment, where lie was fitted out with a cheap ready-made suit. After a drinking bout of five or six days lie was takken to the lock-'up, but oil being appliedl to, the 'landlord paid the £1 •necessary to bail him out. A few days later he was told by the publican that all his money was gone, and be bad better get off home. So life missed Auckland and the fleet, lost over 640 in cash, and seriously jeopardised liis life as the result of a foolish drunken spree.

Aleaning thereby that . the man employed as a fencer upon the run in Cook County aforesaid came to Gisborne with the intention of proceeding to Auckland to see the American fleet and became a' lodger at Plaintiff’s Hotel with a cheque for £37 and another sum of. £7 10s either in a cheque or cash both of which sums woro obtained from him by the Plaintiff' who wrongfully and fraudulently intending to retain the same for his own use and benefit supplied or permitted to bo supplied to the said fencer alcoholic or fermented liquor until ho became drunk, that tho Plaintiff in pursuance of tho same intention continued to supply the said' fencer with drink for several days during which time the Plaintiff kept him at the said Hotel and for many days further kept him constantly under tho influence of liquor in a drinking bout, that thereafter the Plaintiff sent him away from his Hotel having retained the sum of over £4O in cash by illegally and improperly serving the said fencer when intoxicated with liquor the Plaintiff stating that all the fencer’s money was gone, that tho Plaintiff' had supplied the said l fencer during this period with such excessive quantities of intoxicating liquor that when he returned after .little more than a week’s absence to his work upon the run aforesaid lie was suffering from a severe attack of delirium tremens tlie consequence .of such illegal and improper supply of intoxicating liquors by the Plaintiff' to him and that from the same reason the man had seriously jeopardised his life. 3. By reason of the promises the Plaintiff' was injured in his credit and reputation and in liis said business. Avhercforo tho Plamiiff claims' the sum of £250 damages and prays lor such further or other relief as to this Honorable Court may seem fit. STATEMENT OF DEFENCE.

The Defendant Company, by its Solicitor James Blair says : 1. The Defendant Company denies that the Plaintiff' is the holder of the Publican’s License mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim. The Defendant Company admits that it is a Company incorporated and carrying on business as alleged in the said paragraph. 2. The Defendant Company denies that it printed and published any of the words set out in inverted commas in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim of and concerning the Plaintiff in the conduct of his alleged business or of and concerning tho Plaintiff at all or that the said words were understood to refer to the Plaintiff'. 3. The said 1 words do not mean what the Plaintiff in his statement of claim alleges them to mean.

4. If the said words were understood to refer to the Plaintiff (which the Defendant Company denies) tho Defendant Company says the said words are true in substance and in fact. On the 3rd day of August 1908 one George

would admit certain facts, and call evidence to prove them. Ho would call Mr Jones, a journalist, and a shareholder in the defendant company, to provo tho moaning of the ■terms “Jambi|ng-|diowii,” pawd other witnesses to show tho libel was directed against Burke. The law held that if .a person publishes a, defamatory statement, and justified that statement, a duty was cast upon the person to prove that it was true. He would submit evidonce that as far as the real charge was concerned it-was absolutely baseless. Ho would also provo that tho repetition, of the libel went on after the libel. Letters were published, and a loading article also commented on the position. THE 'EVIDENCE. Reginald D. B. Robinson, Town Clerk of Gisborne, said that part of his duty was to issue licenses, lie know the plaintiff and had issued to him a iicenso for the Record Reign Hotel on the authority of the Licensing Committee. The license was still in force and plaintiff was still licensee. George Johnstone, Clerk to tho Licensing Committee of AVaiapu, said the Licensing Committee had granted the plaintiff tlie licensee, for the Record Reign Hotel. He (plaintiff) ■had held the license since February, 1904.

You saw this man drinking -about tho hotel ? A r es. AVas he pretty well on occasionally ? No. I never saw him intoxicated. That is your evidence ? Yes. Do you want to qualify that evidence ? AVell, say drunk. AVas he constantly sober? lie -always knew what he was doing. Do you remember speaking to Mr Gorman about this man? No. Don’t you remember speaking, to him on two occasions about how this man behaved ? No, I don’t. This matter was much talked of? Yes. Y’ou may liuvo spoken to Air Gorman ? Yes. Did yo him Pearson was drunk alio hotel? No. Tho witness then fainted in the box, and was removed- outside. SERGEANT HUTTON. David Hutton, Sergeant of Police, said bo remembered Peargon being arrested for drunkenness on August 7th at -about 11 o’clock in the morning. He was in a beastly state of intoxication, and was arrested by Constable Pratt. He rang up Air. Burke at the request of Pearson, who said Air. Burn© would bail him out. AVitness rang .up Burke and was told someone would be sent down. Two young men, one of whom was plaintiff's son, came and bailed Pearson out. He remembered AllBlack making a complaint about three weeks afterwards. He read the paragraph referred to. AVliat publican did you think was meant? Looking -at the amount of bail I came to tho conclusion it was Burke. Did any other publican bail a man out as »«/jut time?

Harold Ernest Bright, solicitor, produced tho letters written to, and from defendant company, in relation to the alleged libel. To Air. Hutchison : Before ho wrote his letter ho did not know if there was a meeting of publicans. It was true that his firm was instructed by all the iniblicans to send the letters, though his partner bad interviewed some of tho publicans: He had received an assigned authority from Air Burke to send the letters. He had seen Air Burke on- tho subject once or twice, but he had not been consulted personally in the matter. Hamilton Thomas Jones, journa list, employed on the “Poverty Bay Herald,” said ho was a shareholder in the defendant company. He remembered reading the paragraph in question published in the “Times” on August 27th. Mr Rees was about to ask witness if lie know tho meaning or tho words “lambing down” when His Honor said the question was only beating the air. The jury and every mail in New Zealand knew tlie meaning of tlie words. Air. Jones (continuing): Ho was not a subscriber. His Honor: Oh! They don’t subscribe; they exchange. G. J. BLACK’S ’EVIDENCE. G. J. Black, slieepfarmer, said he presumed lie was the local run-holder mentioned in tho paragraph in question . Air. Rees : That was you who gave the particulars to the paper? Yes. Did you mention any names to tlie paper? Yes, I did. AY hat names? I’ll tell you what I told tho Editor. When I went in I saw the Editor, who was by himself. I said, ‘A pretty bad ‘lambing-down’ case occurred to a man working on one of my places. I said the man drew a cheque for £37 18s and came to town with it, sold his horse for £7 10s, with the intention of going to Auckland to see the American Fleet. That after being in town over a week he got back t© the station without money, and almost in delirium tremens. I said to the Editor, in confidence, that it occurred at the Record Reign Hotel, but I did not lvant that fact published. The Editor said ho would put it hi, as it looked a bad case. Did you read the paragraph? Y r es, after it was published. To whom did it refer ? To plaintiff. . Did you state to tlie Editor the facts that are contained in the paragraph ? Yes. I told him more thin that. I told him I sent a lawyer up to try and get some of the man’s money back, and he could not get it. Did you see Sergeant Hutton about it ? Y’es. The same day ,a,s I sent a solicitor to try and get the money back. I suppose you told the Editor tlie name of the man? Y’es. I suppose you told the Sergeant Burke’s name. No. I asked him if he remembered a case where a man was bailed out for 1 £l, and tlie sergeant looked the matter up in his book AVhy did you not want the names published? I did not want too much exposure. Ilis Honor: That seems a little unfair to me, Air Black, as you were libelling (a- whole trade. Air. Rees: Y’ou were away for some time? Y T es. I returned on August lltli. Do you know when the man got back to the station? Y T es. A day or two before August loth. * Are you a subscriber to tlie “Times” ? Yes. Did you read tho paragraph ? Y’es. Was there any other reason from what you state for the name not being published? No. Air. Hutchison: Is the paragraph true ? It is what Pewrson told me. Did you make careful inquiry as to the facts ? Yes. I saw the man before giving it to tlie newspaper. Y’ou saw the police? A"es. I made all the inquiries 1 could. His Honor: Tho witness is not. being sued now. Air Rees: If you had not believed the facte true you would not have given the information? No, certainly not. BARMAN’S (STATEMENT. Gordon Taylor Ball, Rinnan at tho Record Reign Hotel, said he remembered reading tlie paragraph -about a “lambing-down” ease in tlie “Times.” He showed Air Burke the paper, and said it must allude to Air Burke, and the case of the mini who had- come in from Air Black’s station. Facts were stated in the paragraph which did not leave the question beyond a doubt. The amount of the” cheque, the arrest, and the purchase of a suit of clothes, all pointed to the fact thi.it plaintiff was intended, although his name was not mentioned. To Air. Hutchison: Ho had no doubt that the cap fitted Air Burke. ITis Honor (laughingly): Is that intended to bo justification? T 0 Air. Hutchison: Ho knew the man Pearson, who had lodged in the Record lleign Hotel for some days. He arrived on Alonday, August 3rd, and had no luggage. AVitness saw him in the bar a few minutes after lie came. The barmaid was in tho bar when Pearson arrived. Ho did not see if Pearson had been -drinking at the bur. He asked witness to have a drink. Witness consented and Pearson had whisky. Pearson did -not- state his business in town, but asked to become a, lodger. To Air. Hutchison: AVliat is the | cost- to become a lodger at the Record Reign Hotel? That lies with the publican. The usual price is 25s per week. He had seen a lower rate at £1 per week. He did not show the man a room, but found Air Burke. AYhen Pearson told Mr Burke he wanted to lodge he was not shown- a room until the evening. Pearson left on Saturday morning and said he was going to meet his boss. He wus about- the hotel from the Alonday to the Saturday. Air. Hutchison: Did ho come for his meals ? Yes? Was he drinking? He had occasional drinks. You mean he had several each day? A’es. Did lie say lie was going to Auckland for Fleet AVeckf No. Are you constantly in the bar? I am in for eight or nine hours a day. You are there off and on the most of the day? Yes,

I can’t say at that time; but it is not ail infrequent occurrence for publicans to send their agents to bail a man out. Did Air Black mention the name of the man ? A’es. Pearson. Did he mention Burke or the Record Reign Hotel ? Y"es, I think he did. AVhen you saw the paiugraph did you have any doubt as to who was meant? No. I could draw no other conclusions. ' Air. Hutchison : You saw the man brought in in the morning paralytic drunk ? Yes. - AA’hut money did he have ? Three shillings and tenpenco. Y’ou telephoned for Air Burke? Yes. AVho produced the £1 when the man was bailed out? One of the two men. The bail was forfeited as the man did not appear? Yes. Would you say the mau was on a drinking bout? Y’es. H© looked like a man knocking down his cheque. Did you hour a remark made that Pearson was good enough to bail out ? Yes. I heard young Burke make that remark in th© passage at the watch-house. To Air Rees: Pearson did not say Burke had any money belonging to him. To the foreman : The min was arrested at Upper Gladstone Road. To His Honor: I understand the man was arrested this side of the Record Reign Hotel. ROBERT ROBEIITiSON. Robert Robertson, clothier in Gisborne, said he remembered a man named Pearson buying a suit of clothes on the morning of August 4 th. Air. Rees: Did he pay for the clothes himself? No. Ho said his money wus with Air Burke at the Record Reign Hotel. Did you ascertain if that was correct ? Y’es. I rang Air Burke up. Did you read the paragraph in question ? Yes. To whom did you understand that to refer? I did -not take it for -any publican in particular. But had you been paid by .any other publican for a suit of clothes? No. Air. Hutchison: Do you remember the day of • tho week of the sale? Y’es. A Alonday or a Tuesday. AA’-as Pearson alone? No, he was accompanied by another man. Do you know the other man? Yes, his name is O’Connor. Did O'Connor say he came from the Record Reign Hotel ? No. Did O’Connor take any part in tho purchase? No. He only came with him. AVliat was Pearson’s condition? Slightly under! the influence of liquor. AVliat was- the amount of the purchase? A little over £2. Tlie man had not the money with him? No. He said Burke had his money. Burke told you over the telephone be would pay? Yes. How did you get the money? Aly boy collected it the same day. - In whose name was the receipt? Pearson’s. Was Pearson stupidly drunk? No; but one could see he had been drinking and that he had had two or three drinks that morning. AVas O’Connor under the influence ot drink? No, perfectly -sober. 'll loll there was a comparison? learson was in the worse condition. ri es SH ' Q would produce files or the papers from persons who received them as subscribers. Air. Hutchison: AVo will only allow tho issue of the one date to <'o in. 13 Air Rees said he did not propose to call any further evidence at present, but would keep any further evidence for rebuttal. BABAIAN RECALLED. Tlie witness Gordon Ball, having now recovered sufficiently .to continue his evidence, was placed in tho box, and further cross-examined by Air .Hutchison, said ho -did not remember any conversation with Air. ' Gorman. His Honor said the conversation uas not admissablo. Tlie witness could not be examined on facts on which Air. Rees had not touched. Mr. Hutchison: I would like to call Air Gorman later oil. His Honor: You can’t call Gorman to contradict the witness. lo the witness: Did Pearson pay for his drinks as he went- along? Some were chalked up. Did you chalk any up? At this stage the witness again fainted, and tlie luncheon adjournment was then taken.

On the Court resuming after lunch, Mr. Rees said lie had a note from -Di\ Collins stating that the witness Ball was suffering from a weak heart, and lie had recommended him a draught, blit as he was suffering it was not wise to press him or subject him to excitement.

Mr. Hutchison said he had no wish to press the examination; of a witness that was ■unwell, and although die wanted him further he would suggest that the evidence of Ball should be struck out- altogether. Mr. Bees agreed, and His Honor allowed the application. Mr. Rees recalled Sergeant Hutton, who stated that lie had since made inquiries, and believed that Pearson was arrested at Miller’s corner. EVIDENCE OF PUBLICATION. Mr. Rees called Horace E. Dodd. You are secretary to the Licensed Victuallers’ Association P Yes. the^lW’ 1 ?’ d ° y ° U fil ° °° pieS ° f Yes. ' ‘

Witness produced certain copies of the “Times” received by mm. Mr. Hutchison held there -was no evidence of publication. His Honor: I flunk it is evidence and I will admit itWhat dates are they P An mist 2Sth, 29th, 31st, September 2nd, 3rd. 4th. sth, 7tb, Bth, and 16th. Mr. Hutchison : What are these papers put in tor? His Honor: I don’t know. To Mr. ]{ees: You must indicate wlmt you rely upon them for. You can’t put in nll’these papers without letting counsel 'know what they aro about. Mr. Rees: On August 2Sth the pajver contained: « letter written by Francis Stafford under the heading of “Lambing-down Case.” v Mr. Hutchison : What does the letter say? Mr. ltees then read the letter referred to and also others dealing with various phases of the ease from different standpoints. His Honor: Those letters do not show any animus. Mr. Hutchison: Merely expressions of opinion freely given by both sides. Mr, Rees also"read the correspondence between the plaintiff’s solicitor ■and the defendant company, which appeared on September oth, and which . is given below, and also the leading article hearing on the case in the issue of that date. To— The .Manager and the Editor, Gisborne Times Co., Ltd., Gisborne. Dear Sir, —An objectionable and li- . bullous paragraph appeared in the “local” columns of the issue of “The Gisborne Times” on Thursday, August 27th inst., having reference to an alleged case of “lambing-down” by a Gisborne hotel-keeper. Wo are instructed by all the Gisborne hotelkeepers to request you that you notify the name of the hotel-keeper who is referred to by such paragraph. Unless and until the individual, who lias been alleged to be guilty of such conduct is publicly named each and everyone of the licensed publicans in Gisborne may and will bo under nL--"re ...., cion. We shall..!;,?—piettsecr'ftT receive p..ia.wr"tollus’letter nob later than 3 p.m. to-day. Upon receipt of the information we will communicate with you further. Yours truly, REES BROS. & BRIGHT. Gisborne, August 28th, 1908. Messrs Rees Bros, and Bright, Solicitors. Dear Sirs, —Referring to your letter of this date, I have the permission of the gentleman who supplied the information upon the paragraph in question to divulge his name in connection therewith. From him your clients should have no difficulty in obtaining any further information you desire. The gentleman in question is Mr. G. J. Black, of Haiti. Yours truly, T. CLARKSON, Managing-Editor. Gisborne, August 28. To— The Manager and the Editor, Gisborne Times Co., Ltd., Gisborne. Sir, —We are'in receipt of your letter of the 28th ult., which, however, does not answer ours of that date. We have been instructed to demand from you a full and ample apology to each and every one of the eight- publicans of Gisborne for the publication by you of the false and libellous paragraph referred to in our former letter. The form of apology and nature of its publication must first- bo approved by us. Unless we receive your assent some time to-day such proceedings as may be deemed advisable by the parties injured will be taken without further notice. Yours trulv, REES BROS. & BRIGHT. Gisborne, Sept. 2. Messrs Rees Bros, and Bright, Solicitors. Dear Sirs, —I much regret being unable to comply with the request made by you in your memo, of yesterday. I remain, Yours faithfully, T. CLARKSON, Managing-Editor. Gisborne, September 3. To— The Manager and tlie Editor, Gisborne Times Co., Ltd., Gisborne. Sir, —We have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant in which you express regret that you are unable to comply with the request made in your letter of the 2nd inst. You had already, on August 28th, practically declined .to notify -to us the name of the hotelkeeper referred to in your paragraph of the 27th ultimo. -The matter now stands as follows: On the 27th of August you published a most serious charge against a Gisborne hotelkeeper, a charge which, if proved, would not only reflect disgrace upon sucli hotelkeeper, but render him liable to punishment. No indication was given by you as -to the identity of the publican. It might- refer to any one of the eight holders of a publican’s license dn this town. We are authorised by each holder of a license to demand from you tlie name of the hotel-keeper referred to, which we did on the day after that on which the' paragraph was published. 'Jo that request you refused to accede, but in lieu thereof you informed us that the author of the statement was Mr. G. J.” Black, of Haiti, and that probably we could obtain any information we required from that gentleman No information which Mr. Black could give would avail our clients individually unless volt promised to insert the name if Mr. Black divulged it, and then not at the request of our clients, but on your own responsibility. On the second of September we wrote demanding an apology for the publication of the false and libellous paragraph .referred to, and on tlie 3rd you answered, stating your regret that you could not comply with the request. 'The facts prove: —1. That you have made a most serious charge against a- publican in Gisborne without in .any way indicating tlie person referred -to. 2. That you have refused to divulge the name of the person you have accused, thus leaving the charge directed against each individual licensee in this town. 3. That while knowing the name of the person you accuse you refuse to apologise to those who are injuriously affected by your published statement-, and who, to your knowledge, are not the objects of the charges- you make. , - Your refusal to point out the -individual referred to must proceed from fear of proceedings being taken By that individual against the “Gisborne Times Company.” As you are aware, and have probably been advised it is safe, although dishonorable, to libel a class of individual by the allegation that one of their number (without indicating the one) lias been guilty of ■crime or of misconduct. You might just as well say that one minister ol religion, or one member of -the medical profession, or one lawyer, or one •merchant, or one tradesman m the place was guilty of immoral or dis- • honest or illegal conduct, and thus indirectly impeach the rectitude or the whole community without fear of the consequences. You, therefore, place our different clients in a position m which you have no right to place them, and leave each open to the imputation of misconduct while you know that only one is accused. Under .those circumstances you compel our different clients to take steps to clear themselves from imputations made by you with the knowledge that ' they are untrue. Your insinuations are more dangerous than open accus- ... ation and render it imperative that each publican in this town should take ' such individual action as ho may he advised, as it is impossible that the holder of a publican's license can sit quietly and allow his character to he ■ destroyed. . , Pi cate you might have understood that the letter of the 2nd mst demanding an apology lor all the publicans in Gisborne, referred to them collectively, we now demand, on behalf of each individual, a letter ol apology definitely stating that tlie statements contained in tlie paragraph in question do not re ter to such individual. , ~ . Wo request that this letter may he published in your columns so that the. public of Gisborne may bo made fully V aware of the circumstance.*. Yours truly, REES BROS. & BRIGHT. Gisborne, Sept. 4.

THE DEFENCE. COUNSEL’S OPENING. Mr. Hutchison, on opening tlu> easo for tho defence, said lie did not intend t-o tnko up the time of the jury at that stage by an address. Ho only desired to say that counsel for plaintiff was quite correct- in stating that tho defence was putting in two issues, one as to the publication in respect to tho plaintiff, and the other that ho was licensed. These were two points, especially tho latter, on which Mr. .Burke might have been expected to give evidence. Of course lie was not bound to do so, and lie no doubt acted on the advice of his solicitors. Instead, ho put in the box to say ho was the licensee, or tho person aimed at. the Town Clerk, the clerk to the Licensing Committee. This was done, no doubt, with a view to ovoid cross - examination. Sometimes juries would find that a plaintiff was reticent. Ho laid low. However, the defendant company had nothing to conceal. They wanted to get at tho heart of the matter, and to got at tho facts. It was his •intention that tho jury should got the facts, and for his purpose his first witness would be ;the plaintiff himself. PLAINTIFF IN THE BOX. Joseph Burke, plaintiff, said he knew Pearson. He saw him on Mondav. August 3rd. about 11 o’clock. Mr. Hutchison: Did your barman come to von and say the man wanted lodging ? No. He cu-nie to ino and asked if I couhl cash a cheque, and I went to the safe to see if I had sufficient liionney.

Is that the cheque (which was produced and shown to witness)? That is tho amount. Is that the signature? It is the amount. I can’t say it is the cheque. There is a- name on tho hack; whose signature is that? I can’t tell. You have a son, hay.i>--v6u ? Yes. , 'jV AA-iidt is his name? F. Burke. Have you ever seen him write liis name ? Yes. Is that his signature? I can’t say.

Ilis Honor: What nonsense, Mr. Burke. You know very well whoso signature it is. If you think you can advance your case with tho jury by this equivocation you are, very much mistaken. Y'ou don’t know jurymen. The witness interrupted. His Honor: Sir, I will fine you if you interrupt mo. Very well, go on. His Honor (smiling), to Mr. Hutchison : He does not know tho signature.

Witness: I could not cash tho cheque, and Pearson asked mo for a room and I gave him No. 9. Have you your hook here? Y’es. (The book was produced.) Air. Hutchison (reading): J. Barry on Sept-. 6th and O’Connor. There are four beds in No. 9? Yo.s. Pearson asked me then if I would take charge of the cheque until I could cash it for him. That was before 12 o’clock.

Was lie spending money? He asked me to have a drink with him and I refused. Did you see Pearson there during the afternoon? Y’es, several times. Y'ou did not cash the cheque that day ? No; I did not. Did Pearson tell you what he came to town for? No. Did he say he was on his way to Auckland ? No. Did he say he wanted some clothes? No, he never mentioned it. When did you cash the cheque? 1 sent the cheque down the next morning with others by my son, F. Burke. Have you any doubt -that is your son's signature ? I could not swear to it. Did you make any entry in any hook of the receipt of the money? No. Did you give him any memorandum that day? _ I gave him an 1.0. U. of mine. The document was produced, and read: 1.0. U. £2O, G. Pearson. -Dated August 3rd. His Honor: £2O? _ . - -Mr. Hutchison: What time of the day was that? About a quarter to one. Were those other entries made on tlie same day or afterwards? Afterwards, at intervals. Do you say they correctly indicate the money transactions between you and Pearson ? Yes. Are they all in your handwriting? Yes. His Honor (examining tho document) : There is nothing to indicate any connection with Pearson, jlnot his’ initials or anything else in the ■nature of a receipt. All-. Hutchison : No, your Honor. Did Pearson give any receipt? lie signed his name on the Saturday he was leaving. That was August Bth? Yes. Y'ou see his name is on the top and not on the bottom of tho document? That is where he signed liis name. You call that an 1.0. U. Did you hand that paper to Pearson? Yes, when lie asked me for money. Did you deliver it to Pearson ? Y'cs, on August 4th. AVhat did Pearson do with it? He put it in his pocket. On the YVednesday,. according to the paper, you gave him £2? I gave him £2 after breakfast on the Tuesday, before I cashed the cheque. That was not put down on the papcr ?

No, I put it in my hook. On YY'ednesday, according to the paper, y-ou gave him another £2? Yes, of his own money. Did you p.ut down the amount? Yes, on the 1.0. U. Did you return it to him after tlie entry? Y'es. On the same day you paid him another £1? Y’es, after dinner. Did you put that on the document? Y'cs. And he put it in Iris pocket after every payment? Y'es. , , . Each day it was a regular thing to get money before and after dinner ? Y’es. There is'a third payment on that day, making £5 at intervals? Yes, anil lie wanted more. You evidently- thought ho had enough? Y'es-, and I wanted to know what ho was doing with it. AVhat was he doing with it? I don’t know. AVas lie drinking? He was taking a little, but I never saw him the worse for liquor. After his meals he' used to go down the street. Did you pay Mr. Robertson £2? Yes. Tho man had no money when he went to buy clothes, and you paid Air. Robertson ? Y'cs. On the Thursday lie made two draws? Yes. One in tlie morning and ono in tho afternoon, each time £3? Yes. ' ' AVas the paper again produced? Yes. You never saw him tho worse for liquor ?

No. Do you remember being clown town with him on the Wednesday? I was not down town' with him. Was your son down town with him? He might have been; I don’t know. Did you see him in the bar oil the Wednesday afternoon? I think I did. Do you know anyone who was with him that afternoon or evening? I do notjtherc were a lot of people there. , ... On the Thursday you advanced linn £4 dn two sums? Yes. Was that under the same procedure? I think so; in the morning and evening. Well, suppose he got £2 m the morning, do you make an exception as to tho times of advancing tho money ? No; that was the day ho got run in. I did not know lie was run in until the police rang mo up.

Y'ou wove asked to bail him out? [ sent down Paddy O’’Connor. Anyone else? No. Not your son? No; lie was in tho liouso. If tho sergoant said your son didgo down, what do you say? [ asked my son and ho said ho did not go. Ho was in tho liouso when O’Connor and the man camo buck. Y'ou advanced tho £1? Yes. Y'ou saw Pearson that night and put down another £2. Yes. Was the man sober? Yes; as sober as a judge, when he camo hack. (Laughter.) What did ho want tho £2 for? I suppose ho did not want to ho without money. YVliy did you not outer up tho £1 paid as bail as well? 1 entered it up on Saturday. His Honor: Answer tho question. Witness: I just handed him the money and being busy at the time did not enter it up. Air. Hutchison:; Excuse mo; you di<l not hand Pearson, the £l. It was paid to tho police. Y'ou know tho man was to appear tlie next morning on a chargo? Yes. I advised him to appear at tho Court, hut lie would not go. Ho said lie would forfoit his hail. Did ho go away that day? Y'es. He told mo 1m was going away with his boss. Ho paid mo for liis hoard, and I returned him £3, the balance of tlm £2O I had in hand. And he produced tho document? Y'cs. And each time 3m rocoived money he produced that document and returned it to his pocket again? Yes. AVas it on that occasion ho signed the document? Y'cs. Ilis Honor: This documont looks as if it had been written all at one time. 03i, lio. His Honor: Y'ou had hotter look at it again to refresh your memory. No, sir. His Honor: To- any unsophisticated eye the documont looks as if it had been written all at one time. His Honor then handed the document to tlm jury. His Honor: Don’t you keep a cash book ? No. iSupposo this man lost this document. Y'ou would bo at his mercy ? Y'es, Your Honor. His Honor: That’s am way of doing business, Burko. Mr. Hutchison: Y'ou presented that document for liis signature and he signed- it? Y’es. And 3m disappeared? He wont away. But lie turned up again ? Y’es, he came hack on the Sunday and I said: ‘I thought you wore going away,’ and Pearson replied he had told a lie. Ho asked me to lot him stop a couple of days. Did lm say why? Y’es, lie said lm had no money. He threw himself on your credit and you were willing? Y'es. Y'ou had no money of his? No. He stayed until the next Thursday ? Yes. YY'hen 3m went away did lie walk? I heard he took the coach. During this time was he following any occupation? I don’t think so. Ho was spending money at a rate of over £2OOO a year during the six days. Do you know what 3m was spending it on? I have not the slightest idea. Y'et he was in your house? He was in my house some of the time. But lie was sober when lie received tlie money? He always said when I asked him what lie was doing with his money that he had a few accounts to pay. Y'et when he had a little account of £2 0s Od you paid it yourself? AVere drinks chalked up to the man ? Not to my knowledge. Do you remember -an occasion on the YVednesday when Pearson asked for some money? I can remember him doing so in tlm morning and afternoon. Did yon -give him some few shillings as the change out of a £1 ? No. I don’t remember. Do you remember him sticking up 3s and then asking you for money? No. I don’t remember it. Did you do that in tlm presence of anyone ? I don’t remember it. YY'as he the worse for liquor? No. I never saw anyone in my liouso under the influence of liquor at any time. His Honor): Never saw anyone? No. There was some - laughter in tho Court.

His Honor: lam not surprised at people laughing. But as I said before, this is no theatre, and if people Want to laugh they must go outside. AA'as not t3ie man paralytic drunk oil the day ho got arrested. No. He was not under tho influence of drink? He was able to walk about, blit he sometimes had. ia little too much. Do you remember telling him on YVednesday night he bad £l7 to his credit ? No. Did you tell him when lie asked for money that you would see him in the morning? No. His Honor: Ono time you deny it, and another! time you admit it. AA'hat do you mean ? I admit it. His Honor: AVell, what you told me last was not tme. AVhat am Ito put down in my notes. Do you admit it or deny it ? I may have done so. Did lie ask you on tlie Wednesday for money and did you refuse him? I may have done so. Did you say ‘See me in the morning’? ’ I may have done so. AA'ill you tell the Court why you refused a sober man his money? He used to go off down town and come Back tantalising me for more money.’ Mr. Hutchison repeated the question, and! witness answered: Because it was late in the evening. Why should you refuse to pay him money late in tho evening? I might have thought he liad enough that day. And you were the judge of that? Y'cs. YA'as it for the man’s good you wit-held Ills money? No. I might have been too busy and could not he bothered. After the man had been in the cells, did he go down town after getting £2? I don’t know. Do you remember the barmanshowing you the paper? Y'es. Did -he say it applied to you? Of course, as it referred to the man, the amount of the cheque, etc. You had no doubt that you were referred to as the publican? No doubt at all. Did you tell the other publicans that you were the man?

Y'es. And yet they as a body proceeded against the paper. Y'es.

AA'lien did you go out to see Pearson oil Air. Black’s run? I cannot particularly remember. A'ou went out with a J.P.? Y'es, but I did not know who he " His Honor: AVhat does all this mean ? Someone came to you and got into your buggy and you knew nothing of him anil got no explanation? I was told lie was coming to see Pearson and the manager of the station. AA'ho was the person who came to you ? Air. Akrbyd. Who sent him, and what was he sent for P I don’t know, except that Air. Rees might havo sent him. AA'hat did ho come for? To go out- and see. Pearson and tlio manager of the station. His Honor: Then you did know

wlmt lm camo for? To seo il' there was any truth m tlm “hftnbing down” case. His Honor: Y'ou did not go for that purpose. You must havo known wliothor it was true or not. Air. Hutchison: AVh 0 sont you out? Alcssrs Roes Bros, sent mo out. It was suggested that I should go out and tnko an independent mini with me, who was to ho provided by tlm Licensed Victuallers’ Association. You did -not know Air. Akroyd ? No. Me told you his name on tlm way out? No. I, never know liis name nil the way out. Dili you know lm was a J.P.? No. I said I supposed ho had come from Rees and Bright, and lm said “Y'es,” so I said “That’s alright.” Y’oii know where to go though ? Y'es. Y'ou got out to I’akowlmi? Yes, and left the buggy at tho hotel. Y'ou walked to tlio station -under tlm guidnneo of Air. Akroyil ? Y'es. Did you go to tlm liouso? Y'es, hut nobody was in. A little Maori girl told us where Pearson was to lie found, and I wont up the hill. YVlmro did you leave Air. Akroycl ? Ho was following me. How close was ho following? 1 don’t remember tlm distance. Did lm got within a mile or half-a-mil’o of Pearson? Y'es. AY'liat did you say when you saw Pearson, ns you saw him alone? I asked him what was tlio meaning of all this noiso in tlm paper, and lm said that lm heard about it, hut ho was sorry, and ho had nothing against mo. It was Air. Black mho reported it all. I thou said there was a gentleman wanted to seo him. Ilis Honor: Y'ou know that statement was not trim? No, your Honor. Air. Hutchison: Do you wish His Honor to understand that nothing else was said ? Not between me and Pearson. His Honor: Is that all lm said to you ? It is all I said vo him. Ilis Honor: YVill you answer my question, sir? He may have said a few tilings, hut I did not take any notico. Did you produce tho 1.0. U. to Pearson at the back of the run? No, sir, I did not. Air. Hutchison: A'ou came hack to tlm house then ? ■ Y'es. Did you say to Pearson, “Who is that other man ?” No. Did both -of tlm men at a little distance call to you? Y’es, but I could not say who they were. YVhen you saw the men in the distance -and was told by Pearson who Atr. Black was, did you not thereupon break off from your course and take another bpute? No, I did not. Y'ou arrived then with Pearson wlmro tlm two 1,1011 were? Y'es. AY'liat did you say to Pearson ? I asked him if the statement in tlm paper was correct, and lie said “No. I said “Do not remember what happened to you when you were in town?” and Pearson said lie remembered some things, but it was like a mist to him. I asked him several other questions, and if lie remembered that -lie (witness) cashed his cheque and minded £2O for him, and Pearson said lm could not .remember everything that happened. Pearson said he remembered that when lie was going lie wanted a settling -up and received £3. Ho also told me that lm remembered going on the Saturday and that ho went and stayed at Alakaraka. AY'liat else did lie 6ay ? I did not make a note of what lie said. YY'ere you agitated ? No. YY'ere you lighting cigarettes and tin-owing them awav ? No. Did vou produce the 1.0. U.? I did. YVliy ? To convince the gentlemen that I had not wronged Pearson. Y'ou wanted the J.P. to understand you had done the right tiling to Pearson ? 1 Y'es. Mr. Black said 1m was sorry the publication liad taken place, and that he would have an order out against him. That was against- Pearson, not Akroyd ? Yes, Pearson. AVliy should an order ho taken out against a man who was sober all tlm time lie was with you ? I don’t know. Did you say tlm suggestion was ridiculous against a sober man? No. Did Air. Black say tho signatliro was that of a drunken mail ? I don’t remember that lie made any remark. » Do you say ho did not say it? I ,wilh ' Did Pearson say lie did not iremcmber signing tlie document? Ho did -not say so in my presence. And yet you wore there together? Yes. His Honor: Y'ou said Pearson, remarked it was his signature ? Y'es, lie said so. His Honor: YY'liy did you take Pearson’s signature to that document? Because lm had tlm money. His Honor: I will ask another question. Just look at that document? Don’t you see there is no acknowledgement at all? I don’t, your Honor. It is a common tiling among licensed houses when cheques aro left. His Honor: Should not tho signature have been underneath ? Y'ou could operate to any extent while tho signature is on top. The jury can see the document and draw thenown conclusions. YVill , you swear the entries were not all made at one time ? Y'es. Air. Hutchison: Did you make any reference to the suit at this interview ? I don’t .remember. Are you sure? Oh, I asked Pearson if he had the receipt and he said lie had lost it. Did he not say lm had not got it? He said lie ditf not liavo it with him. Do you remember Air. Akroyd saying “YY'e are no further oil”? No;. I don’t. I was not taking much interest in what was said. His Honor: AVhat you .say is very remarkable. Do you say upon oath that you did not take any interest in the- discussion? YY'ell, I took an interest to a certain extent. AVhat did Air. Black say ? He said it was a pity tlm case ever came up. His Honor: The writ was issued then ? I don’t think it was. His Honor: A Veil, then, you were out to get information to issue it upon P Y’es. His Honor: Y'ou walked away and left these peoplo talking together? AA'cll, youtl Honor— His Honor: Answer. Don’t try, to wriggle out of it. YA'liat is true and what is false ? Is it true you took no interest in tho conversation ? Y'eg. I took no interest in it. His Honor: AVliy not? .Because I thought they had finished. Air. Hutchison: Y'ou are the owner of the Record Reign Hotel? No. AY'ho is the owner? Air. D. J. Barry. Did Air. Barry send tho independent gentleman to you ? I don’t know whether it was All - . Barry off Air. Rees. Y’ou did say Air. Rees? « AY'ell, Air. Rees told me about it. Did vou not know Air, Barry- had asked Air. Akroyd to go out with yon? No, I did not. You got- no further on by- tlm interview ? No. His Honor: Y’ou just said you were satisfied. , . J I was satisfied that I had brought [ his recollection to him; lie recollected l

nothing (laughter). A'ou got 'no documont signed ? No. I don’t- know if Air. Akroyd got one. But you wore there? 1 dill not watch. Pearson /said lie recollected nothing. Oh, did 3m? AA'oll, not altogether. He recollectod nothing that -happened whilo.be was at your hotel? Yes ;lio said lm had no blame and that I had treated him well. AVas that wihilo 1m was there P No, after 3m loft. I don’t know what ho meant. Ilis Honor: Can’t you see, Burke, yon are talking nonsense? Witness: I asked him a lob of things that lm could not remember. Nothing at all? Well, ho did remember some things. Did you not montion that you did not want to bring tho action against tlm “Times,” hut that you wore forced to ? No, not to anyone. Not' to Air. Gorman? I never spoke to Air. Gorman. Ilis Honor: How much money did you joceivo from Pearson altogether? £37 18s, your Honor. And you gave him an 1.0. U. for £2O? . I cashed tlm clioquo next morning. And put £l7 18s into your .pocket? No. I gave Pearson tho full amount. I gave him £2O, all 1 lnit £2 in inonev. J| is Honor: AY'ell, you did keep some of liis money? Yes, £4 0s Gel. Ho had £l3 17s Oil in his possession. His Honor: And the same dayyon advanced him more money? Not tlm same day. His Honor: Although,ho had £l3 17s (id in liis pocket ho wanted more? A’es. Ilis Honor: AY'ell, if you did not lamb him down someone else did so. His Honor: And ho was quite sober ail day? He might not have been perlcctly sober, hub lm was not tight. His Honor: A man can’t got rid of £l4 in drink in one day, and remain sober as you well know. Witness: He can give it away. I thought ho had given his money -away. His Honor: And that he was able to take care of himself? Yes. . Mr. Rees: Y'ou -received tlm cheque on tho Monday P Y'cs. And cashed it next morning? Y'es. And lent him £2 on film next day? Yes. Y'ou gave him the balance in cash? Y'es, and he handed it to mo to mind. AVhat did you do with the money left with you that way? I put it in the safe. And gave him an 1.0. U. for it? Y'es. AY'as anyone present when you took the £2O and gave him the 1.0. U.? No, but tlm barman and barmaid wore in tho bar adjoining. Did anyone see you make the entries on the 1.0. U. when von paid the money- to Pearson? No, hut tho barman might havo done so. Aly- office is also a storeroom. ■Did the barman or barmaid see you pay- any money ? Y'es, both of them. AY'as Pearson sober when lm left the hotel on the Saturday? Y’es. Did Pearson know how much money he received and what balance was due to him ? Y’es, by memory. YY'ere the entries on the 1.0. U. on Saturday morning? Y'es, all up to Friday night. Then you paid him £3? I gave him £4, and he paid mo £1 for his board. Do you remember Pearson returning oh the Sunday? Yes. Did lie say y-ou had any money in hand ? No. . Did lie' at any time allege you had any money? No, not after the Saturday. YVere all the figures on tlm paper when Pearson placed his name upon it? Y'es. YY'as anyoho present? Y'cs, my- little girl and the barmaid. His Honor: Did anyone see it signed. Tim barman may have done so. Air. Rees: All you know about Air. Akroyd is what you stated? Y'es, I did not choose him. When tho paper was produced what words were used? I asked Pearson if ho remembered signing the paper, anil Pearson said yes, it was his. Did you ask him anything further? I think I did. Did ho say it was incorrect? No. Did ho look at it in Ill's hands? Y'cs. (Did he then state that you had money of his ill hand ? No! lm did not. Did you know whether Pearson was very free with his money? I can only- say people said 3m was very free with ibis ’money any place 1m went. That won’t do. Did you seo him yourself paying any money-? I saw him pay a pound once to a young fellow. .. Did you see him treating at all ? I saw him treating three or four once or twice. Did you at any 'time order t-liat ho ho refused liquor? I told the barmaid to refuse him onco or twice because it was just before meal times, 'not that lie was unfit to he supplied. Do you remember Air. Blair (solicitor) coming to your house ? Y'es. AVas it just before publication of tlm paragrapli? Y'es. He. asked me if I had any money of this man’s, and I told him I had not. Did you over hear you were accused of having monies of this man in your possession prior to the paragraph appearing? No, I did not. Is this £2O truthfully accounted for in this statement? Yes, he got every penny of it. Ilis Honor: Did he, as fast as you gave .liiin tlio money, give it straight back to tlie barman, to pay for what was on the sl-a’to? No, he did not. I don’t know what private arrangement tlm barman -might have had with .him. Mr. Rees: AA’lien you paid liim. the £2O was ho sober? Quite sober, and able to do business. His Honor: AVitness has already sworn twenty times that the man was sober all the time. Air. Rees: Did y-ou permit him to become intoxicated in your house at any time? I did not. I say I never taw him under the influence of liquor at anytime. On Saturday morning, did you tell Pearson liis money was gone, and he’d better get off? No, I did not. AA'lien we were settling up, I asked him if lie knew how much.’was coining to him. He said “Yes, it's £4,” and I said “Quite correct.” Both -the barman and the barmaid were present. To His Honor: Tlioy must havo heard what took place. Air. Hutchison: It’s your custom to keep each person's money- separate? Yes, from my own monies. And you get them to sign tlieir names? . Y'es, when they- get delivery of their money. His Honor: Just tell me liow you keep these monies. I lcqep them in separate envelopes. Air.’ Hutchison -. Then you get each one to sign liis name? Not everyone, because there, are many people whom I know and it isn’t necessary. Did you put Pearson’s money an an envelope with his name on the back of it? Yes. Have you the envelope? YA'ell, I don’t suppose I have it now. Going away, you get their signatures as verification? Yes. Always? No, only when I’m not acquainted with them. Can you show us one other document like ’-that of Pearson’s?

1 could not ho sure; I may have some. , , Whore did you keep tins one? Well, that was laying on my desk. Then that document was laying on your desk for 20 days? A’es, amongst other papers. 'l'llis concluded tlio examination, tlio witness having been, in tho box for close on threo hours. SERGEANT HUTTON RECALLED.

Sergeant Hutton (re-called) said that when Pearson was searched 3s lOd was found upon him. Tho document produced was not upon him to liis knowledge. It was not signed for, and there was no record of it. To Ilis Honor: If .the document had been on tlio prisoner it would have been remembered and entered in the property book. To Air. Hutchison: The man’s pockets were dirty. Such as would soil the paper? Yes. . ' If tho document had been in the man’s pockot it would have been soiled ? Y'es; it would liavo been another color. Tlio man was very drunk? Y’es; very, very drunk. AVas ho clean or dirty? I could not say ho was a- clean person. And then'lie lay for six hours an the coll? Yes. . . , . AVhat pockets did ho have m Ins clothes? . - 1 can’t say definitely. He hail working men’s clothes'. Air. Roes: AVas every pocket full or tobacco? Net every pocket, lint all the pockets had a residue ol dirty material. He was sober enough to lie let out on hail? Y'es. At six o’clock lie had slept it off. 'The witness produced the signature for Pearson’s property when released on hail. The hearing was then adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.