“TIMES” LIBEL CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2304, 24 September 1908, Page 2

“TIMES” LIBEL CASE.

JOSEPH BURKE SUES THE GISBORNE TIMES C 0,,, LTD. FOR £250 DAMAGES. VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT COMPANY,, MR. HUTCHISON MAKES A STIRRING ADDRESS. HIS HONOR SAYS THE “TIMES” HAS PERFORMED “A PUBLIC SERVICE.” THE JURY’S FINDING. “WE FIND that Pearson arrived at Burke’s Hotel, “ The Record Reign,” on August 3rd. He, Pearson, had 111 his possession then a cheque for £37 18s, and about £5 6s in notes and silver, and that Burke got possession of the said cheque, £37 18s and notes £5, and he, Burke, has failed to satisfactorily account for the disposal of the above monies, and that he, Burke, permitted Pearson to have as much intoxicating liquor as he asked for from time to time to Pearson’s detriment, physically and morally. “We find that the defendant Company has fully justified its publication of the facts concerning one of the most deplorable ‘lambing down ’ cases that has occurred in our midst. “We therefore give our Verdict in favor of the Defendant Company.”

Thoro was again intense interest throughout tho'town yesterday in the progress of tho civil suit instituted on behalf of Joseph Burke against the Gisborne Times Company, Limited, for £250 damages for alleged libel. Tho Court was crowded when tlio case re-opened, and tlie able and telling address delivered by Air. Hutchison for tho defendant company was listened to with absorbed attention. His final declamation when lie pointed to the plaintiff, and referred scathingly to his position in the case lent a dramatic ending to a powerful address. Air. IV. L. Rees mado the most of his case, but was obviously handicapped by the trend of events. His Honor’s address was concluded about half-past- ono o’clock, when an adjournment was made for lunch. The jury were afterwards about an hour considering fheirl verdict, which was given at ten minutes past three o’clock in "the presence of a. crowded Court-room.

apology, which no doubt would, have boon used for public purposes. Next day a reply was sent by the Editor doclining to do anything of the kind. Then wo como to the letter of September 4. If you have the time- though possibly you may think the . i atter quite ‘unimporiant—you ; iioul'J ioolc ,at that letter. It contains 500 words—soo words lin a letter from a firm of solicitors who had already written twice previously to the Editor on the same matter. That letter was full of sophistry and full of fallacy. It stated that there was no indication as to_ the publiewn, although at that time the- writers knew absolutely who was the person. Then it goes on to say that a serious charge had been made against a publican. That was justifiable. Then we come to what we may call the Catherine wheel of this display of fire works. “You have probably been told that it is safe, though dishonorable, to libel a class.” It was not a class, but_ian individual who had been libelled, df libel there was. Now, what was the meaning of this 500 words letter ? As usual we find it in the tail. The demand was made that it should he published. In other words, as I have already indicated, the desire was to humiliate the newspaper and obtain an apology, which could be made use of for public purposes. The reply was given that the request would be acceded to if the wliolo of the correspondence could be published and the publication took placo on (September sth. In addition the original paragraph was printed at the head of the column in which the correspondence was published. My learned friend, will probably urge tliivt this repetition was an aggravation of the alleged libel, but y. -i will understand that to fully appreciate the correspondence it was necessary to show the subject matter upon which it was based. Even- if the re-publication were objectionable —-which I do .not admit—it mis proper under the circumstances —that is of the newspaper being prepared to defend itself—that it should give all possible publicity to the case of lamb-ing-down. If, as I am confident you will find, that the facts- alleged did 'occur, then the re-publication, not once, but a hundred times, was justifiable, liny more, -it would be not 1 a matter for condoning, but for approval and admiration that- such a paragraph should have been printed in every issue of the journal" that appeared.

MR. HUTCHISON'S ADDRESS. Alp Hutchison, addressing tho jury, said :

Alay it please Your Honor and gentlemen of tlie jury—There are some matters • introduced into this case which appear to me to rather encumber it, not intentionally introduced to obscure the issue, but introduced by my learned friend, no doubt with the intention to promote this case as it occurred to him .it should be promoted. I refer to the file of newspapers, which one witness produced, containing correspondence that had taken place between tho solicitors of the plaintiff and tho manager of the “Gishorno Times” as well as that of various individuals in reference to the “lambing-down” case. I think myself that these matters are not really important in this case, but I cannot in justice to defendant pass theiii over without some remarks* hut wlia4 I may to-say about them shall be somewhat brief, because I think that they only tend to obscure the real issue, which is, after all, ivhetlior tho publication was justified under the circumstances. Dealing then, very shortly, with the correspondence, and taking them together in the order in which they occurred, wo find, of course, the paragraph published referring to a case of “laihbing down” in Gisborne. That was on August 27th, and it created a great sensation, as it naturally would. There are a number of publicans in Gishorno—eight all told—and no doubt some of. them felt very keenly that this reflection was one that ought to he removed or justified. They thereupon hold a council of eight, and, as I have said, some of these hotel-keepers were justified in feeling somewhat hurt. But you will remember that, within a, few hours of the paragraph appearing there was r.o doubt in tho minds of at least one of these publioans as to which ono of thorn was aimed at. Tlio barman in the Record Reign Hotel, on tho morning of the 27th, read the paragraph, and immediately went to Burke and showed it to him as necessarily applying to tho incidents that had occurred in that hotel, and Burke himself admitted it must have been aimed at him and he tokl his solicitors. And yet on tho next day wo find Alessrs Rees and Bright writing to the Editor of the ‘Gisborne Times” demanding an apology. Tlio letter says, “Wo are instructed by all the Gisborne hotel-keepers,” and the answer was to he given tho same day by tlirco o’clock. That letter, while justified in. a measure, was not.under tho particular circumstances, a truo reflex of the position, because one of these publicans had already owned up to tlio accusation. Permit me to remind you that the paragraph in question amid not possibly have applied to more than ono person, and that it would have been an easy matter for any person interested in the case to have found out who was aimed at. Tlio facts were slated explicitly enough. The amount of tho cheque is.mentioned, and tlio time of the incident, tho purchase of the suit of clothes, and what would have constituted in itself an absolute demonstration was the incident of tlie hailing out. That fact would have sheeted homo to any mind on enquiry as to who tho person was. Tlio answer) was sent the following day. It was to tho effect that Mr Black, a well-known run-holder in the district and resident in Gisborne, was tho informant, and that an application to him would no doubt result in getting the ill for motion desired. Then there ensues a silence for five days. Nothing more was heard until the 2nd of September. A great deal had occurred in that interval. There had occurred what may he described the Akroyd incident—the visit of Air. Akroyd with Burke to Pa'kowhai and the interview that I may refer to later on took place. Aleamvhile the columns of the “Gishorno Times” were open to correspondence pro and con. You heard my learned friend read letters one on one side and one on the other. There was absolutely no partiality. The columns of the Times remained open to the utterances of both sides. Nothing was said by the paper in any way to comment upon the alleged lambing-down. On September 2 the legal battery opened fire and a full and ample apology, not this time collectively of the publicans of Gisborne, but to each and everyone of the eight v.'is required, and the fulsome apology was required to be approved of by tho publicans’ solicitors, and the ass-ent was to he given that very day. Why was that? Possibly, gentlemen- —I don’t suggest it was for a political purpose—the publicans didn’t want a private individual to sustain the allegations of the lambing-down. They wanted a newspaper in the town to humiliate itself by a public

On the same day appears a leading article, which, for the first time, gives expression to tho opinion of tlie Editor of tlie paper. You will remember, gentlemen, that at first I objected to the .admission of any papers except that dated August 27th. I had no idea what they might contain, but I must frankly thank my learned friend for putting them in. It was Hither, well shall I say amusing?, to find my learned friend reading out iii his eloquent diction that articlo which, to my mind, was an expression of tlio truo position in tlie matter. It claimed the freedom of the Press and it exploded the sophistry of those who were attempting to gag the press by pointing out that there Mere in the district publicans who Mere decent men and who ivould rosont such action on the part of any one of tlioir servants as had been alleged against , one of their number. That was an admirable article, and 1 thank my learned friend for .reading lit. However, tlio 27th August is really the only issue u’e have to consider. Nov- we como to the real question. (After reading the paragraph complained of.) Now, gentlemen, have m’c justified 1 that statement in its main particulars ? Subject to the correction of His Honor, udio will determine tho lau- in this connection, I have to submit to you th.it if the substantial imputation is true, it docs not matter if there should be a variation in minor details, provided any inaccuracy does not alter tho complexion of the affair. The paragraph myp ,in short, that tbo case was one of’ lambing-down. 'Now, was there, •in short, a. case of laml>ing-do\rn, and Mas tho person who lambed tho man down tho plaintiff? .1 will leave it to you, and I do not think you will have any hesitation, in< answering the question in the affirmative. It does not matter whether the man was lambeddown for £4O, or for £3O, or for £2p. Did the man alluded to take liis cheque to an hotel and get nothing for it but the condition of a physical and moral wreck, returning home until an. attack of delirium tremens? Gentlemen, there is one matter in this case which appears to me dominates tlio affair. It is the document which has been called 1 the 1.0. U. You will examine it closely, for it is an important document, .and certainly a Tory remarkable one. This man camo into toum on Monday, August 3rd. Tho publican’s statement is that on- that day bo got the cheque, for £37 10s, but did not cash it till the next day. Out of the proceeds be retained £2 previously advanced to the man, and £2 for a suit of clothes. He handed the balance to tlie man in cash, and the man handed him back £2O, for which he, Burke, give an acknowledgement. Non- the first feature of this document contradicts that statement. Burke would have you to suppose this document ivas commenced on the 4th. You can sec it is dated the 3rd, in Burke’s ouni handwriting. Then it is not an 1.0. U. from Burke to Pearson, hut it is an 1.0. U. from Pearson to Burke.

His Honor (in surprise): Then that will account for wliat Mr. Akrovd said yesterday. He understood that was tlie nature of the document.

Mr Hutchison, continuing: Perhaps so, your Honor. Then on the next line you will find below the signature the letter £ for a pound and the figures 2 and 0. For all we know this might have been a blank when tho signature was placed on the top any anything might have been placed underneath. As a matter of fact we don’t know exactly when this signature was appended. Burke says it

was written, in acknowledgement of various sums. Wo have only Burke’s word for that, and I doubt if you will believe a singlo word that Burke has sworn in the witness box. Thom follow down the column the amounts aggregating £2O. This, then, is the document produced by Burke as part of his case. Although these people arc clever you will see that they make slips. Even, if they were the acknowledgements of different amounts, the signature would have boon at the bottom of the document, not at the top. There was plenty of space at tile bottom for the signature. Publicans arc not so ignorant that on a settlement of an account lor £2O they do not know there should be a penny stamp. And, gentlemen, we have, of course, to consider the real fads of this case as far us wo can discover. Soinotimes by a slip on the part of a crafty man, sometimes by the reflections of the man himself, sometimes by collateral circumstances testified to by someone else, even by the document itself we were, able to gain valuable information. Here the document is duted the 3rd, but there is no entry of an amount until tile sth. Burke would have you believe that lie advanced £2 to this man out of his own money on the Monday besides advancing him £2 on the Tuesday mornnig. What I shall suggest to you is that no money was received by Pearson except such as was used for the payment for drinks. It is policy for a man like Burke to koop the man. supplied with small amounts for this purpose. You will remember that to get at that cheque on the Monday morning the man had- to unrol his live pound notes in which it was wrapped. I say, gentlemen', the lambing-down process began on the Monday, and that the publican took into his possession not only the cheque but also the notes, and that he doled out the money in such a way as to keep the man on the string, and that lie gave him precious little. One of the collateral facts os provided by the evidence of the bootmaker. On that very Monday the man had banded at the bar of the Record iteign Hotel with £4O, hadn’t 15s to buy himself a pair of boots, and had to satisfy himself with a pair of slippers. We thus have evidence that from the very ‘first day of his arrival this man’s money was in the hands of the publican, The next day was Tuesday, and the cheque was cashed. That was the day that some one with the name of Frank Burke went to the bank. Burke said he sent his son, but he is not able to identify his own son’s signature for the cheque, or njther ho prevaricates over it, says ho can’t swear to it. The cheque was cashed, and on the same day we have another collateral incident by an independent witness. Wo have the purchase of the suit of clothes- Under what circumstances ? Not like the day before when Pearson wandered alone down the street and went into the bootmaker’s shop. This day Paddy O’Connor went with him. And where is Paddy O’Connor? Paddy O’Connor went to Auckland by the boat on the Wednesday following after this week of drunkenness. Pearson was in company. The man who had como in with £4O the day before hadn’t money to pay for a suit of clothes. Burke was appealed to, aiid said ho would pay for it. This man in .a state of intoxication pulled his new clothes over the top of his old ones. Then he went back to the hotel with O’Connor to be supplied, if not. with money, at any rate with more liquor. We come then to the Wednesday, and that is an important date, because wo have some striking evidence in regard to that particular date. Gentlemen, there are three entries on this document on the Wednesday. The first is for £2, the next is for £l, and the third is for £2. Now, it is very remarkable, and I think exceedingly fortunate, that we can pin the man to that £l, the second item of the three, by the evidence of Ansel!, a perfectly honest, truthful, and intelligent witness- .He tells us. that the pound was given by Burke to Pearson, who handed it to the_liarmaid, who then gave Pearson 17s as change. This was between 7 o’clock and 9 at night oil the Wednesday, when, according to Ansell, the man was staggering drank, when he was shouting land having drinks chalked up on the slate —though the barmaid declares she is not allowed to do any chalking-up, but simply keeps the debts in her memory. My learned friend will probably —if be doesn’t 'think better of it—endeavor to prove to you tlio correctness of this statement of accounts by the fact that at this time Pearson said that Burke was owing him £l7, which would coincide with the fact that at. the time he was supposed by the evidence of the document to have that amount. Now, gentlemen, this .raises what, to my mind, is the most interesting and curious phase of this case. It was perfectly consistent with the fact that now Pearson cannot remember anything about it that on this. Wednesday night he might have said Burke was owing him £l7. Gentlemen, you will no doubt recognise that, one goin' through a course of drinking such as this man undoubtedly went through wall remember nothing of what occurred, though during the time ho has been, to some extent in the exercise of his faculties. His mind being sodden with drinking, he receives bis impressions, sncli as they are, from the publican, and Hie statement made by Burke that evening that he. had £l7 of the man’s money was believed by Pearson, and repeated by (him to Ansell that - night. 'Whether it was true or not the position shows out like a daguerreotype in this case. A mental scientist would tell you that was absolutely the probability of the case, although Pearson afterwards knows nothing about the matter. His mind took on that impression at the time, and be gave voice to it to Ansell. Lot me go bne step further. My learned friend might have intended to refer. to that circumstance in support of this statement of accounts, I doubt if he will do so if he examines it closely. That £1 was paid between 7 and 9 in the shape of loose silver. That anno night this record contains the entry of another £2, so that if this document speaks true ho must: have got another £2 to spend in drink in the Record Reign. Is not this “lambingdown” ? My learned friend talked of robbery. I say it is worse than robbery. Not only was this man’s mind and body being affected under the influence of . the liquor, but bis mind wis operating under this man’s direction. I say this is the most damnable proof that could be brought, against Burke. Wo come to another incidont on the same evening. You cannot doubt Ansell, who tells us that Pearson fell asleep in a chair, and the barmaid was Tasked to wake him . up. The barmaid says she doesn’t remember'; possibly it wouldn’t make, tan impression on her mind, but it did on the mind of An-se-11, and I think you will believe him. Burke went and spoke to him when he went outside with Ansell. He said if lie went away lie (Burke) wouldn’t speak to him again, and the nmn replied that lie wasn’t going. .Gentlemen, wo have called every witness we could possibly get who might help us to get at the bottom of this case except young. Burke, of whom I may have something to say later, and O’Connor, who went away to Auckland. Everybody, we could possibly find we have had in the box. Then we have this document. Wo will now return to this document again. Wo -find, that on Thursday, August 6th, an increased advance of money is made of sums of £3 at a time, or £6 in a day. Did anyone see Pearson that day? We cannot find that they did. Possibly lie uws not in a fit state to be seen by anyone. We now come to the Friday, and here allow me to call your recollection to the evidence of the barman, Ball, Before breakfast this man was drinking; after breakfast lie mis .getting money to pay for what had been chalked up. On this Friday we will suppbse he went through the -usual course and he got his. advance that day of £2. Then lie came down town and at 11 o’clock he was in n condition variously described by three constables as paralytic drunk, dead drunk, and very drank. It is rather disconcerting to the plaintiff’s ease that this man should have fallen into the hands of the police tat all. If lie had 1 not it would have been the

plaintiff’s duty to point out that Pearson was a very sober man, who might some times become a little joly r > k ufc always retained his sobriety, unfortunately for such a contention, bo was found at 11 o’clock in tbo morning clinging to a vemndali post at Miller s corner. Then- conies another of these psychical. facts, for Pearson is said to have asserted that ’ Burke had £G of his. 1 had no idea that that ovdence was coming out. Again, it bad been brought to Pearson’s mind by Burke that he bad £6 left and Pearson, believing it to bo true, repeats tho fact ,at the police station. The statement, by the way, does not coincide with the entries on tho document, by which, at that time, Pearson, should have had £7 in credit. This mnn, who was paralytic drunk, dead, drunk, or very drunk, probably said''that Burke had £0 of bis money. Gentlemen, suppose it is true. Between 9 o’clock on Wednesday night and 11 o’clock on Friday morning, this man had gone through the difference between £l7 and £G. He ban gone through £ll. If there was ever a case of “lambing-down” surely this was one. And the extraordinary thing is this was done in the town of Gisborne. It is time, gentlemen, an example was made in the cause of morality, in (be cause of clean trade, in the cause of justice. The man slept in the. cells for about seven hours, and at—the end of that, time was somewhat restored. At G o’clock two emissaries were sent down —one of them was young Burke and the other was Paddy O’Connor. They paid £1 to bail him out, and lie went with them back to the Record Reign Hotel. I don’t suggest that he was taken by force or unwillingly. A man in that con- ■ dilion would be most anxious to get back to the hotel, returning “like a dog to bis vomit.” Then again ire. have this documentary proof that lief got £2 more. Gentlemen, we now" come to one of the most damaging features of the plaintiff’s case. The man was duo to appear at the Court the next morning, to appear on acharge of drunkenness. Ho had nothing to gain by staying away. Quite the reverse, for he probably would have got hack some ten or fifteen shillings of his bail., But he is not allowed to appear, and I would ask you, to whose interest Mas it that ho should not appear? On the (Siturday morning, if you believe Burke, there was a settlement before the man went. away. The barman and the barmaid were both supposed to have witnessed this ■settlement, but I think you will find with me that it is impossible to construct a true statement from their joint versions. There may have been money paid to Pearson. It wns policy oil the part of Burke not to clean the man right out, but to give him something. The document says he got £3, all that M-as remaining from the £2O. The man doesn’t' know that he got anything. But suppose that lie got £3, he didn’t go . away even then. The barman -would have you believe that he went away at 9 o’clock, after stttlemeiit, and that lie did not come back again until; the coach was due to leave at 2 in the afternoon, but the barmaid told. us he was in the bar drinking during, the whole of tbo intervening period. This proved conclusively to me that he was not allowed to get away from the hotel even Math suclf money as had been paid to him in settling up. The man got to Malcaraka, and the next morning he hud to be told by a. person he met that it was a Sunday. Tlio man returns on tile * Sunday,., to tlie Record Reign, actually throwing himself on the charity of the .nw.n. with whom he had left- £4O on the previous Monday. He n-as graciously nermitted to stay for a couple of days—as a matter of fact lie stayed for four days)—no longer having drinks, no more shoutings, and in the closing chapter lie sells liis coat .and vest for 4s’ and his shirt foi-_2s Gd, so as to get as far as the Bridge hotel. It was necessary for a man in that condition to have some liquor. To have cut: him off at once would probably have killed him, and he was properly enough given drink at the Bridge Hotel. Then you will re-, member how Mr. Black, iunr., when the man got back to the station, took tlio nart 1 of a nurse and cared 1 for him till lie u-as again .recovered. He isthere for a few days and Mr. Black, senr., comes along. When be hears wliat lias happened lie is naturally indignant. Anyone would be under the circumstances. He goes into toMTi and goes to tlie newspaper office. He asks the editor to take the case up and expose this ' “lambing-■ down.” Hie name of the publican he divulges, but only in confidence. But Mr. Black makes this condition — that the name is not to be published. He, of course, could make any condition lip liked and tho paper could not honorably divulge the. name. Mr. Black, though, was willing to accept, the full responsibility, but apparently lie ivas not good .enough — I don’t" mean from a financial standpoint, but from the political point of view.

Then wc have wliat may be described as the Akroyd incident. Mr. Burke, I think you will agree, was not very anxious for publicity in the matter. But there was a power behind him. The freeholder of the house was very much concerned, and he got Mr. Akroyd, a Justice of tho Peace, to go with Burke for the purpose of seeing this man. Pearson, and, presumably, of getting a statement that would he useful against the paper; in fact, of getting' anything that might clear _ the imputation against the publican. Well, they go. This man Burke —you can’t believe a word lie says—says he know Mr. Akroyd’s name on the wayout to Pakowhai. Mr. Akroyd — whom you can believe in most things —says he made himself known when he first met Burke. They got to Pakowhai, where Burke leaves Akroyd to go and search out Pearson himself. What is the object of that? Clearly to get at Peasron and have a talk with him before anyone else. He got to him, but he didn’t “have” him. Pearson wasn’t taking any more of Mr. Burke’s change. Burke says he didn’t produce the document. Pearson says lie did. You will believe Pearson. Pearson’s one answer to all of Burke’s inquiries was “I don’t remember.” Then Burke comes back with Pearson to where the J.P. was walking up and down the fiat. As soon as Burke sees there is another person with■ Alcroyd ho doesn’t want to meet them, hut prepares to go off to where he says the buggy is. But Akroyd calls out to them, and having no excuse, Burke then goes with. Pearson to the others. Then comes tho reference to the signature. The mail says at first, “Yes, it looks like my signature,” and when pressed, “Yes, I must have signed it.” Then there are references' to the items of the document, and the iron frankly says, “I can’t remember.” And wo have Mr. Akroyd’s statement made while Mr. Black is still there, “Well, we’re not much further on than when we came,” and that exactly describes the •"position. They went out for,a purpose and they had got no further. Then Black left. Mr. Akroyd then commences to question Pearson, and tikes down on a paper some answers. Gentlemen, these items are wholly irrelevant, and that document produced' while, young Black was present was the whole turning point in the matter. Mr. Akroyd took no notice of that, but concerned himself with a matter of 15s spent at the Bridge Hotel. You will remember Mr. Akroyd said something about £2O. I don’t mean to be hard of Mr. Akroyd ; probably be has been misled. His story was fairly consistent before lunch. Then lie came back after and remembered a lot of things. Mr. Akroyd was there in a particular capacity, sent by the freeholder, of the house to try and ascertain whether this paragraph was true or not. Well, gentlemen, you hoard him. In pity, I will let him go. This ease, gentlemen, may he summarised in a few words. Five or six days of intoxication while this man’s cheque and his money were being squandered in the direction indicated by Mr. Black’s description of his condition. It is no use. saying Burke was not responsible in the matter. This man was a lodger in his house, and lie was in some measure in his . care. How did lie take care of him ? He made him his victim.

There is just one matter I would mention to you before I close, that will strike you very much, namely,

place in this Court of Justice, and lie should be told tis his barman told him that the cap fitted him. Ho put it on. (Pointing to. Burke.) At tins moment he is wearing that, cap, and wilt wear it to, hie. dying day as Burke the Lamber-Down. MR. REES’ ADDRESS. Mr Bees, in addressing the jury for tho plaintiff, said: —May it please Your Honor, tho Jury: If this case rested on'the evidence of the plaintiff alone I would not address you; but it does not rest Aiiono upon that evidence, but I will Jay down tlio reason why you should arrive at your verdict. It plaintiff's evidence did stand alone I would pay no attention to it; but that evidence is confirmed by one witness after another for tho defence. Mr Hutchison has asked you to say that tlio statements that tho fuels as they were published in tho paper are substantially true, and I will direct your attention- to the proceedings from the first. When' the paragraph first- appeared in the paper it caused a grit it deal of -uneasiness. It was not a fair, but a general accusation against all the publicans- in the town. After the paragraph appeared tho Editor was asked to disclose the namo of the publican at which tho paragraph aimed, buo tho Editor refused to clo so, and talked about its honor and -referred the solicitor for the Licensed \ ictualler>; to Mr G. J. Black. It is all very well to talk about honor, but one could 1 , not libel and not disclose to whom it was intended tho -accusation should apply. A newspaper could not fire volleys and hide behind a nock, but must say to whom the statement referred. This the Editor of the newspaper refused to do, and I ask you was it from any sense of honor? The newspaper recognised the stringency of the libel law in New Zealand, and refused to put its editorial nock into a noose. That statement was not made from a sense of honor, but from a fear of responsibility. If the libel could not be proved to be true it was a serious thing to print such a * paragraph. Tho publicans were referred to apply for information to Mr G. J. Black; but Mr Black clsd not publish the paragraph. His Honor: He did just tho san-e thing. He induced the libel , if there was libel, and lie could have been sued. He could have been sued for defamation. ■ ... Mr Bees, continuing:— So far from being deterred from disclosing tho name b3 f any reasons of honor the dofendant Company, in its statement oi defence, stated that- tho paragraph di-cl not refer to Burke or to his bvjr sine&s. But that had now been admitted. I will show you, gentlemen, that all through my learned friend s •address he reached the extreme limit as to what might be stated from tho evidence of tlio ca3e. The facts are plain enough. I do not stand here to defend drunkenness or to defend -unfair play or lambing-down; but when a man lias been attacked, as tlio plaintiff ins been attacked, it is tho cl lit v of the jury to protect h:m. I will ask His Honor to tell you that the defendants must justify every libellous statement they have made. His Honor: If the jury is -satisfied that the man was lambed-down is tbit not justification? Mr Rees : I submit not 1 His Honor (looking . at the paragraph): But that is the meaning of the whole thing. It is lambing-down or it is not. Mr Rees- then nroceedcd to detail the law of libel, and road the paragraph which was the cause of tlio action. He said the details must bo proved in every instance or the. plaintiff had been libelled either dircetiy or by innuendo. His Honor: There can bo only ono meaning. There can be no innuendo. The paragraph can only bear the meafiing of its ordinary sense, tho sense in which ordinary people would read it-. I shall instruct the jury to that effect. Mr Rees, continuing :' I will -ask tho jury to find that the whole of the money "was repaid by the plaintiff to Pearson, loss £1 for his board, and £1 for his bail, and I will ask yon, _*ion tho evidence to say that Burke repaid Pearson every sixpence. Tho paper mentioned nothing of -a general lambing-down, but mil clo a definite statement thait Burko had a checjue and. a sum of £7 or £B. His Honor : Tho paper did not say so. Tho allegation is limited to tho cheque. Mr. Rccfii: It was stated in counsel’s address. His Honor: That is not chargeable. Ho can say anything he likes -in this Court.

tho evidence of the man. Pearson, 'which could not bo shaken under any cross-examination. Hero is a . wmii who came into the town quite a stranger, and ho was taken m. I never heard, gentlemen, a case m which the facto came tout so clearly, in spite of all opposition. They support, I submit, tlio allegation of •. "himbing-down. ”1 won’t 'insult your intelligence by referring to the question of damages, except, to mention that no evidence of any kind has been produced. It will never come to damages. The libol is substantially true, awl you will- no doubt say so in so many words. . In doing so you will be doing a public service. This is not merely a personal case. The publicans havo chosen to bike, not Mr. Black, but a newspaper, and they havo done so in respect of a ease to ‘lose which might prove ruin to that newspaper. Such a man ns Burke should ho told that ho has no

Mr. Rees, continuing: I propose to submit that the plaintiff did, to the full knowledge of Pearson, return the whole of, the amount received, and 1 will go through tho evidence to show that he did return tho money. Mr. Hutchison lias told you that Pearson mentioned the amounts while ho was undor the influence of liquor, • but 1 will say tho evidence shows that Pearson knew of his own • knowledge that he had received the whole of the money, and tho whole of the evidence shows the man was rational, had his meals regularly and went to bed regularly. He was perhaps on a drunken spree, but can you believe Pearson could not remember the money that had been paid to him by Burke. ' Tho evidence shows that Pearson was in a fit state to know. I, will not attempt to rely upon the paper that is called an 1.0.TJ. I will admit that the plaintiff gave faulty evidence and that the payments upon the 1.0. U. taro not proved, because there is no evidence that "any one saw them made. But I will take you hack to the time when Mr Black first saw Pearson after his return to the station. Pearson always told Black He could not remember what he was doing while he was in Gisborne, hut Prurson’s evidence showed that he had fivo'driuks before lie came to the Record Reign Hotel, and another there. The witness Ball said, honestly enough, that Pearson gave him a cheque for £37 18s; hut he did not mention anything about £5 or £0 in -notes. His Honor: Ball did not say so, Mr Rees. • Ball’s evidence was quite inconsistent with the plaintiff’s story. Mr Rees: You have the evidence of Bull that he -saw the money pass from Burko to Pearson, and heard Pearson say at one time that Burke owed him £l2, and «t another, ti,nie £lO, and when the witness Ansell was present Pearson said Burke had £1.7 of his money in his possession, all allowing that Pchrson kept a record of the amount, and while he was in the cells at the watch-house ho told the constable that Burke had £6 in hand. Can you say that evidence is untrue up to the .Friday Pearson knew that Burke had £G in -hand, and the document showed he £7. But then Pearson had not paid his hoard, which was £l, -and that would make the amount correct and showed that Pearson kept count of.his money. The- figures on the do-' cumerit stood with the statements inn do by Pearson, at various times, •and by other witnesses for (lie de’’fence.' The witness An sell would not say -anything in tho favor oi the plaintiff, and the constables had stated facts, and that evidence showed that Burke paid- money to Pearson. ■ The evidence of Burke, even if you discredit it, L supported by other evidence, and .1 must tell you that ' a publiefin, •«£.'. he is asked to do so, must, by -lai.v, take charge of moneyfor safe-keening. The plaintiff has never denied ho had the’ money, but jjas always a-dmitted.it.

I feel sure you will not disbelieve all tho witnesses lor the plaintiff, and you cannot, put yourselves into tlio positions of psychologists; but- you must consider the facts as shown in the evidence. Tho msm does not deny there was a settling up, nor does ho deny lie signed the paper. He merely eavs lie does not remember, lie always* remembered how much money remained in Burke’s -hands and Burko.never denied the amount. You -havo heard the evidence of Air Akroyd, and Air Akroyd is a honest and well lintcntioned person, who only went- out of his way to get at tho truth, *nd -lie told you it- was Ids impression that Burko gnvo Pearson an 1.0. U. for £2O. His Honor: No. He said it was I’enrson who gave Burko an 1.0. U. for £2O, and that, -in fact, is wliat it is. There could not be a more explicit 1.0. U. than this. I suggested to Burke that it was *ll written-out ■at. cue time.

Air Rees, continuing: A'ou will remember Air Akroyd did not remember much when he first stood in the box; but he -remembered n great deal after the'luncheon adjournment and was severely handled by my learned friend. His Honor: Air Hutchison- did not reflect on the voracity of the witness, All- Rees; but- like myself, he could not make head or tail of liis evidence. Air Bees: When Air Akroyd was not elenr in stating what ho understood he was immediately attacked. Mr., Hutchison had cross-examined the barman and the barmaid very severely with the object of showing they had compared recollections, but Ball’s evidence was that ho told the barmliid he intended to toll the truth, and the fact that ho disagreed about, tho time showed that there was no agreement between the witnesses. That is not tho way evidence is made up gentlemen. Ball said Pearson tasked for the money that was coming to him. He had told the police on the day before that Burko had only £O. of'his money left and lie was paid £4- and £1 was paid for liis board and £1 for his bail. Can you say, gentlemen, that Ball and Airs Hansby are not speaking the truth. I submit you cannot. Bony has also sworn he never saw Pearson drunk, and the only evidence that Pearson iv is drunk -is that of the policeman who arrested him, and he was® notfound drunk in the hotel, but -at AtilJcr’s Corner. Ansel! would not swear he was drunk. His Honor: Ho certainly conveyed to my mind that the man was drunk. Ili-s evidence says his missus told him to see Pearson home or the man might get run in. Air Bees, continuing: At .any rate he was not too- drunk to talk to Ansell outside the hotel, and sny Burke had £l7 of. his money. If he was drunk Burke,. Ball, and Afrs Hansby would be committing perjury when they swore Pearson was -never drunk at the hotel. His Honor: Well, he was under tlio influence of liquor all the time. AYlien lie went to- buy the suit of clothes Qie was -shepherded by Paddy O’Connor. The whole affair is shocking, absolutely shocking. Air Bees: I submit that the £2O deposited -has -all been accounted for. You have positive testimony that Burko paid Pearson £3 or £4 on tho Saturday he went away. The charge m-ido was that he received no money, and unless that was proved there would be libel, for the paper had said the hotelkeeper kept the whole of the amount of the i-ileque, £37 18s, •and allowed the man to remain drunk tho whole of the time. I submit that has not been proved, -for the evidence shows the money was spent in various hotels. Pearson could remember that he hiicl given his cheque to Burke, hut he coukl not remember anything else. The man knew more than he told in' Court. Ho know that tho money was nearly gone and got from Burke the -remainder of it when he was -leaving. • I would not defend the action of any publican who kept a man drunk, but you must remeinber that u hotelkeeper must sell intoxicating liquor. Ilis Honor: I dont’ know tlia-t lie must.

Mr Rees: AVeLI, it is his business to do sto and there is no evidenco to show Burko supplied the man with liquor while he was . intoxicated. Could that be done with dozens of people about? AVhy were not people with whom Pearson had been drinking brought forward ? The solicitor for the paner and the papers’ friends had left 'no stone unturned to try and prove the nuui was drunk. The 'man had not been proved to have been drunk' -at tho Record Reign Hotel and he' was only 6een drunk at Miller’s Corner. You cannot find that Burke has kept this plan’s money, gentleihen. His Honor: Larceny is not charged. Air Rees: I leave the decision with vou gentlemen of the jury, and if you find that tho plaintiff lias returned all the money you must give him a verdict. As to the question of damages Burko says he did not keep tho man’s money, and unless you believe that he did. you must award him the damages he has suffered. I will leave the amount entirely to you, and I .submit tho defence has not proved' their facts, and that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict and to damages.

HIS HONOR’S REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. His Honor, in reviewing the evidence said: —Mr. Foreman, gentlemen of the jury: I will not keep you long, but I must make a few remarks to asist you to unravel this tangle of evidence. Here we have a decent working man, leading n quiet, -lonely life, away from -his fellows, and earning and saving his money. "A natural desire for company and companionship draws him to town, and having no cultured instincts, and not being all artistic, literary, or educated man, gravitated naturally to a hotel in search of companionship. Away from companions lie leads a quiet and temperate life, and the evidence does not show that he drinks when he -is on tho station. When ho -reaches the hotel -his natural desire again -asserts itself for companionship, and ho takes as bosom friends the casual companions he meets, and as soon as he gets inside shouts for the barman. It is clear that he -is -a decent man, and that lie tried to give his evidence clearly. On Monday, August 3rd, he left Air. Black’s station with a cheque for £37 18s, and -about £7 or £8 in cagh, and in ton days’ timo he returned home penniless, without bis coat, waistcoat, or shirt, which lio had been forced to sell for a few shillings, in debt, -and -in a weak state of health from excessive drinking. Plow was it to be accounted for? Wo do know that lie parted from his money .-at the Record Reign Hotel, and that he then had about £-13 3s in his possession, made up by a cheque and cash. He already had five drinks along tho road, quite enough to upset his head, and when he arrived -at the hotel he hart two more. He asks the barman if he caii become a lodger, -and the barman goos away and returns with Burlce. The man asks Burke for lodgings, -and nothing is said -about the cheque. The plaintiff’s counsel lias abandoned any claim that Bunko's evidence was true, and how or when tho money got into Burke’s hands the Court did not know. It could not he said that Pearson was ashamed to tell his employer of the way -he had got rid of his money, and from bis evidence it can ho seen lie was.-not ashamed to tell Mr. Black the truth. On the day after Pearsoil arrived at plain,till’s hotel tho cheque was in Burke’s possession, and was cashed by his son, F. Burke. Further than that the cheque was not accounted for. The plaintiff had neglected to keep proper books, either as a duty to society or under the Bankruptcy Act. Had plaintiff kept proper books he would have had something to show, hut ho had nothing lnit a document which ho called ati 1.0. U. You might think, gentlemen, that Burke was giving -an ackuowledgemcniti to yPearson for his money, and that he paid to Pearson various sums, but here again Mr. Rees has. abandoned the document and, I think, very wisely. Burke’s evidence is that the document was produced by Pearson at every pay- | mont, hilt: other evidence showed that j was not so. There was not one person who would dare say any such, pay- : ments were made at any time or at 1 any place when the document was

produced. Tlio question was, has this man Burko accounted for Pearson’s property, honestly and fairly? IVtivon got rid of his ready cash in the time. Burko states that on the AVetltiesdavdlie gave Pearson sums ol £2, £l. and -nnot.hor £2, or £5 in -all, and on Thursday two sums of £3 each, and in this way Pearson got through his £2O. How was he to get rid of it? Tho man, on tho morning he arrived at the hotel, ban a cheque and quito £5 in cash, which he handed to Burke, and, according to Burko, was returned about £ls in cash. According to Burke lie came tor an advance tho next morning. It is scarcely possible to believe that. Had tho plaintiff given a satisfactory account of the money left- in his charge, and has ho dono justice to this man? Air. llecs lias told you tho man was never drunk, but you can' put that statement aside. AVliat are the facts? Tlio disposal of tho money requires some explanation, and what cries aloud was not only tlio man’s condition when lie returned homo, but that he got rid of his money in tlio plaintiff’s hotel. If you bcliovo Airs. Hansby the man could not have been drunk, because she swore that- lie never had more than two or tlireo drinks, that lie did not care what he drank, but took anything that was given to him. Tho witness Gordon Ball by no means corroborated Airs. Hansby, and Berry tokl that Pearson was continually intoxicated. Then Pearson’s good friend Air. Black, jnr, told of the condition the man was in when lie returned to the station, that ho saw faces at night, and was suffering from tho effects of drink. Air. Black took the man into his house, nursed him, and kept him doing nothing while lie was suffering from the muigs of tlio effects of drink. Ho allayed his thirst, and tended to him for three or four days. If you find that evidence is not true, you will find a verdict for tho plaintiff, but if you believe it is true, that the man was drinking heavily, that ho got the liquor at plaintiff’s hotel, tho defendant’s case is substantially justified. Gisborne is not a largo place, and if a man had been continually drinking about tho town lie would have frequently come under tho observation of the police. The Record Reign Hotel is the most romoto hotel in the town, and Pearson coukl safely spend a lot of liis time drinking about the place. I cannot see how the evidence of Airs. Hansby on that point can bo regarded as true, and the evidence of Ball falls short of reality. Ansell’s evidence, which was given in a straightforward manner, shows you what was going on. There is the account- that the man was drunk, that- lie had to bo taken to the hotel, and that after he reached the hotel he was served with drink. AVliat was Pearson’s own testimony? That he spent most of his -time in the plaintiff’s hotel. A’ou will draw your own conclusions, gentlemen. You will be asked to say the whole of tho money has been repaid to Pearson by Burko, but that lias not been proved in evidenco. I coukl hardly tlilnk that, any jury in a civil caso could say that Burke had satisfactorily proved' he had paid the money to Pearson. Take the last item on the document, and to which three witnesses testified. Air. Rees lias -abandoned any trust in that payment because two of his own witnesses called to prove tho payment, both swear they did not see tho payment- made. Those witnesses wore utterly unreliable. Air Rees told you that the fact that their stories did not agree showed their truth. Trill iiig discrepancies do, but- those stories do not agree in any particular. AA’o all know it is difficult to get attho conduct of a public house, because hotels have so many friends, and thoir faults are so often covered up. But I leave it to you to say whether Burke has properly accounted for -the £37 18s lie admits lie got from this man. Tlio duty to show that tho man justly and fairly received his money rests with tlio plaintiff, and the onus is on him. Even if you believed Pearson received the money, there still remains tlio question, ..was the money only doled out to be spent in drink and to pay off scores? If that was so, the fact would come under the term “lamb-ing-down,” and tho matter is until you. AA’lien I camo to Gisborne, and saw this case oil the list I felt so strongly on the point when I saw it set down to be tried by the Judge alone that I made up my mind to place it before a jury. However, one of the parties saved me that trouble by applying for a jury, and I am glad they have done so, and that the responsibility rests with you. ■ As regards damages, if you find tlio property lias all been accounted for, and tlie published statement is not true, you will find a verdict for tlio plaintiff with such damages l as the case deserves. This is not a case in which substantial damages can bo awarded, because the plaintiff has not proved damage. If a party comes into- Court to claim damages, lie lias to prove that ho lias sustained damage, and tlio plaintiff has not done so. Still, the law infers that where a man’s business lias suffered he has sustained damages. Assuming, and I say only assuming, that the plaintiff has sustained damage, no private animus has been proved on the part of the newspaper, and it is plain, upon the evidence, that it neither planned nor desired any personal injury beyond discharging a duty to- the public. Taking the whole circumstances, the case -is not ono for damages, but perhaps I need not dwell on that point. Has it been proved that the plaintiff did get this man’s money? If you think tilt defendants have proved that tlio money lias not been accounted for they have established their case, and you should give them a verdict. ancl tho question of damages need not he considered. You may retire now, gentlemen, and if you need any assistance I will bo pleased to give it to you. The jury retired at twenty minutes past one, and returned at- i 0 minutes past three. The Court was crowded to. excess by people waiting expectantly for the verdict. THE VERDICT. AVhen tlie jury returned, .'the tension in the Court while the usual preliminaries were gone through was very high, and barely a sound could be heard. Tjio Registrar: Gentlemen, have you agreed upon your verdict ? The Foreman: AA 7 e have. Tho Registrar: How do you find? Is your verdict for the plaintiff or for tho defendant? Tho Foreman: Your Honor, wo havo our verdict written, and would like to read it. ITis Honorl: A'ery well. The Foreman read:—“AA T o find that Pearson arrived at Burke’s Hotel, ‘Tlio Record Reign,’ on August 3rd. He, Pearson, had in his possession then a cheque for £37 18s, and about £5 6s in notes and silver, rind that Burke got possession of tlio said cheque, £37 18s, and notes £5, and lie (Burke) has failed to satisfactorily account lor the disposal of the above monies, and that he, Burko, permitted Pearson to have as much intoxicating liquor as lie asked lot from time to time to Pearson’s detriment, both physically and morally. “Wo find that the defendant company has fully justified its publication of tlio facts concerning one of the most deplorable ‘lambing down’ cases that lias occurred in our midst. “AVo therefore give our verdict in favor of tho defendant company.” Upon receipt of the jury’s finding, His Honor said: Gentlemen, —I quite agree with your verdict. I think in this case the defendants have performed a public service, and it is to be hoped it- will hear fruit. Of course it is very lamentable that this case should rellect upon the conduct of other hotel-keepers who do conduct their businesses in a proper and respectable manner. In this caso I have taken quite as strong views as you have. 1 have said it is par-

ticulnrly Inmentalilo that tho result should reflect upon other persons. Those who aro not prohibitionists—and I am not one—will probably fool more indignation than oven tho prohibitionists themselves when they’ found this sort of thing occurring. Costs wore.allowed on the middle scale, and -it -is understood that they will amount to about £7O.