RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, QUEENSTOWN.

Dunstan Times, Issue 516, 8 March 1872, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, QUEENSTOWN.

—o — Tuesday, 27th of February. (Before R, Beetham, Esq., R.M. ; M. J. Malaglian, Esq , J.P.; and J.W. Robertson, Esq, Richardson v. Shepherd."’ The defendant was summoned to aiisjver a complaint for using insulting and abusive language towards complainant. Mr. Turton appeared for the plaintiff - Mr. Shepherd conducted his own case. James Richardson) examined by Mr. Tu-toa; Remembered the 21st of February. Was in the long room at Eiohardt’s- Went to a small table, where some friends were sitting. M‘Dougall asked, “had I seen the last Cromwell Argus ; Said I had not, and asked to see it. M'Dougall asked me to read it out. Commenced reading a letter from Queenstown correspondent. Did not know Shepherd was in the room until T had read the first paragraph. Shepherd was sitting close to the door. When I had read part'ef the paragraph, one of those present said that Shepherd was by. Did not consider it offensive, so concluded the paragraph. Knew Shepherd was in the room. Had not Shepherd been listening he would not have heard allusion. Shepherd said, “The man whowroteto that’paperis a liar,” Addressing Crofts. said I wondered who had written it. Crofts re-

pdied that he did not know, hut that it was not bad. [Five minutes after, Shepherd came and took the paper from under my face, saying, “You want to know who wrote this ? This little Weep here wrote it. You vile little liar, you are in the habit of writing these things.” Said this to me. Told him he could not prove that it was me (witness) who wrote them. He chalenged me to deny it, and used offensive expressions (d d blackguard low scroundrel and liar. Said to Shepherd that he was not using gentlemanly language. Shepherd fiercely replied : why don’t you resent it ? His whole maimer was such as to cause me to strike him. Told him he was too j big, and; had other means of repaying him. Shepherd went to the doorway of the hav Did nothing to annoy him. By the Defendant: Am Town Clerk. Nothing else in particular. Am a photographer. Have'written.for the'.preas. Decline to say whether I write for the Cromwell Argus, Mr. Shepherd to the Bench : My defence is that the complainant wrote and published a libel against me, and read it in my presence. In answer to a question, the Bench’statcd that no one was hound to answer any ques-

tion which would criminate himself. By Mr. Shepherd: I decline to answer'the quqjtion as to whether I wrote the letters vyhich appeared in the Cromwell Argus. The Bench : But you'must answer. Mr. -Shepherd, after calling attention to the case of j Graham, heard before Mr. Strode, said be would now leave witness in the hands of the Bench. Mr. Turton': Graham was owner and publisher, and could nothlaim^privilege. The Bench knew of no law to exonerate witness from answering the question before the Court. Mr. Shepherd : Witness still refuses to answer. Mr. Turton said that witness was not bound to answer. He was privileged as a correspondent. It was secondary evidence. The publisher should have been produced. Has not had the letter brought before him. Mr. Shepherd considered the witness was guilto of contempt of Court for’not answering. The Resident Magistrate’s Court was not bound by rules of law in taking evidence. The Bench said it was not a question of newspaper libel, and thought the witness was bound to"answer. Mr. Turton quoted ‘ ‘ Roscoo on Evidence” on the point, pp. 173 to 180. The Bench, after referring, said, as to the matter at issue, the witness could refuse to answer as to the article, but could not as to general position on the paper. The examination of Richardson was again resumed, and similar evidence to the above was given. , Mr. Shepherd in defence addressed’ the Court to the following effect :—He was Sony to have been forced into) Court in this matter, but as the highest in tho Jam! are

liable to be insulted, and dragged jnto Court, he had been brought into Court in that manner. He had been insulted by the Complainant for a long time past by impertinent and grossly personal letters in the Cromwell Argus, which he had previously treated with the contempt they merited. He submitted to their worships, that the Complainant had convicted himself in refusing to answer any question as to the authorship of the letter read by him in his presence. By saying that he did not write the letter, would he not to a certain extent have knocked his defence to pieces ? But no, he has sheltered himself under a legal objection, and declined to answer his question on the ground that he would criminate himself. The facts were these—He was sitting quietly reading the Dnnedin papers, when the Complainant attacked him for supporting a well known gentleman, (Mr. Macassey) in the present election, by reading the letter referred to in the evidence, and which is laid down in “ Addison on Wrongs ” as a libel. Nothing could be more gross than reading aloud the letter in his presence in a public room. His passion rose under such great provocation, and therefore was justified in using the language he did. He submitted that it would have been ten times better to' have called him opprobrious names than to hold him up to scorn by reading the article aloud. After referring again to the article he said he was very much surprised at Complainant’s audacity in coming into Court with such a case. By the Bench : We have decided to dismiss the complaint, being of opinion that the reading aloud of the letter published in the Cromwell A rgus was quite as insulting as the language used by the defendant towards complainant. Complaint dismissed with costs.