SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3495, 6 May 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Monday, May 4.

(Before Mr Justice Chapman. and a Special Jury.) ‘ ; ALLEGED LIBEL. Macasset v. Bell.—This Was an action brought by Mr' James Macas&ey, barrister At ■ law, to recover from George Bell, proprietor I of the Evening Star, , the sum of Ll,ooo, for an alleged libel bh, him in that paper. ! Mr Barton, Mr Haggitt, and Mr W. D, Stewart, appeared for the plaintiff; Mr' James Smith and Mr Stout for the defen- 1 dant. . . The Rev. Donald Stuart was examined a 1 follows: • Mr Barton: Have you read the article ■ that forms the subject of this action? Yes,! recently.— Did you happen to read it at the time it was published ? Well, I did loot at it. J. do not know that I .gave very much attention to it.—Supposing you knew nothing about Mir Macassey—who he was or what he' was—on reading that article,, what opinion 1 would you form of him ? Supposing au this was true, I, for one would give, him neither' social nor political confidence.—l will point your attention to one or two things particularly. It begins with the words “ In our issue.” [The learned counsel read a portion of the article.]. Supposing that was the translation Mr ■ Macassey himself presented, what would' be your opinion? I should think very little of! him,—There is another statement in this article commencing “ In the first place,” and ending c L2OO, only to be paid in the event of his removal”; what would you think ofaman who! would make such a bargain as that? I would never have him either as a legal adviser or as a' friend.—Would you give him a degree in the University ? No.—Listen to this : Would you consider it the act of a man of honor or a gentleman—[the learned counsel read from “all mention of a clever lawyer” to “distinctly contra dieted, ’] What do you, think of that comment? That he should never be returned either to the Provincial Council or any other body.—What would you assume by the words “judiciously fitted ” —who would you imagine made the judicious omission ? Mr Macassey. Cross-examined by Mr Smith:—What led you to the conclusion that to Mr Macassey is attributed that omission ? ■ The whole structure of the paragraph; we must take it with the second paragraph. Begin where you like. Here I find, for example, in the Chinese statement, it is said that Mr Macassey had made a bargain with them to secure the removal of Warden Beetham for L2oo,—That is said to be a translation of the petition? Yes.—Well, you observe! that that is simply stated as a fact that a translation was laid upon the table of the : Provincial Council; the writer does hot say it is' correct. ' Mr Bartoni My friend is omitting the statement that this petition was concocted. Mr Smith : No. (To the witness): Go on. Then it says the Chihese approved of the proSosal,— Not in the article—in the translation?, 'f course it is.—'The newspaper is only giving n translation of the document? Precisely • that" the Chinese approved of it, and uhdertbblt to pay L2QO. That is the statement in ' the translation. The article charges Mr Macassey with corruption in'" Suppressing certain facts in that statement.—-You are alogician and areskilled in the use of language'and m the precise meaning of tertns : dpyou mean to say a state- 1 ment in the translrtiph of the petition says anything about the person who did it ? If, you ask ! me that question'l cahnbt say it" bht ybu ! are asking me as to corrupt motives!— I Am saying nothing about motives ;I am ' asking: you explain. You say the" writer of the article' intends to attribute to 'Mr Macissey that omission. I ask you to justify that conclusion., I justify it in this Way"': on reading these two’ sentences the'"impression left on my" aamd' of the' intention of' this writer—l have come tb.the conclusion with having done it. Beading the two sentences' together I can come to ho other conclusion.—l want you to show the jpryhow you come to that conclusion: Do ybu, understand Mr Macassey is referred to as the" translator ? No ; I understand that ‘ ‘docuihent 1 is put into the hands of Mr' Macassey and he* is charged with' manipulating it.—Then you charge him with having altered the petition put ihto his hands ? No; I do not charge him with it. ’ That article seems to charge him with it. It seems to charge him with taking certain facts out of the putting them into a petition, and that he find* in that document other facts that he judiciously pisses over.—How do you under- 1 stand that Mr Macassey is charged with having done that? It may be difficult for me to show" It, but I simply say from a careful reading I taat couclusion.—Then you think that Mr Macassey selected certain portions from that translation and placed them before the Council as the whole matter of the Chinese petition, although it contains besides a translation of a certain passage about L2OO ? Yes. Do you understand that Mr Macassey orepared the petition? Yes.- What passage is : there to lead you to that conclusion ? It is said . ™ at .Mr Macassey is'charged with transforming l . spatement into a petition.—Do you consider that is charging Mr Macoassey with making X do J 1 ma y wrong, but that is my idea.—Then if I were to say the Rev.' Donald Stuart, went to the Synod and presented a document to that body, and I find inthatdocument a certain statement which appears in the Sal and is transferred into something very mt, would you understand me as necessarily reflecting on the Rev. Donald Stuart as being gudty of wilful alteration of that document ? I should, if I said it was all that was contained.—Does it say so? I think it was in the mind of the writer to show that Mr Macassey had manipulated that document Whence do you infer that? From the whole of that document.-Though the statement which appeared in the article is apparent ? I cannot see the object of the article, except that of charging Mr Macassey with corrupt dealing - I do not say you need see the object of the article. Have you any other reason for what yon state, that the writer of the article intended to charge Mr Macassey with having altered a simple statement into the form of a petition, and also with having omitted something contained ma proper translation of it? ■*°i reas ® n to* t ha ve stated. You have read the article at the Ume it was published? M ead . but 1 d l d “Jrt think much about it, and for this reason, that newspapers in these last dajrs take extraordinary liberties with individuals and character. I have come to the conclusion that very little reliance is to be placed on their judgment.—Have you suffered y °Alf el !/ r n? S em • c Qi b y® s i many times. Alfred Ghetham Strode was examined as follows; Mr Barton; You were Resident

Magistrate here, and have now retired f I am still a Resident Magistrate.—Have you seen that article before (presenting a copy) ? Yes,— Supposing you never had known Mr Macassey, and never had seen him or heard of him before, I want to know what sort of idea you would form of his character. Would you like such a gentleman to practise before you ?... j would not like to entrust my private business to a person of that character.—l want to call your I attention to a particular paragraph, in this article, and ask what meaning you would put on that. I will read to you one or two little bits. (The learned counsel read several extracts from the article as faras the words “ judiciously' omitted”). What do you gather from that charge against Mr Macassey? I should say it means that Mr Macassey garbled the petition, ae an ordinary reader. (The learned counsel road further, as far as “distinctly contradicted.”) What do you gather from, that charge against Mr Macassey ? I should say it means that Mr Macassey had had a hand in it. —What would you gather from it? That he had not made the facts known to the Council. —Would you think it referred to Mr Macassey? Clearly. Cross-examined by ,Mr Smith: Do you understand that Mr Macassey’s conduct is discussed by the vmter as a public man or otherwise ? ‘ I should say as a public man : no doubt about it from the beginning. It is his conduct as a member of the Provincial Council.—l understand you to say that, taking the writer’s statements in the article as correct, 1 regarding Mr Macassey as a public man,: you would not entrust any private business to him ? I should not like to.—Why, what is your particular reason ? I think a man who would behave in that way Let it be understood in what way ? I think it very dishonorable.—What do you understand Mr Macassey is charged with in that article ? Dishonorable conduct.—What do you understand him to be charged with? That he garbled the petition.— What do you understand by “ garbled?” That he has left out material parts of it for his own purposes.—Will you be good enough to put' your finger on that portion of this article whieh! bears that meaning? Prom the whole article. I; understood I was only‘to answer one question.i —Frdm’whomdid you understand that?. From‘ the person who called ine.—Who was that ? The I plaintiffs solicitor.—l want you to be good; enoughto explain the grounds on,which.you' came conclusion. I understand you to say Mr Macassey is chafed with dishonorable! conduct in that he garbled the petition, which yon explain means he left out material portions! of it. State where he garbled the petition.—1 1 cannot give it without reading the -article l through. This statement, “ that the eleven lawyer from Dunedin, and if the guarantee is judiciously omitted.”—By whom? I should say by Mr Macassey:—You should say? I should! say it wa a intended to convey that impression. —From that mere statement you draw the in- 1 ferettce that Mr Macassey is charged with know-1 ing of that omission?. I should say so from I reading the article as a lawyer.—ls it not quite I consistent with that statement that some other, person who was interested' in the translation presented to the Provincial Council, whoever! did it, chose to omit all reference to the L2OO ? I do not.think so, taking the article as a whole.; —ls Mr Macassey represented as having made: the translation- himself ? No; I do not think 80 “Or having any part in writing the trans-: lation out ? It does not say, so; but he pra-; sented one translation to the Council—You I observe the occasion of this article is thepiresen- ' tation of the report of a commission to investigate charges against Warden, Beetham; that' report containing, a new translation, in whjohi occurs a certain passage which the writer of this article states had been judiciously left but ?• Mr Barton:• It does not say so. ; Mr Smith : You have the article before you. The two translations are contrasted. The writer:brings before the public the translation; which had been as alleged in the article presented to the Provincial Council, with the translation as given by the interpreters., The Judge ; The one called the translation is in the left-hand column. Mr Smith: The right-hand translation turned out to be the translation received from Victoria. (To the witness :) You draw the inference that Mr Macassey is alleged to have withdrawn a portion of the translation for his own purposes: you infer that from the words used ? Yes. — And you cannot point out any other passage to extract that meaning except that already referred' to. This statement in the translation signed by Mr Macassey, and presented to the Council as the petition. You have no other! reason to extract the meaning that you. have, done ? I do not think so ;' there is the whole 1 tenor of the article.—The Whole tenor ; ■ Take, tor instance, the Yankee story—that does nbt ! guide you ? No, not the Yankee story. I can-' not put my linger oh any other part.—Were you at Queenstown when Mr Macassey was a candidate for the General Assembly ? I hap-, pened to be there at' that time.—Were you! there at the nomination? I was:—Were you E resent at the hustings ? No, not near them,—: >o you happen to know’whether Mr Macassey on that occasion made a charge against - Mr' Beetham in his capacity as Returning Officer ? I was not near the place. I heard afterwards! wqat occurred.-Were you appointed to investigate a charge made by him against the tele-' graphist at Queenstown? I'happened to bo; there, and the Government telegraphed to me 1 directing me to investigate. Mr Barton:l object to that, I have already six actions on-my back ;' I do not want seven. The question was not allowed.’ ' Donald Reid was examined as follows £-! Mr Bartbn: Were you a" member of the Provincial Council in 1872? Yes.—You are a member of the House of Representatives?'Yes’* —I think you are on the opposite side to Mr Macassey? I do not know, Sometiixies he supported ine, and sometimes he opposed me. Mr Smith; He was like Mr Barton, was he not. Yes. ... Mr Barton : Have you ever read that article ? Yes.—Did you read it soon after it was pubIrihed? Yes, very shortly after.- Was it in Wellington or at the Taieri! you read it ? I cannot say.—Supposing you.never heard of Mr Macassey before, but simply knew what you saw in that article, what Would be your impression of his character and conduct? Had! not known Mr Macassey but generally from the papers, I should have formed a very unfavorable opinion. Mr Barton read a portion of the article as far as the word “ concocted,” and asked what the witness would understand. The witness ; It would mean it was "not a genuine petition, hilt got up by the presenter or at hia instigation. The learned counsel read on as far as “'ludiciously omitted.” WQuldyou imagine had judiciously omitted.that? The person presenting that petition. That statement that the statement presented by him to the, .counsel is transformed, what would you take’ that to mean ? I take it that the person who translated it had done this; I know Mr Macassey could not translate! it.— But you are asked to treat Mr, Macassjey as a perfect stranger; ’ I repeat it, that the person who translated it was'tke person who put it in this form. ; t . M r Barton read as far as “ distinctly contra* dieted. What Would you gather from that ? The inference is Mr Macassey had a hand in it.—Would y° u Say those words “judiciously omitted” would have a bearing upon his character? No • 1 understand that to apply to' the framers of the article, in which he says it had been concocted, which might be by different individuals ihat is the meaning I put on it, on reading it' —Do you understand that.Mr Macassey being distinctly contradicted ” as one who concocted the petition ? Naturally on reading the article “ concocted ” ne ° fc opeaine: Paragraph and His Honor: Its judicious omission you put on the translator ? Yes. J * : Fro “ American story and that next statement, what do you think the writer means? I cannot tell.—What should article^ ? 1 tkmk lfc Written to fill up the Mr Barton read several passages. Would you gather from those that Mr Macaasey was _mgh-miuded and generous? I should gather that he was not high-minded nor generous.—And thus be would lose that reputation wmch alf who serve the publio shouldseek o enjoy . It is the opinion of the writer that it is a distinction to be obtained which is desirable. , •Air Smith; So there ought to be? Yes. From the manner in which you read the article, '

you do>not care.much for newspaper abuse? b^k? K Yes! U^°n 88 wrter. from a duck's

Hjs Honor : A useful feature in a politician, bu t *ot so - I ? ucb * a hamster. :- Mr Smith: When those who are youthful aspirants have had more experience, will they not be careless of newspaper abusel? Yes —You te V iU n V‘* rtl^ r a F eoti °Q for the Evening Stab. No. ; There,is no distinction With me for the Dunedin : papers. I have no fceUng either for or agamst them.— Do you mean to say you occupy the position of being the best abused man of your time? No.—The general impression you gather from the article would be an unfavorable one on the publio mind ’ Most certainly, if I did not know Mr Macassey! —No one would take it that the writer intended to compliment Mr Macassey, but with regard to the meaning you place on the word “ concocted,” you say you draw a distinction between the application, of that word and the words “judiciously- emitted.?”—You take them to refer to different individuals ; the first is the person who presented the .petition, and the last the man who translated it ? Yes. —Why do you draw the distinction? From the article Before me.--Do you observe the word “ concocted ” stands in connection with the word petition ; his petition was concocted —the petition was in Chinese, was it not? Yea.—lt may be useful to recall you to the article : does “ concocted” refer to the petition which purports to be from the Chinese at Queenstown ? It draws attention to the cir- : cumstances under which the Chinese petition ; was concocted: do you understand,the presenter was referred to in preparing the petition expressed in Chinese characters ? I understood from this paragraph that it- was intended to convey that Mr Macassey did, by some improper means, take occasion to get up this petition.—ln other words, you understood the paragraph to insinuate he had some hand in getting up the petition? Yes.—ls'that the oaiy meaning you get from that paragraph? No, not that only one. The paragraph would ; have-you believe it was no petition at alt : Did you, as a member of the Provincial CounI cil, read the report of the Commission and the ‘ ♦iT* 1 u> e a PP® n ded to it, which was also upon the table of that House in June, 1873 ? I thiwir | * read it. I would not say positively. I glanced through it and the evidence. I did not read it. carefully.—Perhaps not so carefully as I tp e writer of that article ? Perhaps you had no ; Aid not .take the .trouble to compare i - t P a * translation which the Commission prei septed with that presented by Mr Macassey ? f lO . j. l dl v°t. —Let draw your attention to this part, of the article—“ And lastly, Mr : Macassey is distinctly contradicted,” you gather ; from that it is intftnded to say Mr Macassey had :■ a A an .d ra it? Yes.—Because it is atatedthat ms assertion to the contrary had been contradieted ? yes.—ls not that rather a violent con- ; ■‘■motion to place on the passage ? Supposing 1 m a newspaper report of one of your able ; IPeoohes a certain statement appeared, and that ; i beard next day it was distinctly contradicted, would you say from that it was intended to impugn your veraoity|? If you had put itthat a i certain, statement madeby me, to the Council as being a correct statement had been- entirely ; contradicted, then the inference would be what was untrue.; —Does it mean more than' this : the two statements are diametrically opi posed. Yes,T think it means mo’re than that. ; —supposing it_ should turn out that Mr Macas- ■ soy was really instrumental in -encouraging the i preparation of the petition while 1 at Queens- , town: that knowmg there was some ill-feeling by encouraging the preparation of a petition, i and promising, if not volunteering, to present it * i to tlie Council ;if that is proved,as a fact: and moreover if it be a fact that the true transfanon of the Chinese petition, as presented to the House was very different from that i whl °k he gave to the House-if those ciri cumstances were believed to be facts at the time the article was written, woiild you consider the article too strong ? There are so many hypotheses it is difficult to give an answer.'— But you are a debater: you can easily carry them m your mind for the purpose of furnishes*6 Probably it would be a justification of the article. I could not say it things ÜBtl * y tbe art ud®> assuming all these His Honor ; Assuming the truth of the imputations of fact, would the terms of the article be too strong? They would jbe strong enough. I do not think it is a question for a witness to have to give(an answer to. Mr Smith; You see you are called as an expert to give a translation of every part of the article. It is for me to test your ability, to do so. the statements in the article were true, and behevfed to be so bythe Write? * : strong v C m^ lder on those too for them. There Would be justification ifr Barton: I admit they cannot be too strong. Mr Bell would be justified in writing stronger articles every day for a month ® by Mr Barton : Assuming that whoever the person was,tfho made the judicious omission, it was he who made the translation and. supposing also L2OO was to be given on condition of Warden Beetham being 1 Jamissed or given back to, the subscribers, whaf™S Khhtlemaa who Would' inake J bargam hke that; would you take him as your E. B. Cargill was examined as follows— Mrßarton: YouhaVe had some experience as a F^i h s;Lfe k but 1 h r e “ ot - rui lately.— i. think you have formed Govern, ments before now, and have been in the General Assembly as well? I have been a memWrf “J • Wtio ft. jKbly! 1 "want you to be good enough ,to take thaf article, i have read it only within the last two or three days,—Supposing you had never 566 ?, heard of Mr Macassey but ; in ■ that article before you,,vvhat estimate of ter would you form from it? I feel a ifttW difficulty in .answering, bebause there are two. petitions attached to the article. The whole, thing taken mtb the article and petition b rather damaging.—Assume you do\iot know Mr Macwsey z you bftvocooifi. sait t-j* and saw Mr James Macassey was dealt that article in that way: what wouldW thffik B ,^ I should have S difficulty in forming an opinion. I £ g -TLt a w n^ e \ A Ctiniißed b 7k 80me Onea- *?"■, was what you would y t bav .® BOa ie hesitation in trusting him.— You, coming a total sfr&nger, witlTrtvo lacs of rupees to invest. woufd you lfr “ I believed what is here, Takirn? the article, and petition, if I believed ho accepted a bribe for unseating Warden Beetham I should have nothing to do with ffim. ' ^ 008 the article ending witn returmng the subscriptions.” What Thb is^L^lv T th u ß ia the translation, ?i T ly i. 11 ?. 6 * seen these doour waß ‘hot m the country when it took place. lam not well informed in the matter. the .article has pointed to a petition. Would it be a creditable or discreditable transaction ? V ery discreditable. This closed the plaintiff's case.

adfs

Mr Stout, in opening the case for the de. fendant, said that before stating the evident that would be giren on behalf of the de° *• Jz “ derßtauiwb ‘ t “• Jdr if™ 1 would KtpWn to the „ b . t it really meant. The defend*** it oouid .Lw th.t mu.t thowth.tlu. loots wore tree “* responsibility of« pleo of jnstiatsS^lhe •’f-'Ji'i i. • .jij; V. u

Mr Smith argued that the objection jupt raised was in the nature of a demurrer to the second plea, which stood upon the record and had been accepted by the plaintiff.His Honor : I cannot hear a demurrer now. When the matter comes to be offered as evidence, it inay.be a. question whether it caa he received as evidence.. ’ Mr Stout continued : Statements of fact were made in the article, and statements of fact the defendant intended to prove. When read the article, the/ would regret that the case had been brought into Court, because he was sure, frpm the evidence by the different parties put into the box to explain the article, they had seen the difficulty that they experienced in pointing out that the article complained of was an unfair..comment upon Mr Macassey. For example,..Mr Murisou had only a, general impression about the article ; he could not pick out any part of it that in any manner was a libel on Mr Macassey, Dr Stuart had mixed up the petition with the article, and could hot in fairness to the other side give an opinion on the subject, without bringing in the translations. As to 1 Mr Strode’s evidence, his cross-examination showed that he utterly failed to point out any specific part of the. article which was an attack on Mr Macassey. He thought the jury would prefer to be guided by the evideuce of men of : the world, than , by the opinion of a minister and Resident Magisgrate, who were not mixed up in public life. Mr Cargill and Mr Reid interpreted the article differently from the witnesses who had gone before. Mr Reid could not see anything in the article that reflected on Mr Macassey,- excepted the word “ concocted ” in the passage,to which, his attention was particularly drawn ; and his evidence that, on the face 6f the article, it could not refer to Mr Macassey, bqt really referred to the translator. Mr Cargill also gave his opinion that the word “ concocted ” not refer to ; Mr Macassey at all, it really proved that the ‘‘’Heattien Chinee ” was peculiar, and had takdn in Mr Macassey. Of course, in appearing in this case, counsel. for the .defendant; felt themselves, in a. peculiar position in commenting .upon ,a person, who', was | a, personal .friend of their own, and so much respected in bis profession as Mr Macassey was. He asked the' jury to free themselves from that .feeling, or frofn prejudice that might have been formed from the interpretation put on the article by Mr Barton,, and to look narrowly at the statements in. the article, and the facts th<defendant would prove. l The question each individual juror should put to himself was ; was the defendant justified or not in making the comments he did on Mr Macassey ? He would draw attention to the statements Of fact made in the article itself. His Honor: I may tell you at once, Mr Stout, unless the facts you propose to prove are connected with the plaintiff, it is a waste of time. ; Mr Stout replied that he would do that. The defendant bad been placed- under!a great difficulty owing' to the way in which the declaration whs drawn, because it did . not pick out certain passages from tHe article, and allege what the law termed inuendos. . In place of that the whole article was set out, and the defendant bad to prove that the various statements of fact in it rp- ,, ferring fco.Mr Macassey orofcher.persons were true. He proceeded to point .out the statements pf fact. , The article did not wholly refer to Mr Macassey, no more than did the funny article in the ‘ Daily Times. ’ It dealt with the subject of the Chinese petition, with Mr Macassey’s connection with it, and. with Lis conduct at. Queenstown. The first,sentence in the article attacked by the other side was—“ It may be useful to recall Idle circumstances under which this pretended petition was - concocted;” The jury .would agree with Mr Cargill, as a sen Bible man of business andamanof the world, , that that sentence could not byanypossibiljty refer to Mr. Macassey; therefore the jury might .dismiss that from their minds. Of the : other statements it was admitted that Mr, Macassey was defeated at Queenstown; , that he -attacked the Press there, laid a criminal information . for libel against the prp-.-..prietor of: the VWakatip Mail,’.which Mr Beetham dismissed. “Fiom that,.time Mr Macassey appears, to have become aware of My Beetham’s shortcomings, both as Resident" Magistrkte and Returning Ojffideri” That would be proved. This information was dismissed oh the 17th; and Mr Macassey left Queenstown on the.lSbh, As soon as he returned to Queenstown he made certain , chalrges'against Mr Bsptham, of his conduct aa Returning Officer, which led to a lenjjl by : correspondence. Not'content with making these charges against Mr'Beetham. in his coirreSpondence, he publicly attacked -him 6n the hustings, : and there stated that he had been instrumental in removing a former sheriff and a'former registrar of the Supreme Court, and something to the effect that any Government officer he had had cause to complain against was’ removed, and that hq, would have an inquiry into the whole matter of Mr Beetham’s conduct, both as magistrate and returning officer.' He also made a statement that any Government officer who . offended him: would have cause to rue it. Ho doubt these statements were made iu an election contest, When Mr Macassey was very much excited. Perhaps he .was raised to this state of excitement by the appearance eu the apeno of another gentleman, Mr J, L. Shepherd, who acted! oh his behalf, ..though he <Mr Stout) did not know whether Mr Macassey requested him to do so. Mr Shepherd also attacked Mr Beetham. After Mr Macassey had publicly attacked him, and made such grave charges as to his conduct, Mr Beetham demanded that there should be * full inquiry, and sent the complaints to the Colonial Secretary ; but to this day Mr Macassey bad not proceeded - any farther with the matter. -Moreover, after the information against Warren was withdrawn, he ' threatened to bring the matter, before : the Supreme Court,- but never did so. Mr Macassey then attacked the telegraphist, a schoolmaster, Dr Douglas, and everybody who came in his way. Potsibly he was right in doing so ; but the fact, showed to the jury, and went to prove that that part of the article and also a part of the.plea of justification, that there was a very, strong feeling,in the district caused by Mr Macassey’s conduct there. By-tbe-bye, he attacked a clergyman there ; and mshbrir, the people of Queenstown got quite afraid of him, and the editor of the local paper would be called and say that they so reared him as to be very cautious in reporting him : if- he said anything on , the hustings which they did not thorbughly understand, they cut it out, for fear ,of making ,a mistake and having another action for libbl brought against them. Possibly Mr Barton would like the Dunedin Press to be soafraidofhim.—(Laughter.) Not until three days after Mr Beetham dismissed the information for libel did Mr Macassey attack him, and that attack made from the hustings was entirely without foundation. The article wept on to say ; —“ In the latter capacity he attacked Mr Beetham on the' hustings, and, failing to make an impression there, wrote to the Colonial "ecretary, stating " that he had sundry charges to bring against t , hurt —charges, we may remark, which he never even attempted to substantiate. The Chinese petition represents the results of Hie labors against Mr Beetham as Resident Magistrate,” These were true facts, as would come eut. The writer next said ‘ ‘ In the first place, the document in question appears not to be a petition at all, according to the true traMlation. w Of this there was 1 no ..doubt. The document was simply a £obk' forth© |collebtibp bf money. The

article went on to say :—“lt ia simply, a statement that the Chinese have grievances against the Warden; that a ‘clever lawyer from Dunedin’ has offered to get him removed for L 20.0, said L2OO only to be pai l in Ithe event of his removal. ” All this was said in the peti ion, but there' was not one word in the article which accused Mr Macassay of knowing anything about the mention of this L2OO, or the contents of the petition. If the jury read the article carefully, they would see that no reflection with reference to them was cast upon Mr Macassey at all. The next passage iu the article was as follows :—“ lhat the Chinese approve of this proposal, and that each individual who signs undertakes to pay a certain subscription towards the amount required. This statement, in the translation signed by Macassey, and presented by him to the Council, is transformed into a petition, and all mention of ‘ the clever lawyer from Dunedin ’ and of the guarantee of the L2OO, is judiciously ommitted. ” They would agree with Mr Reid when he said that that could only refer to the translator, and uo person i reading it could say that it brought a single charge against Mr Macassey. The writer went on to say :—“ This case would be sufficiently shady, even were this the whole of it, but there are further, facts to come—First, the Commissioners appointed by the Council, entirely exonerated Mr Beetham from the charges brought against him. ” This was true, and the report of the Commissioners would show it Then come the following words : “Secondly, the evidence of an expert proved that the. greater number of signatures attached to the petition were written bv the same hand.” This was proved before the Commissioners. The next passage was:—. “ Evidence which accounts for the fact that sundry Chinese whose signatures purported to be attached to the petition declared to the Commissioner their total ignorance of the matter ; and lastly, Mr Macassey’s statement to the Council that he had no hand in getting up this petition has been most distinctly contradicted. ” This was contradicted before the Commissioners. The article was moat careful, and did npt say that Mr: Macassey.’s statement was true or not, but simply stated a fact. It was nothing but a simple statement of fact, and this was the reason they were ready to prove that it was true The next passage was as follows—“Takenaltogether, the affair was as discreditable a matter as ever- came before, the Coundl.” There could be no doubt that it was—upon the part of the Chinese.—Lower down the article said: ■“ We should not again have referred to this matter had not this Chinese petition again cropped up.” The plaintiff med to prove that it was the Star that had first referred to this petition, but the evidence of Mr Morrison went to show that before the Star made its comments the Times ’ had a leading article on the subject. Now these facts that he had noted to the Jury the defendant said he was prepared to prove. He would prove the laying of the information'against the ‘ Wakatip” Mail’ before Mr Warden Beetham, .‘and its dismissal, and also the letters sent by the plaintiff to Mr Bee.tham after the dismissal. Then there were the subsequent charges brought by Mr Macassey, as contained in the following letter -

Dunedin, March 23, 1872.. ►SIR, —In view of an official inquiry, I feel it due to the position which you hold and the respect in which I ’have previously held you, to state specifically the grounds upon which I shall solicit an investigation. At the same time I trust that you willcredit me when I say that I should deeply regret being the means of making any rash or unfounded accusations against one r position. And if I can be convinced that I have erred in the conclusions at which T have arrived, no one will be ■ more happy than myself to make you every reparation. The grounds of my complaint are as follow 1. Needlessly delaying the nomination and election of candidates. , 2. Withholding copies of electoral roll. 3. The practical disfranchisement of mining electors at the Upper Shotover, Brackens, and Gibbs Town, through the non-appointment of polling places there. 4. The appointment as scrutineers of gentlemen who were notoriously partizans of Mr Hallenstein—

(a) Mr Weedon, who seconded a vote of, confidence at Queenstown. (b) JMr Lawton, whose firm had been actively instrumental in securing support for Mr Hallenstein. 5. The appointment of Lawton and Gardener s store as a polling booth, in contravention of the electoral laws. 6. Disclosing official correspondence, and more:especially to Dr Douglas, , 7. Not visiting the different centres of population in the district, whereby the appointment of necessary polling places was neglected. So far as my own information enables me to judge of the accuracy of the conclusions at which I have arrived, the second ground of complaint is the only one fairly open to question. But if any reasonable explanation is offered in regard to the remaining grounds of complaint, I shall be very-happy, as already indicated, to. withdraw the imputations which I have made, and to render you the most ample apology for having made'them,—l am, &c<, „ , James Macassky, Mr R. Beetham, Queenstown. To that letter Mr Beetham replied as follows ; Resident Magistrate’s Office, Queenstown, March 28,1872. ■ '. Sir,—Referring, tp your letter of the 23rd mst., I have the honor to thank you for your courtesy in particularising the grounds noon which you intend _tp. solicit an investigation. In replying, I have to state , 1. The Colonial Government is aware that ypu ;have publicly made certain statements, reflecting on the manner in which I. had conducted the late election. 2. That I have myself already requested an investigation. I am, &c., R. Beetham, __ _ ~ Returning Officer. Mr J. Macassey. . With that Iptter the correspondence and the matter was allowed to drop by Mr Macassey. There would bo proved hie letters' to the Colonial Secretary, his speech on the hustings in which he • made charges against Mr Beetham, his boast as to the dismissal of the Sheriff and Registrar, and his promise to present, the Chinese petition if it was got up Ibis petition was arranged for at a meeting held at the Arrow‘on the 21st of February, and the date of the dismissal of the information for libeL against the ‘ Wakatip Mail ’ was on the 17th of February. He would prove that Mr Macassey had an interview with the Chinese, and promised to present the petition if it was prepared. This would*support the plea with reference to the inciting of the Chinese. It was admitted that the plaintiff presented the petition, and then there was the appointment of the Commissioners and the report brought up by them. These were all the facts that the defendant would be prepared to prove, and if they were proved, it would help the jury to decide' whether the article complained of contained fair comments on the conduct of the plainly** °l n °k learned counsel on the other side had admitted that if the facts were the comments were weak and mild. If these leading facts were proved he was sure that the jury would agree with him that it was a pity that this case was ever brought into Court. Mr Macassey had not been attacked either in his private or professional character. He got very excited in an election contest at Queenstown, attacked the people there, and had been made the victim of the Chinese, who put him for ward and made a fool of him,' From some remarks that had been made by Mr Barton he would ask them to observe the way in which a lawyer looted at a publication in a newspaper. He said that the publication of

the translation of the petition was a libel, but that an action would not lie because of privilege.

His Honor said that this wasjthe case. If a petition was presented and published it was not libel, so long as it remained in the possession of the I egialature. If it was afterwards published by any person, it was libel, for then the privilege ceased. Mr rtout said Mr Barton had stated that the publication of the translation of the petition was really an attack upon Mr Macassey, although his name was nut mentioned in it. He had taken particular notice of this.

Mr Barton said that what he had stated was this : The Star really began its attacks in the article of the 16th, in which they stated that they reprinted from the ‘ Arrow Observer’ one of the documents laid before the Commissioners. This was done in such a way that if Mr Macassey had brought an action for libel against Mr Bell, he would not have been able to catch hold of him. Mr Stout said that all he wanted to show was that lawyers looked upon nearly everything that appeared in a newspaper as libel. He thought they had evidence of this. Mr Barton had attacked, and repeated his attacks, upon the Press, and had directed their attention to what he termed the licentiousness of the Press. On the question of the liberty of the Press, but that he did not wish to take up their time, he would quote from the fourth volume of “ Macaulay’s History of England,” in which it was stated that the freedom of the Press was the best guarantee of its purity. In those countries in which there was a restricted Press, or where there were censors over the Press, it would be found that the Press was less pare and less high in its aims. Instead of the Press here being united on any subject or banded together as had been stated by Mr Barton, there was the fact of a rival editor being put in the box by Mr Barton. If they said that no politician or public man was to have his conduct commented upon in unfavorable terms, that it was only the- duty of the Press to give judicious flattery all round, then he said—better be without any Press. He scarcely thought it necessary to point out to them the desirability of upholding the liberty of the Press upon all occasions. All who read the Press of Scotland, London, or Australia could not fail to see that the Press of Dunedin was almost emasculated, and afraid to attack anybody certainly afraid to tackle a lawyer

Mr Barton ; I think I am a living’example to the contrary. Mr Stout said that if the Press attacked Mr Barton, it was only in reply to an attack he had commenced. He could lay before them the writings of some of the best authors and some of the ablest men who had addressed juries on the subject of libel; but he would forbear, for the reason that the facts he intended to bring forward would show that in this case there was sufficient ground for comment. To say that the article contained one word stating that Mr Macassey knew anything of the L2OO, was simply to throw dust in the eyes of the jury. There was one other matter he had to allude to, and then he bad done Ihe other'side said they could not see why defen dint had put in a plea of justification, then one of fair comment, and then statedthat he would produce certain articles in mitigation of damages. It had been said that by doing this the defendant showed that the first article was malicious. The whole conduct of Mr Dell in this case showed that he was not actuated by anything like malice, but on the contrary gave Mr Macassey every fair When he found that the Victorian petition got into the paper of the 21st of June by mistake, he published a correct one, and when Mr G. R. Barton came from Queenstown and called upon him, he readily placed that gentleman’s statement in his paper. No doubt Mr Bell did not see the use of Mr Macassey raking up a thing of nine months ago, but to give Mr Macassey fair play, he published Mr G. B, Barton’s statement without any unfavorable comment. On the contrary he said that he believed Mr Barton’s statement to be true. Because he did this they were asked to say 'that the former article was malicious. Mr Bell had given Mr Macassey the opportunity of explaining the matter from hia .point of view,' and 1 tuere left it with his readers. When he was charged with publishing a libel he Was bound to show why he published the article, and that the statements of fact contained in the article were true. He must show this in self-defence. In his second plea he stated that aIL the statements of fact made by him were _ true, and some of them had been admitted in the plaintiff’s replication, He (Mr Stout) thought the jury would come to the conclusion that the statementsjwerejstatements of fact—-that was the only issue put; the jury were not asked to say that the matters: were true, but whether the statements of fact contained in the article were true in substance. If this second plea had nob been put in, what would counsel on the, other side have said, but that the defen. dant wilfully published in his paper statements that were utterly untrue? He was sure the jury would regret exceedingly that the case had ever been brought into Court; it was not one in which Mr f Macassey was attacked in any character. If there was an attack, it was what Mr B. B. Cargill said on the previous day—that the article meant that Mr Macassey bad found out by practical experience that “ the Heathen’ Chinee was peculiar.” [We are obliged to hold over the remainder of our report.] Wednesday, May 6. Mr Gillies, Speaker of the Provincial Council, was under examination during the early part of the day.