RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2504, 24 February 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Yesterday

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) THE TELEGRAM LIItEL CASE. Regina v. G. B. Barton.—Mr Haggitt, with him Mr James Smith, for the prosecution; Mr Macassey tor the defence. Mr Macassey fn arrest of proceedings stated that he had applied for a rule at the Supreme Court to stay further proceedings on certain grounds, and that a decision had not been arrived at. He therefore asked pending that decision that further action should be stayed. His Worship said he had not received any notice from the Supreme Court, and therefore could not recognise any action taken there.

Mr Macassey then went through the argument that he used in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, urging three points Ist, that the information was informal, iuas-

much as the words of the libel wer i not set out, and therefore there was nothing to answer. 2nd. That no stranger had a right to set the law in motion in a case such as the present, ,‘lrdly, that a Government as a body could not be libelled though any member of it could prosecute for an offence committed against that Government. Mr James Smith replied, and cited the authority of Mr Justice Johnston to show that in a preliminary examination it was not necessary to set out the precise terms on which the charge of libel is founded ; that any member of a community was in a position to move the law in cases where a Government was libelled, as such an offence ■was calculated to endanger the peace and well-being of society ; and that Governments could be libelled, as had been held in all time. He supported his last position by references to the opinion of Hope, C.J., and others. He also maintained that supposing the indictment informal the Court had power to amend.

Mr Macassey replied, contending that the information must not be regarded as tending so much to a crim'nal as a civil prosecution, and that the cases quoted by counsel on the opposite side were not applicable to the case, but mer-ly to cases in which it was intended to alienate the affections or allegiance of subjects from the Sovereign. The present charge was merely against memb.-rs of tire Government whoj it was alleged, bad improperly interfered wi th tb e Telegraph ic department. On the grounds he had urged, he asked that the information be dismissed.

His Worship ruled that the charge was sufficiently set out in the information to justify a preliminary investigation. There was no harm in setting out the words of the libel, but for the purpose of preliminary investigation it was not necessary. As the charge was of a purely public character, it was competent for any private person to lay the information. It was quite clear from the precedents quoted that Government could be libelled. On a review of all the arguments, be considered the informa 1 ion sufficient to proceed wi‘li the case. Mr Smith aske l Mr Macassey if both informations were to be taken together, as there were two.

Mr Macassey said, as he purposed protesting against the proceedings, he declined to take any further part in what was to follow. Mr Smith stated the case, and specified the chief points in the alleged hhcl, with which the public is already acquainted. They were, that the Government bad delayed the transmission of telegraphic communication to the Wellington Duelling Post for eight hours, in order to give it to the Wellington Independent —a Government organ—anil that they bad appropri i' ed to their own use telegraph intelligence, to which they had no more right than to the pockethandkerchiefs or watches of private individuals D. Oampbe’l, manager of the Dally Times and Witness Company, examined by Mr Haggitt. The Otago Daily Times is printed under his management. Mr Macassey asked his Worship to warn the witness not to answer any question that may tend to criminate himself. His Wo r ship intimated he had already told Mr Campbell to that effect, but he could not give general instructions the particular question must first be before him.

Ex'urination continued : He had heen connected with the Daily Times during nine years, and was repul ed manager of it. He sometimes signed letters as manager, and had signed some in connection with the case, Mr Macassey objected to Mr Campbell producing the manuscript of the articles complained of, on the ground that publican tiou had not been proved. Mr flaggitt pointed nut the difficulties through every witness being adverse to tl)e Queen. Examination resumed : He had been subpoeaned to produce the mauusorpt of an article headed “The Telgraph and the Government,” He did not produce it, for he had’not control over it. It was the editor's property, Mr Macassey objected to Mr Campbell stating what the custom was in regard to to the manuscript copy. Examinations resumed ! He had not seen the manuscript referred to, not being in his department. After argument the witness said : All articles and contributions before publication were addressed to the editor, and did not pass through his hands, from the editor they went to the compositor. Sometimes they were rejected and sometimes subjected to alteration or correction. They were handed to one of the compositors who might he in charge. The same man was not always in charge. If present, F. Hanson had charge. After the matter was in type a proof would be printed, which would probably be sent to the writer for revision. The proofs or revises were destroyed after the men were paid on a Saturday. Most probably the proofs of the articles in question were de-troyed. He had not seen the revises of the articles referred to. The reputed editor of the Daily Times on the 3rd October, was Mr Barton. Other persons wrote for the paper, hut the editor supervised their articles. There was only one editor receiving a salary. Mr Thomson and Mr Jones were readers for the Daily Times in October last. He had had no conversation with defendant respecting the article published on the 3rd October. He declined to say who the present editor of the Daily Times was. Mr Hagcitt appealed to the Court. Examination resumed : Mr W. Murison is the present reputed editor. Cross-examined by Mr Macassey : Editorial articles were frequently contributed outside the s’aff of the Daily Times. Mr Macassey suggested an adjournment for a short time, and stated that since the commencement of the case, a notice of a rule having heen applied for, had been taken out in the Supreme Court, and he purpesed serving his Worship with it during the adjournment. In the further prosecution of the proceedings, Mr Bathgate, Secretary of the Company, was examined. His evidence was not material.

The sub-editor, C. N. B. Muston, was then called, who claimed the protection of the Court uutil a free pardon was pre-ented to him, after which he admitted that the manuscript of the alleged libel was in the handwriting of the defendant. His evidence is repeated in to-day’s proceedings.

Mr Murison, editor and a director of the Daill/ Times, denied having had any conversation with the defendant upon the subject of the article in question, neither did lie hear him state anything about the authorship of it. The manuscript was not in bis possession, neither had he seou it.

This Day

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Wright and Maclean v. Graham acd Riugam.—LßC 14s 6d, for meat supplied. Mr Haggitt for the plaintiff. Mr M'Keay for the defendants. Judgment by consent for the amount. Davidson v. Currie.—L4 14s 2d. Mr Turtou for the defendant, Mr M'Keay for the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a seaman, and shipped on board the City of Dunedin, where lie fell sick, and on arrival was discharged aul sent to the hospital. The plaintiff was nonsuited. Sutherland v. Dickinson.—L3 19s Id. Judgment by con ent for the amount. Howe v. Evans.—L2 ss, the va’ue of a picture alleged to be illegally detained. From the evidence of the plaintiff, it appeared he based his claim on the allegation that he had purchased the picture, which the defendant refused to deliver. Judgment for the plaintiff, Is, the amount of deposit. Davidson v. M'Kraj’.—Ls, for money retained. The defendant admitted having the amount, but pleaded a set-off amounting to LI3 2s 4d. Judgment for the defendant. Keith v. Kerr.—Ll ss, a claim for beer. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount, REGINA V. BARTON. Gustavus Jones, assistant reader of the Daily Times, whose duty was to assist in comparing the manuscript with the proofs explained that in the course of his duty when the matter was read he wrapped up the manuscript and placed it in the commercial department. When the parcels accumulated he thought it was placed in the manager’s room. He was subpoenaed to produce a manuscript article but had not had time to search for it the subpoena having been only served immediately before twelve o’clock.

Mr Macassey objected to the witness being naked whether he recognised the article complained of, published on the 3rd of Ocf ober.

llis Worship sustained the objection.! Examination continued : He believed he folded up the whole of the manuscript copy of that evening, but could not recollect that any of the manuscript was in the defendant’s handwriting. He took charge of the office at six o’clock each evening and remained until different hours the following morning. Peter Thomson, reader at the Daily Times office : He read the proof of the leading article of the 3rd October. The manuscript was in Mr Barton’s handwriting. The subject was the telegraph. The proof had the beading “ The Telegraph and the Government.” Most probably the manuscript had too, but he did not renumber. He expected the manuscript was wrapped up and put by, by Mr Jones, in the usual way. He had no further control over it.

Daniel Campbell recalled : Any person in the establishment had access to the manuscripts, which were in his room, they being only placed there for convenience. They were- not in his custody, and were removed when ordered, by the boys. They were under the entire charge of the editor. Mr W. D. A urison: Hod made no search for the manuscript of the editorial article published in the Daily Times, as the editor for the time being had custody of it, and he was not editor at the time. He could not deny what Mr Campbell had said that the manuscripts were under Iffs control. Mr Smith stated that Mr Murison would be expected to search and give evidence of the vesu t.

Mr Macassey sai l the witness could claim, and would have the protection of the Court.

His Worship directed the search to be made.

Mr Murison said he had only control of papers in his own room. The papers were the property of the company, and withqut permission of the directors he should not make search.

Mr Smith said unless Mr Murison instituted the search, he should apply for thg powers of the Court to be exerted to compel it. His Worship directed the witness to make further search*

D. Campbell, recalled : Mr Murison bad control over manuscript that had been written during Ida term of office. The mamn scripts were the former editor’s property, if written during his term of office, and he could do what he chose with them. When out of office he could take them away. He did not know for a certainty that Mr Barton had left the service of the Company. Mr Smith asked if Mr Macassey was prepared to produce the manuscript of the article. Mr Macassey declined to produce.

C, B. Muston again examined: He read the manuscript of the article referred to, while Mr Thomson corrected the proof. The one was made a correct copy of the other. Bevisos were submitted to him for supervision ; hut lie did not interfere with the editor’s copy. Mr Macassey objected to evidence being given on the article itself Mr Haggitt asked the counsel for the defen e to produce the manuscript, and held that the evidence of the manager showed that the defendant had control over it; and therefore, oq refusal to produce, the prosecu tion had a right to take secondary, evidence, Mr Macassey replied, and argued that, before secondary evidence was admissible, it should be shown that the defendant had possession of, or access to, the document, neither of which was shown to be the case,

His Worship considered the manuscript was rnu to cartli, and that as each editor was untitled to take away his own maiuu script, secondary evidence was admissible. Examination continued: He had special instr ctions with regard to printing the article ; he did not absolutely recollect revising the article, but was morally certain he did so. There was only one edition of the Daily Times that day, and he recognised the copy produced as one of that edition, through an error in the heading. Unless the editor himself made alteration, nr there were small verbal alteration by himself (witness), the article was a correct copy of the manuscript. He had read the article several times, and did not trace auv alteration.

Mr Macassey would not take up time in objecting to the article, which, having been sworn to he a correct impression, might be placed in evidence.

This closed the case for the prosecution. For the defence Mr John Hay, editor of the WeUhujton Independent, was examined, and the Court adjourned to Monday.