RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2521, 16 March 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day,

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

CHARGE OF LIBEL

Regina, on the information of Mr Macandrew, V. Dick—Mr Haggitt conducted the prosecution for the Crown. Mr Haggitt stated the case, and shewed that the information was laid on the ground that the defendant was the printer .and publisher of a libellous placard, tending materially to damage the interests and character of the informant, as it charged him with conspiring to deprive one Major Croker of his situation, and of receiving bribes from Mr Driver,

Mr J Macndrew sworn and examined; He was Superintendent of the Province of Otago, and was so on the (th December, 1867. Ho knew John Treweek, who he believed at that time lived on his run at B.'liamy’s station, near Lawrence. Major Croker was Warden of the Tuapeka goldfields at that time. He knew Mr Driver. He believed that Mr M'Lean was at th it time partner with him. He was not aware that Driver, M'Lean, and Co., had an interest in the station, but believed they were agents for Treweek. He could not say they made interest with him in respect to the station. Mr Driver, as agent f. r Treweek, called upon him on one or two occasions in reference to certain complaints he made against the Government. It resulted in his visiting (he Tuapeka district, and having a personal interview with all the parties concerned, and their differences were adjusted. Mr Driver had no more influence over him than any body else, and he never had any dealings with Mr Driver in anywise, until within the last three or four months, when he applied to him to sell some sheep, and then he referred him to his partner, Mr Stewart, who sold them. He did not know that it was necessary to state that Messrs Driver sold two cr three bales of wool on his account, though ho personally did not put them into their hands. He paid commission on the transactions. He understood the expression ‘ ‘ line his pockets ” to mean that he had been bribed, but he never received anything from Mr Driver pecuniary or otherwise. He had never borrowed anything of Mr Driver. At the time the alleged letter was written in 1867 his acquaintance with Mr Driver was very slight. He had lately contested the election for the Superintendency. It was at its height about the 4th February last, and it continued until the 20th of that month, the day of the poll. The poster produced was distributed about the country on or about the 4th February. He obtained that produced at Palmerston. He saw other co;iies of it in various directions —in Palmerston aud elsewhere. ITe understood the words “ old major ” to refer to Major Croker,” the person called “Macandrew” in the poster, to himself, aud “ M'Lean” to Mr Driver’s late partner. He had not given nor authorised anyone to give assurance to Mr Dick that the proceedings would he discontinued. He had stated to Mr Dick he did not wish to act vindictively towards him, aud added in justice to himself the matter could not be allowed to rest as it stood. Mr Dick declined to ask any questions. Henry Driver, examined : He was an auctioneer and stock and station agent. He was suhpoened to produce a memorandum signed by John Dick, the defendant. [The memorandum was produced.] The placard produced was that referred to in the memorandum. [1 he memorandum was read, which has been already published, and was an apology from Mr Dick for publishing the placard and a promise to assist in any prosecution that might be instituted against the writer of the libel.] Defendant carried on business as a printer under the firm of Mills, Dick, and Co.. In 1867, he knew Mr Macandrew, but not intimately. He had met him a few times on public business, but not otherwise. He knew Mr Treweek of Bellamy’s Station op tip Molyneux. Major Croker was Warden of that district. He was very slightly if at a l l acquainted with him. There was no combination or arrangement between Mr Macandrew and himself by which Major Croker w.-s to he rejppved from his office. Tlfere was no combination or proposition by Mr Macandrew, nor by him to Mr Macandrew to “do for Major Croker.” To the best of his recollection, the Major’s name was never mentioned, except it might have been in his public capacity as Warden of the goldfield. Mr John M'Lean was partner with him (Mr Driver) at the time. He never suggested to Mr Macandrew to send a “Townie” of Mr M'Lean’s or anyone else, as Warden in Major Oroker’s place. He did not think in 1867 he had any influence of any sort, proper or improper over Mr Macandrew. His acqvabitance w t’x him was rry slight. By the expression “saving a man,” as used there, “ and saved him on a former ecc: siou,” was meant having given some pecuniary assistance to help him out of a difficulty. He never before nor since 1867, directly or indirectly had any monetary transaction with Mr Macandrew in any shape or way • by loau, present advance, or any other mode of assistance even to the extent of a shilling. He did not write the letter attributed to him in that placard. By “Macandrew” on the placard, he understood {the gentleman at that time Superintendent of the Province.

Mr Haggitt read a correspondence in which Mr Dick denied stating that any assurance had been given to him by Mr Haggitt or anyone else that proceedings would be abandoned, as state 1 in the report of one of the papers. Mr Dick merely expressed the hope that such would be the c t ase.

The defendant was remanded to Thursday next.

Barton v. Lemon.—Mr Cook for the prosecution ; Mr Haggitt for the defence. Mr Cook asked, as the defendant did not appear, that a warrant should be issued to compel his appearance, on the ground that he was charged with having been guilty of an indictable offence.

His Worship said shortly he was not prepared to grant a warrant. Mr Cook asked to bo heard in support of his application, and objected to the defendant being heard by counsel. Mr Haggitt claimed the right to appear for tlie defendant if the offence was an ndictable offence, but urged that there was nothing on the face of the summons nor in its form to shew whether it was intended to prosecute summarily or by indictment. The words used were unusual, and were so ambiguous as to render it doubtful what course of procedure would bo taken.

Mr Cook argued that the Court had power to issue a warrant to compel the defendant to appear, and that the Magistrate was bound to hear the case. He was prepared to tender evidence, and as the defendant had not appeared to answer to the summons, he asked that a warrant should issue.

Mr Haggitt objected on two grounds: First, that the offence was not indictable, and even supposing it to have been committed, Worship should not exercise the discretion he possessed of issuing a warrant, as the alleged offence was committed in Wellington. The witnesses lived there, and, in the event of committal, the Supreme Court at Wellington would have to hoar the case. And secondly, as the alleged offence must be dealt with summarily, the six months during which an information could be laid had expired. His Worship said, apprehending that application would be made in consequence of a remark by Mr Macassey, he had looked into the matter closely, and had come to the conclusion that the case was precisely similar to “ I'egiua v. Smytinea,” quoted by Mr Haggitt, in which Mr Justice Chapman ruled that as in the clause creating the off nee, the penalty was included, no indictmeat would lie. in his opinion, from the wording of the clause in the Electric Telegraph Act, there was no other way of proceeding excepting by information on an offence punishable by summary conviction ; and taking that view of it, the information was bad, inasmuch as the offence had been committed more than six months prior to its being laid. He might say that when the information was laid, not looking at the date when the alleged offence was committed, he apprehended it was an offence punishable by summary conviction ; but when he looked at it more closely, he found it •• ould not be sustained. It must also have been put upon the form in error, how he could not account for. It was a form (under Juror’s Act now " disused. When the information was laid the mail was leaving, and the request was made for him to issue the summons, so that it could be forwarded by it. Had he had time for consideration he did not think he should have received the information at alb The judgment of Mr Justice Chapman appeared to him perfectly clear in the matter, and, therefore, as he was of opinion no indictment would lie, he must decline to take any further proceedings in the matter.