RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2513, 7 March 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Yesterday. (Before A. 0. Strode, Esq., R.M.) CHARGE OF LIBEL. Regina v. Barton—Adjourned case. Mark Cohen, reporter of the Eoening Star , examined by Mr Macassey : Remembered Mr Yogel addressing a public meeting in the Princess Theatre in December last, at which he attended. He with others reported the speech made on that occasion. Mr Vogel made some reference to the telegram question, but could not recollect what was said without reference to his notes. The notes were taken by himself, Mr Bell, and Mr Fox. The second meeting at the Provincial Buildings was reported in the same way, .'•ome reference was made to the editor of the Da'dy Times. He believed the speech was published two davs afterwards. He was under the impression that it was not corrected by Mr Vogel. Between the first and sceond speeches of Mr Vogel on article was published in the Eoening Star on December 9th. It was not published in consequence of anything that passed between Mr Fox and himself.

George Bell, proprietor of the Evening Star, examined by Mr Macassey: He assisted in reporting the meetings addressed by Mr Vogel, and printed the pamphlet containing his speech. It was paid for through Mr Fox, his secretary, to the best of his belief. Before wr''ting the article of December 9th ho had a conversation with Mr Fox ; the conversation arose casually. [Mr Mac-a-sey was about to ask the witness the nature of the conversation, when Mr Smith objected on the ground that there was no proof that Mr Fox was officially charged with authority to bind Mr Vogel. Mr Macassey intimated that, in consequence of the objection, he should hereafter apply for a remand to produce Mr Vogel and Mr Fox. The cpicstion was not put.] Without the conversation he had with Mr Fox the article would not have been written.

F. J. Davies, examined by Mr Macassey : He was reporter for the Daily Timel He attended two public meetings addressed by Mr Vogel. He had not the shorthand notes of the speeches. He had transcripts of his notes furnished to the compositors. Ho had notes of the speech of Mr Vogel delivered at the Provincial Buildings. Reference was made to the editor of the Dally Tlute* by Mr Vogel. Ho said that Mr Barton misrepresented the aots of the Government. His observations wore not complimentary.

Cross-examined Ijff Mr Smith: There was gr.-at uproar at boflt- meetings. He would not pledge himself as to the accuracy of the words at the second meeting, but he would as to the substance. The accommodation for reporting was far better at the first than the second moptihg. He could not pledge himself as to the words, but the substance was correct. He did not think the telegram question at the first meeting was more than mentioned.

W. D. Muriaou, editor of the Dully Times: Mr Barton was editor of the Daily Times about two years and a half. The defendant is a member of the English Bar, and was lecturer on English literature at the University of Sydney before coming to New Zealand, Ho succeeded Mr Vogel as editor of the Daily Times. [Mr Smith objected to a question as to the circumstances under which Mr Vogel left the Daily Times. Mr Macassey pressed the question, because ho could show that the present prosecution was not instituted on public but private grounds. That in defiance of an agreement when Mr Vogel left the Times, he established another newspaper, and that the motive for the prosecution was hostility to the Daily Times arising from vindictive feelings. Mr Smith replied. His Worship ruled the question irrelevant. Mr Macassey asked if Mr Vogel was not dismissed from the service of the Daily Times and IKibic w Company—if he had incurred large liabilities .'•iuce leaving the service, and hadho violated an agreement with the Daily Times and Witness Company. Mr Smith objected to the questions, and considered them disrespectful to the Court,

During Mr Vogel’s stay in Dunedin, he had conversation with him on the telegram ques* tion, and on the articles published in the Daily Times, but could not recollect exactly what took place. He recollected that he and the Government had discoursed that the matter had been cleared up by having discussed that the Star had telegraphed the Times extra to Wellington. (Letters were read addressed by Mr Vogel to the editor and directors of the Daily Times ; and Mr Macassey asked to have the Evening Star s report of Mr Vogel’s speech put in evidence.) Mr Vogel waited upon the directors before speaking, and asked them to acc ‘pt his secretary’s repOit in place of that of their own reporters, which was declined. (Portions of the speech, of which Mr Macassey complained, Mere read, and put in evidence.) The Court adjourned to ten o’clock tomorrow.

This Day,

(Before A. 0. Strode, ;Esq., E.M.) CHARGE OF LIBEL. Komna v. Barton—Adjourned ca.se. The reporters for the Daily Times wove shortly examine! as -to the' correctness of their notes. . . Mr Maoaspey.then intimated his intention to apply for a remand to enable him to produce the hen. Mr Vogel, Mr E. Fox, Captain Pearce, Mr A. F. Hale mbe, and Mr Gifford, editor of the Evening Post. Mr Haggitb intimated that the Crown ■would only consent to an adjournment to enable witnesses within the Colony to attend. Mr Macassey stated that such an adjournment was of no avail; and commenced to address the Court for the defence, when be was interrupted by counsel for the Crown, who stated they required an adjournment to produce the Collector of Customs at the Bluff a d the telegraph operator there. The case was accordingly adjourned for a week, with the understanding that if none of the Crown witnesses or Captain Pearce were then present it would be fuither adjourned for a week.

Mr Macassey brought under notice of the Court that ha understood the Crown prosecutor proposed proc eding with tli/< second charge against the defendant immediately. As this course would involve the same proceedings in regard to defence, and as already L 25 had been paid to Mr Hay alone, and would necessarily have again to he paid, he considered that it amounte I to persecution to proceed with a second charge before the first was disposed of ; and should it be persisted in he should ask to be allowed to go ou with the first. ~ . ~ Mr Smith sa d this was the result of the defendant’s counsel choosing not to go on with both cases simultaneously. He had taken his own course, and should not try to l£*y the blame upon the counsel for the prosecution. The intention was merely to prove authorship and publication. His Worship said he would consider the best course to take, and state his intention prior to the licensing meeting.

Licensing Meeting. The Quarterly Licensing Meeting was held at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, to-day, at noon. TRANSFERS. The following transfers were granted John Moylan to A. Lawrence, Crown Hotel, Rattray street; Robert Fenwick to Win. Knott, East Taieri; M, Fagan to ?. Fagan, Carriers Arms, Dunedin; F. L. Mueller to R. W. Sheppard, European Hotel; W. Wilkinson to Godfrey Jacobs, Alhambra ; J. 0. Galloway to Ed. Holmes, Golden Age ; Mary O’Brien to P. O’Bri n, Munster Arms ; R. W. Sheppard to Robert 1 enwick, Supreme Couit; R. F. Fincher to A. Hume, bottle license ; W. O’Neil to D. Courie, do. applications granted. Denis M‘Brearty, for Bay View; James Richmond, application for night liceu'ie for Ayrshire Hotel. APPLICATIONS refused. George Horton, for Bristol Hotel; Adam Anderson, for Armala’e St. Andrew street; Francis M‘Grater, Harp of Erin; J. C. Galloway, for house, comer St. Andrew and Great King streets.