RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2517, 11 March 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day.

(Before I. Newton Watt, Esq., R. M.)

Civil Cases,

The following cases were decided as stated _ M‘Farlane v. Morgan—L3 8s 10d Judgment for the plaintiff’ for th‘ amount with costs. Cohen v. Keddeil—L9 19. Judgment for the plaintiff’, 40s with costs. Baxter v. Christie—Ll3 9s 10d. Mr Bathgate for the defendant. Judgment for the plaintiff LG Gs lOd, the amount pai I into Court; each party to pay his own costs. CHARGE OF LIBEL Regina, on the information of Henry Driver, v. M‘Loo;l Messrs Smith and Macasscy for the prosecution. Messrs Barton and Bathgate for the defence. The information set out tint Mr Driver had written a letter to John Trcweek, the words of which were printed in a placard published in Dunedin, and that they contained a false and malicious libel.

Mr Barton objected to the case heinsr heard hef re the Resident Magistrate, on the ground that the necessary step; had not been taken, inasmuch as application ha-1 not been made to a superior Court for leave to tile a criminal information : and secondly, it was doubtful whether the Resident Magistrate had jurisdiction. It was the practice in England, in cases of private informations, to test the right of the relatoi or prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings by reference to a proper officer of the Court of Queen s Bench. Mr Baitou cited numerous cases, in which he stated that c uirse had been pursued, and stated that a* far as he knew magistrates never were allowed to institute preliminary enquiries. As the same laws were app icahle hero as in Engl an i, he considered the Court had no jurisdiction.

The Magistrate said that numerous cases were heard .at Bow street, and Resident Magistrates Apt expressly provided for such cases being heard. The following evidence was tahen John Booth, c dlector of accounts for Mills, Dick, and Co., examined : Knew Mr Reid’s committee rooms. lie saw the defendant there almost every day excepting Sunday. He received the paper prolucecl from the defendant on the 3rd February. M ‘Lend wrote it in bis presence. Ho aghe 1 defendant if he had any orders for printing. Defendant had previously told him he was secretary of Mr Reid’s committee, and he had taken orders from him previously in that capacity. On asking on that day if lie had any orders, he said “Yes, wait a lew minutes and I will give you something.” Witness waited until the paper in question was written. He seemed to be copying another document. Ho asked how much 250 would cost printing. On going back to the office to enquire, he was told the charge would bo L 3. He said ho wanted to know the, price, as he might have to pay for them himself. After being told the price, he said ‘‘Yery well, got them done in red,” and initialled the paper ns authority. He said fifty had to be posted in the town, so as to appear on the following morning. He first saw them on the wails on the Monday morning following. On receiving the manuscript it was taken to Mills, Dick, and Co. s manager, Mr Reid. He did not say ‘*l don’t like the look of this,” nor did the defendant sav “ I have the original letter. After the prosecution commenced, the defendant said something like “ I suppose you know thee posters are charged to me, and not to the committee.” Witness replied he did not think were hut to the coni•inittep. Defendant said he gave instructions to charge him personally with the cost and not tire committee. Witness replied he did not understand that was f) he so. Whines knew after tliO’ 1 publication of the placard that Mills, Dick, and Co, had received orders not to print anything without the order in writing of Mr Sievwright, the chairman. No such order was received from Mr Sievwright previous to publishing the placard. No member of Mr Reid’s committee was present. On behalf of the committee he received orders for printing ; invariably from the defendant, with one exception.

John Pick, printer, proved printing the placard from the manuscript produced. Some of them were ported in various parts of the City. He did not look at the manuscript particularly before it was printed. He understood at the time it referred to Mr FT. Driver. He understood Trewcek to he the former owner of Bellamy's Station. He believed the expression (t old major” to refer to Major Croker. At the professed date of the letter he was Warden on the Coldfield?, The word “ Macandrcw” he nnderstool to refer to the Superintendent. The name Maclean he supposed to refer to Mr Driver's late partner. Cross-examined by Mr Barton : Defendant was given to understand the prosecution against himself would not be proceeded with after a certain date. Mr Smith : Perhaps my learned friend would like to sec the terms of the understanding. Mr Barton : Oh, anything may he written.

Cross-examination continued : The prosecution was not to be continued against him after Momlav. BBh inst. That arrangement was unde with Mr Maenss y after the close of the case to-day. He was not s dished until to-day that the case would not be proceeded with. He wrote some weeks ago to him (Mr Barton) that he no longer needed his services, in consequence of a strong hint. He felt nervous about the prosecution, but did not think it would go on. Mr Barton objected to Mr Driver being present. The Magistrate regarded the present as a strictly private prosecution, and considered the prosecutor had a right to be present.

Cross-examination continued : He had no solicitor with him when the arrangement was made with Mr Macasscy. It was UTore

sending a letter to Mr Burton, dispensing with hie servicehe aeted*.on his cmp. accord. He his fniud that it was better for him to give up the name of tie parly supplying the copy of the placard on, condition of the prosecution against him, being withdrawn. Mr Maeassey consented to that arrangement. No written document was given. The pi'osecutiou by Mr Macandrew was to be hoard on Thursday ; but he bail assurance it would not be proceeded with. It was an understanding with Mr Haggitt. He did not think it was a sham, as there was some reason for it ; but he believed it would be terminated on Thursday. I\c examined by Mr .Smith : The arrangement was made with Mr Macasscy, under the advice of his brother and Mr Beal, the manager of the Bank of New Zealand, who urged a day or two before that he should apologise to Mr Driver, and name the person who furnished the libellous letter. Mr Maeassey said something to the effect, that so long .as witness was in the hands ot a professional adviser, he could not .leal personally with him. He stated that he had resolved to take it out of Mr Barton’s hands, possibly he might have said he had done with Barton, and certainly used words shewing that he was acting for’himself, and was not in the bauds of my solicitor. Mr Macasscy intimated that he wished to make some explanation respecting the statement made by the last witness. It was substantially correct. He would firs say what took place between Mr Dick and himself. He was prepared to expect to see him by Mr Beal, of the Bank of New Zealand, and his brother, Mr Thomas Dick, They stated that Mr John Dick was desirous of exculpating himself, and recommended an interview. He declined, on the grounds stated. They gave him (Mr Macasscy) to understand that the matter hid been taken out of Mr Barton’s hands, mil the reason was, Mr John Dick was dissatisfied with the speech made by Mr Barton at the adjournment of the case. H ■ intimated to them that 11» cmmuunicatioo could be held with third parties. They expressed great anxiety tli.it Mr Dick should have an interview wi;h him, and on Satu day morning Mr Dick presented himself at his (Mr Maoa=sey‘s) office. He said he had come to speak with him in reference to that prosecution. He (Mr Macasscy) referred at once to the fact of Mr Barton being his solicitor, he could not communicate with him except through that gentleman. Ills very words in reply were “ £ have done with Mr Barton,” and he made allusions to his address on the morning of the adjournment. He (Mr Macasscy) sa d “If that isuso, £ will send for Mr Driver.” A conversation took place in the-pre-encc of both, and it was arranged that Mr Dick should give up the. name of the person giving the copy of the placard, and every assistance he could in the prosecution, and then should go scot free. He (Mr Maeassey) told Mr Dick the prosecution would not be abandoned until the present prosecation was established. His object was to get a real defendant. After some conversation, ip was finally agreed upon. A letter was written which was read to Mr John Dick, and afterwards to Mr Thomas Dick, in order to see whether or not it was one his brother should sign, On going out of the office, John Dick said something about seeing Mr Barton. He (Mr Maeassey) said the least that couid be done would be to write aipl thank Mr Barton for his services. He was quite aware that it was unQonrteous to deal with a client, except through his solicitor. Mr Barton thought it would be seen he had not imputed anything to Mr Maeassey. He had done to him what he should wish Mr Maeassey to do to himself (Mr Barton) under like circumstances, and only brought the matter forward to show the manner in which that prosecution terminated. If he could have brought it out without bringing Mr Maeassey’s name into the matter he should have done so. The defendant was remanded.