Supreme Court, Wanganui.

Manawatu Times, Volume X, Issue 1310, 2 October 1884, Page 2

Supreme Court, Wanganui.

CIVIL SITTINGS. (H.rald, Oct. 1.) (Before His Htno: Judges Richmond.) Wednksday, October st, 1884. eussbll t. mcminn and mckelvie "- Mr Izard before^ the - proceedings commenced stated that lie hai bei-n nh'eihpr yes evdav m stating m crosss examination that McMinn had b«-en .commitLed'for foi- ci imisal <, li-».v 'James Jfehtoo, pnblican, h.ad seen a letter written by- 1 - plaintiff 'to Fii* sp ctor Jatues. Witness had withdrawn hi* Imsinestffrom the Timf.s, but he bad not signed : the. • ( , t roui:d roV»i n . " " A bo ut 6. or 8 m on th s pr c - yi:o.us to.;Aprih'-he had giv; n plaint ff notice that Ie w< uld do s ). but \ 1 mtiff haH not stopped the pa;p'^r ur taken out the advertisements. It was not of anything th it Giljespie saia/'b'uti'becaupe of articles wbicl had appeared oh the paper on Sun~ day trading. After the ,?aper,.hsd been stopped plaintiff called on him, and aske<! him some questions as feo wlief'e J be bad heard of the complain ts Bid not tell plaintiff who had m•- -• formed him that plaintiff bad com* plained of Sunday trading. Gillespie had gone to witness and said ■that there were complaints of Sunday trading. Had not heard any* ■thing against plaintiff's character for chastity. ) .'•'; •-■ / , -i? V\ . ±Jy Mr lizard — It was on April' 2 that he had? forwarded notice to plaintiff,.' and., the Articles he had disapproved of appeared some six or eight: months, before. Gillespje baii Rpoken to hiou he thought, after the letter was written. The. cheque he sei.t was for the balanced of 'his ac j count. His chief information as to Sunday trading was from Gillespie, who, said that there were great com-* plaints of Sunday trading carried on by: publicans, and if. they did not lookout he would come down on them. ' : r Henry MXNeil, J.P., recollected a lettef in'reftrence to: Gillespie, and witness m tjrnnectioti witb residents signed a, letter or a telegram to .the heh^d" of the Police ' Beparimetit. AfttrwWds, he sent) a telegram to the Hon, W. Johnston, asking for the jjon-removal of the conßtable ; he W*iß requested to do so by some of his (Johnston's) constituents. The nutnrs of the first telegram was that t l iere was a strong teeJing that some urderhand influence was being is d by a certain perpoii '(plaintiff) m Pa,lmerston, and the people were tip m ! against -it. Had rec«i^ed an ansvier from Mr Johnston^ that t|ie,sponst^ble 1 would-be remoyedf He had heatd/prior to that time, riimbrs affecting the character of plaintiff i or chastity. The rumors generally were spoken ■ about. He could not remember- the date.. ; ; By ; Mr Fitzherbert— He remeni* bered the Land Court sitting, and il \vas' about that t : me that- he had heard of the rumors. The cause of the intimacy between plaintiff and himself ceasing was : Firtt, that plaintiff took upon himself to dictate t.o. the people of JPalraerston . about the diyieion of the-' Borougiv'and wivte privately lo the Colonial Secretary, and ;as witneSfi was a Tnem^ bar of the Borough Council, he felt t =at they hnd ;, b/en insulted. He lieard, too, t ; iat plaintiff had written a pratfifce letter.. to. Inspector .James compiaining o±Vt]>e Sunday trading, and witness considered it an unwar** ranted ( ' liberty. After c'oiisiilting with the members' of the ' Lipensitfg' Bench,, wjfcu.ess came to tie cqnelur son that plaintiff was not a man who should be allowed to visit a a gen|l>man's house. He did not know \fhetlier plaintiff had saidthat 1 witniess^ Was' ; one who , should be looj?^ after:' Giljespie did not tell him of thif, but a person named^ Daniel Hannah, a .n.pphyjv of his, told h|m that plaintiff had said it, Re-exam'ined^-It vf&s a, 'feet that pi aintiff used tq visit' * his ' bouse bri week days, arid -then/ nei t . day re?* ported |iis actions to tne police,. G. H... ! Si}elßqn, auctiiyi)6erv;; and ilavp'r of Paliierston, J. .Pi/sa'id'tljat' it had come -to his ilinowlad^e that a certain person haa complained of the cpnstable, ._ s E^e y?fpie. ' , letter ' ■ Vb . Inspector Ja mejs r at. tihe requegt of others, asking that' an examination beinade into the circumstances, and stating that Constable Gijliespife 1 a zealous officer. lie lived near the hotels, and, did not think there was any. 'la^iiyQn th'epivr-t' gf .the police regarding' Sunday tradJi.gV He had .;heard previous to May rumours affecting plaintiff's chastity. The rumors were very common. By Mi' I?ard — Found Gillespio a very fUcieut constable. He had not seen any signs of Sunday trading, " but bad seen an opcasiooal drunkea. man, IJe . ha.i,l heard rumors affecting plaintiff two or three years back, and. prior to the Laud Court sitting, „ He had visited plaintiff's house once about 8 or 9 months. ,£.go. Plaintiff and , his wife had . dancing astern bfiea, b- t he did not think that it was "by mvi ation. Of his wife, m fact lie was alnio|t certain it was not,. By His Hx>nor ; — Th.c p|iarges m the iuwspaper he had not read, hut he ha 4 h®^ rumours m reference to the same 'events as these charges. Plamiiff was not considered a" gay" man independent of the charges.. He bad heard pf things previous to" fehe plaintiff's coming to Palmerstoii whiGh might affepfc his character, but they .jWere not known.; . . j Alexander MoMinn,, jourualiat, of Palmerston North, one of the defendants, said he had established the paper four;yearsago, and since then the proprietorship had passed into the hands of Air McKelvie. He had been » journalist for about sixteen years m this colony. Wituess then gave to his previous libel caWs, wllicli \fere four m nu|nb*er- pkititiff -no%iaiic-. Had offered the use of their machine when plaintiff's i^achine brukodown, and lent him paper wlieu he was «hort: Plaintiff had not complained io him before writing to Mr McKelvie, and witnesß did not see the paragraphs com nli ued of as he could not gf<*t 1 h'ein'f r<^fir Mr M cKelvi^i ; - Certain extracts^ from the .Tinie.\ were handed m, one ql^hicjiternied thjß witness as a " journalistic Ish-

maelite" (amongst other things). ■Witness, continued — Numerous things bad appeared m. the Timis having referei cc to himself. It was true thai public feeling wasnauch "exercised on the quesion of Grilles^ pie's removal. H: l^elieved -that an .enquiry was to take pia'ee' m the matter. Witness lived close to the square, and he believed there Was no truth m the statement as to Bunflay He believed mal 'cc- ' was the oiigin of that, report, from . what he had heard. He made seve- U i-al inquiries as to the truth of tlio --onuection of the plain tiff -iwiLh-tlie removal of Grillearie. With regard to .he letter headed "More light," he had made inquiries about the i«asertiniis before publication, and it - w*s after making enc)uiri»?s that he allowed the letter to appear. .. Rv Mr Pi-zherbert— Me had \ not writ .etir the letter he ded "Mo c L-g'ht." The. copy for the primer, was written by him, as it was ''not safe. to let copy go into that rooui. He was not the instigator of- } tbe lei^er, which was brought m to him: He was riot "prepared to answer the question as to wrote it... He was prepared to take the responsibility of the letter. Mr Fiizlierbert said h 8 thought. be, bad the right to demand, that this, should be istated. v - ■ ; f '-* -The' question was held over for a time' peri'dirig the search for'autEfd]-.!-^ 'tie?- . ...;:. . ,-,, ... ■„■■-.■ „.:i i -■•'■'" :, Witness,, continued —, Had. been : connected' with libel actions > on* all the papers but two on which he had' been. A "c'iminHl actioh f : againet bim.!broughit , by ", MrYPungan- .,"' ; t!ie. previous proprietor of the Times,. had been ? dropped- He badnot used Mr Dungan's ; railway ticket for his own purposes. Ha^ stated, he could not. say whether the eviderce m the Dungan case had Jeen reported m the Times. Be: ore the charge of immorality' agaiust the plaintiff, several' articles^ appeared m the Standard regarding thejptaintiff.' 'He had not written the one terming the plaintiff a " snake, m the grassland a social viper." ,He b,i«r li v eved he wrote one on May 6th on the hanging of an effigy, which eflEtgV was%bat of: the plaintift. Hej. h^ad no b njr |o di) with the placard'whjich' was-*).:) tlie -effigy', nor yet.Cwitb :«he> effigy itself. He had sent printed eirea 'ara. to those witnesses he Viu?tenced to call, asking for particular* rettbeir travelling expenses. Mr M'Kelvie bad said to him that plains tiff hid complained of trivial things which had appeared, but he had notaltered the style of hia writing latter that. Was, aware that, would take the first opportunity !h y e] could of charging him with liHel. , His Honor then ( ruled ! that ' question as ! to the aiithorslii^ /of^he letter should be held oVer, 1 ' !j, ' ; This was the case for : the 'defence, so far as it could go. ■' -" f -; 1!l '. ; Ibe foreman of the jury suggested that as this was market day, they should adjourn then till 2 o'clock, so a« to accommodate the jurors, and giVe time' for hudting tip itie authbri|ties. His Honor concurred, and th«f Con ft' stood . adjourned from . ;1'2. 16 till p.m, ' f .y _ ; & -?i 4 J(C|iroriicle, pctdber 2.) \ ■J'; s? "l» -a '-' '-, ''"'- „' '"'■■.- "iJ- , fe On the Court resuming at 2 o'clock His Honor said that m the absence of authority he considered certain evidence m dispute to be admissible. A. McMimt, cross- cxatn.md by Mr Fitzherbert — The letter was re* ceived al>out fourteen days before the publicatiorij with the anonymous signature, "The Unknown," attached to it. Witness referred to the letter in^his columns i&t that "time.- '■ It- : re? ferred io the two niafc^era raentifinexlv and was wiitt'en.on paper- having' the name, of the Club? Hotel ,qn jt, and; so -far; as he cpuld remember, came. thrbu?h.the post officft. : The extracts from this letter jvere written out by witness and pufcv in the'formiof the article entitled \\ More liight;" Wit ness did not feiow who the letter came *rqm. could 1 not re* membery the^name on the card el§-? clpsifd iiiithelJptter^ JBie!, considered, frqm ib^e inquiries he bad rqadeithat the. letter was . a- .6a»a Jlde. ',one. JELe also, made ; inquiries; as to the fact *>. : i 'Did not go to'the person v^hose niime' was on the dai'd, The' facts 'wiere verified before the pWbUpatipn- ; ItJ was u,suarto write' ots letters befeire' sending , hem to the cQmpp'itpr^jSp, ; that, the ( handwritiag mig^.fc : no^ be. known. He believed the. jorigati;il p^aper went into the fire. This? step was aways taken m the 'office, About thlree ; \\reeks afterwards he leieived a commu nication from the plaintifl's- solicitor. A- 'notification appeared m the Times that action would be taken, of which he did not take any.notice. Witness put m tha words *\" On the Traili" himself, and altered the wording of the letter, -" ; By Mr Shaw 2 Did not pel satiafied with the letter when ' received', and made enquires until whe felt satisfied that the facts -were correct. ' The reply to correspondent "'♦ Un-" r known" appeared m the Standard of April. 19th, and stited that the letter; would-be held over. That letter referred to tie matter m the letter "On the Trail." ;i : .; '; Mr'lzard opened the case for the 1 plaintiff, and called the following witnesses to character; — Messrs 'X T. Stewart, District ijugine er ; J ; H. Hankins, solicitor;' T King, brewer; James I^ihtjh, Jobu Stow* lem, E. Larcou/b, Dr Marriner, and James drape. All of these gentlemen test^fib^ to ! having .known 'Mr; RaSsell fpp a number of and- 1 spoke m the highest terius ot bis "moral character,. They had never heard any rum irs or oomp'aints agaiust. his character. G. W. Busseli; s\yor.n,E htefl thftt he was the pliuotiff m the present action. He was a resident of Palm, ersto.i North, and^was lately the proprietor of the Manawatu_ { DAii/T TitfEs,. Hjid been a Justjoe of the Peace for f| vi- years..- Was married in' 1879 and bad three children. Was born m London, and arrived m the wiiooj m .1865. Had }iyed .. m .Wei-, jington till 1879, when be was sent to Ppver.i-y Bq,y as a lay reader m iheVWfisley^n. .Church. ln, : 1875, was; sent , to ,, Ne\y , Plyrriouth., '^ew, Plymouth by .the order, of the We^levan Conference. ■ Wesleyan, clergymen' were trequently moved, and were cpinpiiisorily removed at theeri#^df' V4 tiie third year. From

New Plytnputh was -eat to Hokitika* wtigre" _»he x^' jreu.aWd for two years."" In 187^ be left Hakitika and: removed to Wellington. He I had then intended to be articled to/Messrs Joyce and Adams, splicitbrt>, Dune 'm. This was the rea-on why he left the church. He changed his mind, and was prop oved as .subeditor ot the Evening Chronicle, Wellington, till August, 1878, 1 w he'ri h e sfartiefcF a' ""paper 1 af '^Foif ton : with his brother, where he remained itill : May, 1882.; He then bought the M ana wat u Titpes. and removed to i Palme:Bton, whe-e he had- resided till the pres -nt time. Witness knew the defendant first at Foxton. They n-m-iined ..n friendly terms till the -■defendant to.ik up the .'-Manawatu Standard. • Witm ss considered that the defendant had ae.ted nnfaiily. towards ihe late Mr Dungan.. A li-t bel action was heard (Me Minn V; Uunpau). and witness reported the case fully, especially the cross«exami. nation of :Vlr McMihn, and since thatr date they bar 1 never spoken. Articles had appeared on many occasions befcre April, 1 1884, against witness. In "the deiendant's paper.' WHnesi had r, monstrated. with Mr, McKehia as the proprietor of the Standard, on account Of the articles which ap- . peared m that paper, and had written several letters to. him; on this matter asking., that they -•>= should be stopped. The interview^ with Mr McKelvie took place kbdutiiniee days after jthe^.letter of February, 1^883; and, they h.ajd.a long .xxon versa* tioaon .the anatter. Mr M'Kelvifr admitted that there was great reason 1 for such articles ip be' stopped. "Wifi.' nt^ipl^ M'K^e'lyie'- that the defend ;da,nji, Mr M'Minni: bad, often, been; involved m libel cases, and w r irned> him against the danger he was run«> nirig. After this there 1 ' ;w,aai '&/§ea£ sat'ion of the attacks for^S"^^ time* ; b.ut.they were renewed again after* wards Witness instructed' his solicitors to write to Mr M'Kelvie idOctober, 1880, ( on,yccoti.n:t of ttfe; articles,, and there was again; , a ceR- , Ration of them. The first ioffice ; ! 6t the Tehes was about five mfriuteia^. waik from the' Square, -and . ajftet*', war^s w,as. changed, to, the .Ppresters* Hall where beihad :made. arrange* ments to carry on the work His birsiness. A building was erefeted;: for the .priDting'i-pWno^abd\,h f iMffic#^ was intone of the front, rbonTs jOf'thi* buiiding. He knew the Wiilmotfci Company, They leased the hall m May last year for the first 'time. " Witnes^hadinbc known then V"-pre» yiously. 'ihey returned again m the month uf June of the ; same year and were there twice ibis year. Wit-**-ness was' the lessee of the haM'at the time, .and was ; so still, and he, let the hall to' the, troupe. . . $he*re ; '^yas"' : i caretaker who .looked af ter- i ittie^all, but witness ..always lookecL-oround himself when any., theatrical-perfor-mance was going on, ! The room attached was need by the male actors .for a dressing room, and the jadies' dressing room, was "immediately attached to, the stage, , ... ; ,^Vitnesj» had met. the actor's,- and , knew .all: oiv, the«n.- Was at supper with -them :on-< two or three 1 occasion at the' Clarendon Hotel. ■ Was not invited hfatif'^ members of the" Trbripe.' Had' walked towards the, hotel' wrfcb : two, members of the company, ] and treated them to & drink. They.wei;t into the supper room at the suggestion of the.hotelkeeper to have their drinks. This was the firsts time be went to sapper. Miss Crawford was there on every pepa*.' fljon. Did not have, any speeialT conversation with her.. , The.qthey" members of the troupe were there. E(id not 'remember- the occasion of which Miss ■ - Crawford had > spoken. - Would swear „there_ never was any ' occasion of- tne kind: i Ha ! d* never been left m the room when all the men, had gone.. Ther ( e-.neyerj^^aß> 7i any; occurrence; sucji ,aS;^iss^r%WHli J ' f ford, had namted. Gu one.occaaibni n c *had' walked to the/frontdoor-with ■' Miss Crawford -and -Miss WrlkiKson? ! Ho'shoiolr' h^ndis with';th"em^nd'lef^ y Had . never Rs J hand 'on MiS£ ' GraWpfci's 'sh^»utderi''or v .made; any \| propO"itioh such .jaSj she m. her evidence, and bad ite.ver menit|ioned,iher;lroQm.L'.Mrß Wilkinson iwas-by the side of Miss Crawford at tjbe tiwe be said good-night; Had seen. Miss Crawford since and t spoken t r to .^hei. , She badj never.jneQtidn^i. ,the subject which • had i now" been -brought up ; her behaviour had alway^been- the 1 same. ;i Wiine'Bs did not recollect : opening : ; a' door m a room m. the theajire where, ladies., were dressing; it was,. quite possible that be might have opened a door to see if the lights were all right- >. before the performance commenced, but had not opened any: door after the performance was over. Heiliad x gone on one occasion to the Claren- i don Hotel fo see -Miss Crawford; - she had asked him to do so j had ;;. at the supper tableprodu,ced'a < ipitiiziV w ber of pho^Qs, .of herself, and askes his opinion regarding them : ; she Bad said if he called • the fol owing day ; she would show him s/)me ndoje" ; when he' oalled be did not see her; and Mr Carroll' said Bhe was m her* ■ roo;uand could not be seen ; she had ■ referred to this again that evening; at the iiipper table,^ and ; witness / ' said, he bad called and she could not . be seen. He also said that Mr .Gam. .. : rql appeared Ijo'haye had some reason • for ''not letting witness ;sp"e ber : "'^tilf :; re|iliecl, .'■'■' l'hat is not/gopd' enougK. '.] for, me*!'; Had: never said, to^Mr : Carroll that Carrol! did- not know - what encouragement witness had reA^' ceived ;; 'Miga Crawfo; d hacl' alv^iiys ;^ Oon_duoied herself as a la&? m "ijUia \'Z presence of witness. Witness -had never had any disturbance with' » Maori woman ; did not see any wp- ' man with Murphjr.; sawMuypby^ohe. ,; evening, by himself . Coort was sitting-; cduld;not say-i£ ■■■-■-. it. was the evening to which iVfurphy; yhad refei rod ; witness saw MuVjJbf 3^. first, and then a native. . woman ?j came. out of the back yard of tl\e : i Clarendon Hotel and sai dow!n on } the footpath. Was not ! aWare of- ' seeing the woman or the' waifer .' .again that evening, Did not "near ... the woman say, '■ ■ hat jis the- . pakoha,'' <^r be wonld have turned ■ .b.tck and ; seen what was' meant, " Pid n ot speak, to the womair. wb'eil.' /,' he passed, . Shu grunted"! athW, aai ;J , .they often ■ ;did when star- led.. i;He had never, heard of these reports" 11 niltil I^ R^yVt'h^i J ih l i^'e^t&n'dard.. This wifs'ibe first .iine he knew of

them/ Witness had known Constable Gille.xpie fora number of years'. He had. written the letter referred to, which spoke for itself. He had seen a great deal ot drunken-nesß-^more t}ian he cared to • see. He considered that the constable ■was trying to get behind him when he told the hotelkeepers that witness was tryiug to put the law m motion against ; iJhem. Had ' always consid.ered the,c')nsta!,ie a gqod officer, «xcepi iv this respect. The c -nS'able "was: annoyed at. ale l ter w hich had appeared m the Times n rexpect of Sunday// drinking Tho constable was evidently nettled, and this was the : '6nly feasoii witness could 'suppose" for 'speaking of witness to the hotelk.eeper.i'. The letter ,was s.-nt to Inspector Janits officially m 01 ier that, the. constable might have an opportunity of examining the charges. Gillespie told witness afterwards that it- was a tissue of lies. By Mi- Shaw : Had no trouble at Ne\v'' Ply mouth with ladies If there were reports to ihe contrary they wef e fti& > and he coulrl say the 86itie;-ol;'Hokitika He had never known, that his name., had been coupled with women at either ylaee. He.itkfcew. , of; no Hennebery riots - at-Hokitika. that he knewinofi. It ' was not on account ot any riots that he left the church. He hafl lt lßft*he church foi ! \arioW' i e'a^ sons that would take too long' to ex« plainv-r/jHeihadinev^r been accused of dealings with women at Hokitika. Witness heard from Mr Feuton that some onel»id;Sim the story of his actions, aniiconcluded that ie must have been the constable, as he had not mentioned the' hotels anyone el'sd. He believed that he had made himself unpopular un that question, arid s<iid to Gillespie he was soiry therthingiad gone so far.. _ ,He ; had spoKeiiof Illr'iieNeii to the constable H e had been to hi s h o u se and ac^ cepted'o^'hisiiOspitaiity^ When the constable challenged him to give an instance of drunkenness hie referred him to Mr McNeil. He flatly denie s 4}W.hajbiMiss Grawfcrd had giaidi m Jier. evidence.. They had been fiiends and he believed she had been annoyed with Mr Carroll. The statements she made were absolutely false-, I|. there had been any .truth m tHem^slie L woufd have laid 1 an 'in-' formation against witness long ago. TSWlibrior : : . I)id not know -tbat any of the Miss liovvards were engag*rd. Tbere_was one night on which Miss; Cri&'fprj& an'i Mrs tVilkinson bad let hinroui^bf the hotel, and ho had left for ho^ o; .;■- . ■ - .-■ ; : - ;,\ , M|'Jzara and Ma Skaw addressed' the' jury^'c6niideraul|B.l»'Ugtb, ".;.., Hi^Honbr suwmied up the evidence hi« address occupying nearly, an hour, The jury retired at ten' minutes to 8 o'clock, and at 3even minutes . to 11 . rettfni&lNßrith a verdict '.for the plaintiff with £10 damages. They were then discharged.