SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3496, 7 May 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Tuesday, May 5. (Before Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.) ALLEGED LIBEL. Evidence for the defendant was then called as follows :

Richard Beetham,; Warden and .Resident Magistrate at Queenstown, was also Returning Officer for the \Vakatip and Lakes, and held those positions in February 1872. He remembered Mr Macassey Contesting the General Assembly election at Queenstown in 1872. Fnor to the nomination in March, Mr Macassey laid a criminal information" against the editor of the W akafcip Mail * for libel* The case was heard on February 17. After the dismissal of, the information, Mr Macassey requested that the documents should be forwarded to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, as the matter should not rest there. No further action appeared to be taken in the matter, except that some time after he received instructions from the Registrar 1 to send these documents down, Up to this time his relations with Mr Macassey were of a friendly cjxarater, and Mr Macassey had dined ak his house. Two or three days after the dismissal of the, information. 'Mr Macassey met him in the Street, and cut him dead. Nothing Had occurred that he was aware of, except the dismissal of the information. Mr Macassey afterwards wrote to him with respect to election matters, and the first letter was dated’ the 21st of February, 1872, four days after the information was dismissed. In this letter Mr Macassey stated that Mr Scott, the schoolmaster and Deputy Returning Officer at Macetown, was reported to be the medium of communication between Mr Ualleastein’s Committee and his supporters at Queenstown; that Scott had “shouted” for persons who had signed Air Hallenstein’s requisition, and was not out of pocket thereby, and j had otherwise shown himself to be a political I partisan of Mr Hallenstein. He would state that he forwarded this to Mr Beetham as Returning Officer, and that a copy of the letter would be forwarded to the Government. To the letter witness replied on the 22nd of February. He received another letter from Mr Macassey, 1 dated February 24, 1872. saying that he had misconstrued .the purport of the former letter by Construing it into a charge against himself. He wished to give a statement of facts, to prevent the schoolmaster being appointed Deputy Returning Office. Scott had stated that he was Deputy Returning Officer at Macetown the previous year, and expected that he would be appointed again. Until he found to the contrary, he thought himself entitled to believe that Scott had been re-appointed. He was given to understand that the charge of political partisanship could be preved against another gentleman who was to be appointed Deputy Returning Officer. On the 26th February, 1872, he wrote another letter to Air Macassey, saying that it was his intention to appoint some person other than Air Scott. On February 29 he received from Mr Macassey another letter, saying that as he thought it probable that an official inquiry would result, he would defer what he had to say until the close of the action. After that he would ask why the 1 day ot nomination had been needlessly post* poned? fvhy difficulties were thrown in his wayiti t tie obtaining of copies of the electoral roll? v i y a large number of miners were disfranchised? why additional polling places had not been appointed? and finally, forwarding a letter from Mr Miller and himself, requesting the appointment‘of additional polling places in three localities. He had the letter referred to, dated Feb. 28, asking that the additional polling places should be appointed, and saying that*the refusal would enhance Mr Halvr* B k e * n s chances at their (Messrs Miller and Macassey’s) expense. To this he replied on March Ist, that as the advertisement appointing the polling places had been published, no alteration could fee made. On the 4th of March

he received a letter from Mr Macassey saying that unless the polling places were advertised ”7 the next Wednesday, it would be v tdo late to g- ve effect to his and Me! Miller’s joint request tie was in a position to say thata large number or miners, who could not afford to go to Skipper a Point t° vote, Would be .unable to record their votes, and that during the course-of the previous years election, additional'polling piaces had been appointed. To this he replied on the 6th of March, referring to his letter of the Ist of March. On March 23, he received another letter from Mr Macassey. On the 28th of March he-replied. This correspondence went on-during Mr Macassey’s candidature, and after the polling. On the nomination day witness presided as Returning Officer, some days after the dismissal of the information against the ‘Wakatip Mail,’ and after the correspondence had commenced. Mr Macassey addressed the assembled crowd, and in the course of his address made particular allusion to witness. What he said was a gross insult. He accused witness of needlessly delaying the election, and of withholding copies of the Electoral Roil. He also said, either at the declaration of the poll or the nomination, that witness, by opposing the appointment of additional polling places, had materially injured him; that a polling place had been appointed in Mr jlHallenstem’s stronghold at Shotover Bridge; that before he came into the ij fc , was M opinion that the .Warden should not be removed, but that since his arrival he had very materially altered his opinion. . The greater part of the speech was a direct attack upon witness and everyone in the place. He complained of witness having refused to visit out-distncts as Warden, and said that if witness had done so, be would have known how “ea with votes were in these dismots. Mr Macassey was wrong in this. Mr Macassey said that he had occasion to make complaints ■ against two Government officers, and that these officers were dismissed. He also . no G° ve mment officer had ever offended him without having cause to rue it. The officers he mentioned were the late Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Sheriff, fee did not mention the name of Captain Frazer to witness’s recollection, and say that 5 he : had nccased him of corrupt conduct on the Bench. Mr Macassey’s manner appeared to witness tb be exceedingly insulting, and he spoke in a very supercilious manner. Grosser charges could' scarcely have been made. With reference to what was said about Shotover bridge, witness understood, that be was accused of appointing a polling place there to favpr.Mr Hallenatem. Mr Macassey accused , the telegraphist at Queenstown of improper conduct. ! io witness’s, knowledge Mr Macassey never prosecuted any of the charge’s he had made. Witness was Warden and Resident Magistrate when the Chinese began to arrive in the district, and up to the time ofJMr Macassey’s candidature he heard no complaints with respect to the administration of the law.

To Mr Barton: Mr Maoassey wrote to the Government and said that he would press the charges when he got certain information, but witness had heard no more of the matter. • k. ere read extracts from the article i? i Mail.’ in which it was stated ’ that Mr Miller had retired “ for a consideration. He then asked Mr Beetham if, upon his solemn oath as a Magistrate and a gentleman, these words did not mean that Mr Macas-' had bnbed Mr Miller to retire ? .

Witness said he declined to give an answer. As a Magistrate he would require further consideration, and as a gentlemen he had nothing whatever to do with it. ;

Mr Barton here read portions of Mr Beetbam’s decision m the *Wakatip Mail’ libel case; and asked if it was proved that Mr Macassey would not give Mr Miller anything to, retire, • and if Mr Miller would not receive anything. Witness said he would require to read the depositions, which would take at least ah hour. ! Was particularly careful in this matter. i X " a Uenßtein had never dined at his house, although he had been asked several times. Heasked Mr Maoassey to dine with him as a matter of courtesy to a stranger in the, district, and a barrister. Did not recollect shaking hands with Mr Maoassey at Arrowtown a week after the Court case. Would say that such a thing was highly improbable. Did not recollect saying to Mr G. B. Barton that he was glad Air Macassey had not taken his decision to heart. He and Air Barton were not on veiy intimate terms, and witness would never make a remark of that kind to him. Had no hostile feeling to Mr Barton. Had heard rumors that Mr Barton was going to leave thedistrict. All the other returning officers were re-appointed but Mr Scott. If Mr Maoassey’s charges were true, Scott was fiot a proper person to be. appointed. He made no inquiry at all i“te ™ e o Charg68 > for he bad previously heard that Mr Scott was taking an active part in the election, and had decided that it would hot be * advisable to elect him. The complaints sent to the _Goverment by Mr Macassey were oalcu- - lated to injure witness in his position. Was a little frightened nf Mr Macassey, then, but had since heard that his bark was a good deal worse ' than his bite. (Mr Barton tried, to elicit from . witness that he had neglected" his duty, or acted with partiality to Mr Hallenmu U i» „ cha JF s which th e witness denied. ) that Mr Maoassey had cut him in the dm instance was correct. On a subsequent oocasion he saw Mr Macassey, and matte a slight , advance to him, and Mr Macassey responded m rather a cold manner. A* .to Mr Macassey not being able to get copies of the Electoral JtoU, a copy had by order of the Governmentto be sent to each Registration Officer ih New Zealand, which left him short of copies. Mr Macassey had at least six copies, if not more whereas each other candidate had oply three! He did not know that on the election day—when they wpuld have been too late fer use—a pessage was sept to Mr Macasspy that he could have copies of the roll. H* woqld haye done , ail he could for the convenience of Mr Maoas“i-. It vas not the that he disclosed ■ official correspondence to Dr Douglas: be did' not Chow bun the official letters, but told him ‘ the persecutions he was subjected to. Dr Douglas was a Justice of the Beane, and one of his oldest fnends in the district,'and what ha told him was m the way of getting advice j ho spoke to him an one friend to another. He had spoken .to Mr Dudley Ward in his Ufa. ♦wnSP reporter of te® Wakatip Mail, and have had connection with the paper for a long time, almost froin the time it started, for &bout ten years, I remem- k her weU when Mr Macassey came to Queentto wn as a candidate for Wakatip in the General Assembly. I was at the nomination. I remem- r ber charges made there by Mr Macassey against the Returning Officer, Air Beetham, against Mr Boss, a clergyman, against the schoolmasters, and against those who telegraphed messages to the Dunedin journals. He accused the Returning Officer of having delayed the' election, of not having appointed polling planes at large centres of population, of having an-" pointed one at Mr Hallenstein’s strong-hold at bhotover (meaning, I presume, his farm), skid that he would report Mr Beetham’s conduct.' and that any complaints he had ever made against Government officers they had occasion to rue, and mentioned two Government officers whose dismissal he had caused. He said Mr Beetb \m s reports were guided by the opinion of Duuedm, and that he (Mr Beetham) had not visited parts of the district. Air Thomas ‘ Luther Shepherd spoke on the occasion—he favorable to Mr Maoassey. I once saw. Mr Macassey at Powell’s, playing billiards, Mr Macassey was playing billiards with, I think, Mr Henry Barton or Mr Powell Mr Macassey said he would make it hot for Mr Beetham, • and that he had a good game or card (I ferget what word he used) to play—a good game at Mr Beetham. I told Mr Macassey, in the Court at Queenston, that I wrote the article in the * Alail’ Mr Scott, the schoolmaster, wrote to the paper after Jthe election, saying he had done all he could against Mr Macassey. I considered Mr Scott an impartial man. As a Deputy-Returning Officer he would do his dutv impartially. J

Wesley Turton : I was practising at Queenstown at the tune'Mr to “n-------test the election. I defended Mr Warren of charged, on a crunmal information by Mr f wa?pa4em i A at h j?h mg PU^ed a W oZhim. l was present at the nomination. Mr Beetham presided as Returning Officer. I h3 £ Mr Beetham SrT^ 6 - ° f h & * ddress aUude to

H. Manders, recalled by Mr Barton: I believe my report of the nomination is a correct report, but it is not not a full oh 6 - The words, “ No Government official had yet offended' him but. had cause to rue if’ did not occur in . the report, but part of what he said was riot inserted, as it was too bitter and personal. It was stated, however, that during the speech Mr Macassey said that during ten years he had only to complain of two Government officials. My notes were checked off by two persons. The matter of what Mr Macassey said was much talked about, and it was said that it was a good thing for Mr Beetham that Mr Macassey was not elected. •

Mr Beetham previous to the electionthey had lost a good many cases. They had asked me previously to report Mr Beetham, but 1 would not do so. . I heard nothing in the way of a petition till Mr Macassey came to the district. The Chinese were dissatisfied, and they had wanted the matter to be reported to * if- >* overnm . en t. The Chinese wanted charges were libellous put into the newspaper. _Wesley Turton, re-called by Mr Smith : Mr Macassey also at the nomination made charges against Mr Beetham as Warden. Mr .Macassey was standing next to Mr Beetham, and was very insulting to him. In July, 1872, the Chinese said that Macassey knew nothing about the petition till after it had been got up. They now said to the contrary. Witness did fi me threaten Quan Hay or any other Chinaman, that he would prosecute him for forgery. When Mr Macassey arrived, in the Grace and Eager case, at Queenstown, he cut witness for a time. He had an explanation with him, and they parted on friendly terms. Wednesday, May 6. J. L. Gillies, Speaker of the Provincial Council.' .1 remember the plaintiff presented an English translate n of a Chinese petition to the Council in 1872. On the 14th May ' plaintiff moved for leave t(> withdraw it, but permission was withheld. He then moved for aspecialcommittee, -and the documents now produced: were laid .before that committee, ; but at whose request I,do not know, t jamtiff;moved at that time ‘‘ that the telegram read by Mr lunes in the Provincial Council;”.: ;be baindhd-' to the committee, which, was carried*. Mr Innea was a member of that committee. It made .a report to the effect, speaking from memory, that a commission should be ap- : pointed, and that an application should be made to ( summon certain witnesses from Queenstown. On the motion of Mr Mervyn this was over-ruled, and the committee discharged. The committee, therefore, made no report, really. I was-one of the 'three commissioners , appointed to inquire into the charges against Mr Warden Beetham j Mr JP. Maitland and Mr Warden.Robinson being ■ the other.two... (The admission, of the evidence and its report were, objected to by Mr Barton, but received in evidence.) ; The commission was appointed to inquire into the charges against Warden Beetham. By Mr mith : Several persons stated that Mr Macassey had been spoken to in getting up the petition; Mr Barton and his ; brother and soine Chinese. Mr Beetham read his statement from; a written: document. Mr Beetham made a statement cmtradict ing Mr Macassey’s statement in the Provincial Council—that he. had nothing to. do with getting up the' petition. The paper* . on the tabie of. the Council were open to the public, j They , were not printed in orderi ta save expense. . Cross-examined by Mr Barton : Mr Macassey might have asked to- withdraw the petition, because- it hadnot been presented • in accordance with the . forma of the- House; bat the ,impression.on my, mind-was, it was a pity it Was presented. - He'might have suggested it as a means of - his withdrawing iti i The commissioners' decided that they had nothing to do with Mr Maoassey’s conduct. i> Mr Beetham and several witnesses contradicted, Mr Macassey’s statement. -Mr G. B. : Barton . distinctly contradicted him by , saying he had.been spoken- to on the subject of , presenting the petition, . Mr HenryBarton istatfed he was in conversation with l him about: the, He . distinctly said : all the witnesses said Mr ; Macassey • had been spoken to about the. petition, ; but had no hand in getting it up,. If-he had been spoken to he must have known something aboutthepetitiom .Before' lie could say that no witness had contradicted the statement of Mr Mabassey, he must read the whole evidence/ The statemerifTwas put in by Mr Beetham/ f whose evidence went to' the extent of' saying that Mr Macassey , was fully aware of the petition bdng got up; not that he had any hand in it.’. He never had to answer a. charge’of libel. . He Trad thri articleTri the ; -EyaisriNG Star''some; ti^C- ago: Thought the only paragraph affecting Mr Macassey was the statemeut That .he had'ndthitig to do with getting up the petition; The rest, of the articlefs distinct from’it; ; The tendency of the article was severe'bh Mr Maaasaey, and all Connected wi£b the petition; r ' He should not have inserted thearlicle." There were many such inserted iri 1 the ’Star he should not insert, '1 He'article so equivocal in its character, he should pot' place much dependence on it ip his esHmition of a man’s character, ' It did not . charge 1 Mr Macassey with conpocting the petitiop. He thought such -ah article,' if - any ’ harm in it, would do more harm if inserted in the' ‘ Bruce Herald ’ ■ thjn in the Stab, on' account of ,itg wider circulation. •' “ ! : Re-examiped by Mr Barton : Mp Beetham Was anmopg 1 tb get oqt’ iridj-p evidence thaa the commissioners allowed" him. They did not allow him to gfi mto the subject? Mr G. B, Barton's eyjdepce before the commissiop was that he wrote out the statfppept. 'The Honorable W,'H, Reynolds, Commissioner of Customs,, examined by Mr Smith ; Did hot produce' any correspondence requested by the plaintiff respecting Warden Beetham.- -It was under the control of Mr Bathgate. He had hot the correspondence.' By, Mr Barton; Had probably read the article when published. Had rather not give an opinion on the tendency of the article without studying the whole question. John Bathgate, Resident Magistrate, held the correspondence of Mr Macassey with the Colonial Secretary. He did not object to produce the correspondence on personal grounds, but was instructed io submit them to his Honor; who should judge of the propriety of their production. Hi®- .Hpoor declined to propounce judgment in the matter. Mr Smith asked his Honor to look over the papers and decide upon the matter. His Honor declined to take tha responsibility. . ° • Mr Bathgate had received his instructions from the Acting Secretary, Mr Cooper. J.-P. Maitland,' Resident Magistrate, was one of the commissioners appointed to inquire into, the charges against Mr Beetham as' Warden. Beetham nude application to put .what he had to say in writing, which was done. .Mr Beetham’s statement amounts to a partial contradiction of Macasaey’s statement, Macassey’s having interested himself in the petition amounted to a partial contradiction, . No translation of the petition was before the commissioners, exoepting that presented to the Council. He could riot whether there was a translation. He believed there was something like a translation Bis reason was they com merited in it on the report and distrusted it The commissioners found great difficulty in arriving .at a.translation they could trust arid had a Chinese interpreter whom they could trust, John Alloo. He could identify the petition presented by Mr Macassey. It , is that,put into John Aubo’s hands; hW' Homrr That: was- one used in getting John Alloo’s translation. It was sigped

“J. Ff. Macassey.” During the course of the inquiry only one translation was made. Mr W. Turton had another made which was handed in. He thought Alloo was recalled in regard to the payment of I 200. By Mr Barton: What John Alloo translated was the book before the Court. The four books were produced by different witnesses at various stages. The only viva voce rimslation was by John Alloo. ’He sail until be had seen those books he saw nothing about the L'2oo. Thefourbooks were said to be copies, John Alloo gave the commissioners to understand that when on the previous day he was making a translation, he never saw the books of the petition before—but it amounted to “thatunti then he saw nothing of the L 200.” That was the only evidence before sending in the report. * To the jury ; In his amended translation of the.petition, John Alloo said he noted the allusion to the L2OO which was in the petition.

William Ah Chew, 19 years old : Was partly educated in < tago, and had not forgotten his .own language. The document began at the; bottom and read up and down. Ihe translation of the petition was as follows “It has always been heard that a man of all virtue ia a princely man, and benevolent and righteous. • It is believed by all under heaven : therefore is it necessary to walk the great path of reason, which induces love to all creatures, and compassionate tenderness. Therefore our countrymen, having counted it far to come a thousand leagues, and having arrived in a strange country in search of wealth, expected the Chinese and foreigner to work together in harmony. Yet at Queenstown there is feeling of anger, indignation, and resentment against the magistrate of that place, who is wicked and vicious. Perhaps a foreigner takes our people’s mining claims. Perhaps a foreigner, strong, violent, bad, strikes and injures us. If we go to law, this magistrate does not distinguish and separate clearly, but at once takes and inflicts tines on us. Thus it may be seen this magistrate appropriates the fines in the dark. A blessed means of support— a largo lawyer,' who is just come from a large town, who is upright and just, respects us as men of ability. We have spoken to him about the subject,, and he. promised that he would put the matter right for us. freeing him thus upright, we expect our people, with the same heart, will unite their efforts that this magistrate be- removed away, and another put in his stead. We will be very glad—(Then follow the names.) —Wong Kuu Yin.”, There Svas 'toothing :about subscription or money in that copy: ’- Mr bmith appliedto have the boek number three—the original petition—translated.