RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1944, 29 July 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tilts I 'AV. (Before W. D. Munson, and 11. B Martin, Esquires, J.P.) DKL'NK LXNKSS. Catherine Aiusley, an old offender, was fined L 5, or 14 days imprisonment, She had been nineteen times convicted previously. James .Stapleton, alias JRyan, alias Dwyer, and John Drew, were each lined 40s or seven days’ imprisonment. Mary Mooney, 10s, or 24 hours' imprisonment. MINOR OFFENCE. Thomas Wiustanley, for neglecting to keep a lamp burning at his licensed house, was fined 2s Gd and costs. (Before A. Chetham-Strode, Esq , 8.M.) APPLICATION Foil A KE-HEAKING. In the case of Jago v. Hutchins, application for a re-hearing of which had been made bv Mr Macasscy, His Worship said he had considered tin* point of law raised on the part of the defendant, and in his opinion the evidence of Jago was quite sufficient to establish a certain debt to the amon-d claimed. Holding that opinion, he declined to accede to the application Mr Macasscy a ked the M gistrate to stay execution for three days, to give the defen dant pow r of appeal. Mr W. D. Stewart objected on the part of the plaintiff’, and maintained hat the Magistrate had not the power of doing so. His Worship said ho did not think he no - sessed the power, but would consider it and give an answer in the afternoon. ALLEGED LIBEL. Kegina, in the prosecution of John Maclean v W. J. Henningham —The information s'ated that 'he prosecutor is a stock and station agent, and that W. J Henningham is a newspaper editor, and proprietor of a newsp.per called the Echo; and that he did on the 30th June, falsely and malicious! \ write and publish or cause to be written and published the words complained of in an article that appeared in that pap r, and which reflected upon the character of Henry Driw r, by comparing him with a person named Jones, in Victoria. Mr Macassey conducted the prosecution, and Messrs James Smith and Barton were for the defence.

Mr Macassoy, in stating the case, said his Worship was well aware that his province would merely be to ascertain if there was prana Jade evidence to place the defendant on his trial. There were two courses open to a person feeling himself aggrieved—one to sue the person c lumicting the off nee for damanes, and that c ur-e would gladly be taken in most cases were the defendant a man of substance. The alternative courst is by criminal pros cution ; and in the p es ut case the prosecutor did not a-dc foi damagos, but was quite content to abide In the decision of this tribunal and the tribun before wdioin this question must eventual' y come. ' Ithoiigh no idually Mr Drivci might he cousiih red the prosecutor, really he was the person put upon his trial, and he asked that enqui n s might he instituted, to ascertain whether there av t any substantial ground for_ the serious] allegations brought again t him. In manjl cases it was sought to make a puhliw journalist or proprietor of a answ'erable for merely con tructivc words,j and to malic him responsible it must be!

shewn that there was an animus that led | him to write them. But that was not the | present case. He proposed to bring the ! charge home to the defendant—not to leave it to co istr’ction—from first to hvst. The j defendant was the parson who indited ! the article complained of, published it, ' minted it—and, from motives th-1 would | ippear, lie endowed that article with a sting which perhaps no other journalist in the Colony wo' ca-table of dohr, f . Ke purposed showmg it was an emanation of his own mind, and would produce evidence explanatory of the motive he had for the publication of the article. He argued that the public pro.-s was at all times entitled to the earnest and heart-felt sympathy of the public ; he himseb’felt that sympithy largely, and i the Defendant could shew he had substantial grounds for making those comments, he booed that he would be safey carried through the present prosecution. But he should prove that there was a personal enmity on his part towards Mr Driver ; that | he had expressed his antipathy on more than j one occasion, and that the article was an | expression of that antipathy, and f so, it destroyed the sympathy that ought to be felt for a public journalist. Public journalists bad a right to comment on all public Acts, i of Ministers, of Members of Parliament, of j Judges, of Magistrates, and of Members of j Provincial Councils, and he should not like to see that privilege interfered with. But it was on condition that the comments should be free from animus, upon facts in which the j writer had only the fractional interest that j pertains to every member of society. But : the moment m dice was impoi ted into these comments, privilege was destroyed. In the present ease whether the defendant, succeeded in justifying the comments o ■ not, j he sho Id succeed in placing him on his trial. Before the small periodical, the Echo, had existence, the defendant was proprietor, publisher, and editor, of the Evcioii;/ Star, and his connection with that paper involved him with Mr Driver, and another gentleman, Mr Francis Fulton, who were compelled to sell it Before the Eucnorj Mar passed from him, he was also connected with anoth r periodical, the Sun. The defendant was ; assisted by Messrs Driver. Wright, and Turnbull, and a number of geatlcmen, but in consequence of his unhappy position, they ■; were compelled to withdraw their support ■and that paper went to the wall as well as ;ithe Star. He would sh >w that Mr Driver :i was the purchaser of the Star newspaper. ;lthat words took place between him and Mr IHenningham (perhaps owing to Mr Henning ham’s not obtaining the paper as he had I (reason to expect) At any rate, the conclubsion must Ire arrived at that Mr Henningham ?!oonccivcd tho strongest animosity ■ against Driver, and those feelings prompted him to the publication of that article. He would show that that view was t e rati nal one, and had been almo-t admitted by the defendant himself. He should show that for some time in the Echo there was an announcement that in connection with the San newspaper lie would make known to the world the reason why it came into existence, the reason of its decline, and the reason why it ceased to exist. On the 30th June the article complained of appeared. Air Macassey read the article published in the Echo of June 30th, and also the correspondence between the counsel Hr the prosecution and defence, demanding an apology on beha f of Mr Driver, and declining to give o.ie on the part of the defendant unless vlr Driver repudiated a letter addressed to Mr Treweck, and published in the Tuapcka Times. The letter appeared in the Ereni/oj Star of June 28th.

The fol'owing is the libel complained of, published in the icho, June 3 ith : “No man with any pretension to public honesty could possibly have read the letter of Mr Driver without coming to the conclusion that he, a - least, has sunk below zero, as a spotless politician. That to him politics means attaining a postion under the pretence of pa trio ism, by ■which self-aggr mdisement and persona animosities may bo advanced The Colonial world lias, for some months past, been excited and angered by revelations of the system of political o rr apt ion that has been carried on in Victoria. The particulars of the case of the notorious Jones, the chief of Victoria’s parliamentary tricksters, how he came to grief, and his crimes shown to have been participated in by others; how a Squatting organisation was the bribing power cmpl yod to obtain illegitimate advantages for a class ; and how the men who were proved to have taken part in the nefarious practices met with merited execration in every community wt re political morality is deemed a qualification for public usefulness, must be green in the memory of < ur readers.

“The sting of reproach felt by the rClitmin 'ed polticians in Victoria—a reproach which involved the whole Colony in the charge of individual bribery ami goverumental corruption, may now in some measure be shared by Otago. The Victorian Jones m y shake hands with the Otago Driver. Tiny are kindred spirits, although they may not show their particular idioscyncrar, • in precisely the same way. Jones acccytc a fee to vote as bid. In doing this, he wa-, only carry out the object for which he str.aced every nerve to obtain a seat in Parliament self uiterost. The letter of Driver to Tieweek is evidence that his instincts are identical with those of.l ones. We do not charge him with accepting fees from any particular class for the use of his influence as amem 1 er of the Council; hut we do emphatioadv affirm, if the letter is not a forgery, ho stands s lfconvicted of ■'ins against the State equally censurable. He used his political position to obtain a selfish end to the detriment of tho public weal ; nay more, he openly affirmed his intention to, by business advantages, coerce a Government official into sanctioning a transaction obstructive to progress. To -mu up the whole letter, it comes to this : —‘ I have the ear of the Government. You don’t know how the “cat jumps;” and be quiet. The Government official (Major Croker), who is throwing obstacles in the wav of our little scheme, I ill soon silence. * If nothing else cm be done, -we will sue him on thaw hills you hold , which send down to me properly endorsed by yon.’ Is it possible to conceive p itic-.l degradation greater than this? Verily Driver and Jones must Kave graduated in the same College, and have now atrained to similar political distinction ” Mr A. A. Catomore, registrar of the Su-! preme Court, stated that he was the officer | to receive and register affidavits un 'er “The ' Printers and Newspapers Registration Act, ISfK” There was no affidavit under the Act in respect to the Echo newspaper registered on the 30th June, but an affidavit was registered on the 20th instant. Henry Wise, printer, stated that he knew j the defendant. On the 30te of June, he was I employed by the defendant in the publica- i

tion of the Echo. He was paid by the dtr fendant for printing it ; and he believed that it was also edited by the defendant. >The paper produced was printed by witness, in pursuance of instructions from the defendant.. Knew the defendant’s handwriting ; the word “ questionable” on the slip /reduced is in his ban I writing. The lip produced is a “ gal'cy proof,” or revise of threading artie'e. The matter punted in the/in appe red in the paper. Galloway,/ and Humff avs, men in witness’ employment, we e the conviO'itors who set tho-'article iu typo. In a previous issue of the Echo, a letter, purporting to be signed by M’’ Driver, was pub'islmd. That letter was published in the first number of the pap r, on the 28th of June.

Alex. Galloway, compositor, said that he was engaged in Mr Wise's employ on the 30th June last. He set up in type the latter portion of the leading article which appeared in the Echo of that date. Ho believed that the manuscript x>roduced was the “copy” from which the article was set up. The “copy” Was received from Mr H. Mathews, the overseer. He believed that the corrections in the manuscript were in the defendant’s handwriting. He had seen the same handwriting frequently since in the form of “leader copy” for the newspaper. Henry Humffrays gave similar evidence to the previous witness. Charles Kettle, clerk to Mr Macassev, deposed to having purchased a copy of the Echo, of the 30th June, at the ('thee of the baper, in Stafford street, on the 3rd mst. J/Franc s Crosshy Fulton, runh Idor, sai l Mat lie had known the defendant for some

• lie also knew Mr Henry Driver, who vas a station and '■took ayent, and is a ncmber of the Provincial Council and House if Representatives. He is an Aiwr can iVitness knew the Evening Star newspaper md he also knew the late New Zealand Sun newspaper. The defendant was con[nected with both papers. The San ceased Pto exist before the 30th of June last; and the [sale of the £ voting Star plant took place 'either on the sth'or I2th of April. The s le took place at witness’ instance, as mortgagee. under a bdl of sale. Mr Driver was the vmrehaser Witness executi d a deed of transfer to Mr Driver on the 17th, some few days after the sale took place. Some time after the sale, and before the 30lh ,Juno a conversation took place between Mr !) river and the defendant, ..t the then Star ffice, at which witness was present. Mr )river, referring to a letter that had been Received from the def. ndant, said that the proposals contacted therein were not satis factory, and asked what he (Mr Henningham) proposed to do. The conversation had refer;ence to t'-c renting of the plant and copy- ■ right of the Evening Star to the defendant. 'At this time he was still ma aging the pa per [The witness here detailed sonic conversations that took place between Mr Henningh iin and Mr Driver, but which had little or bearing on the case.] Looking at the extract from the Taaix-ka Times, published in the Echo , and the letter from Mr Driver which followed, he thought that a passage in the extract referred to Mr Driver, and the Superintendent. The passage was:—“it is aso quite clour that wire pul ing and lobbying are political manoeuvres by no means confined to America ” Witness understood certain paragraphs in the leader of the Echo of June 30th to refer to Mr Driver, and if he hud not known him, those passages were not calculated to raise him (Mr IU-iver) in his estimation. The p’.ssace to the effect that the Victorian Jones might shake hands with the Otago Driver, had reference to Mr H. Driver ; as also the passage—“ Verily Driver and Jones must hive gradual d in the same college, and were entitled to similar distinction.” Taking the article as a whole, he consul--red that Mr Driver was treated in it as a robber. He considered, from the ten. rof the article, that the c nnparison between MiDriver and the Victorian Jones was a fair one ; that Mr Driver wo-,.1d be guilty of chicanery and jobbery to serve his own ends ; and that hj would sell las or any constituency for the same pnrp-tse. Witness had had many dea ings with Mr Driver, and he con adored him perfectly straightforward and honest. Speaking of him as a public man, witness had not, hef. ro the pub ication of tlic article in the Echo, known anything to his discredit.

The case was adjourned until Tuesday