SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3498, 9 May 1874, Page 1 (Supplement)

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL'SITTINGS.

Thursday, May 7. (Before Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.) alleged libel. We continue our report from yesterday:— Mr Barton asked, the witness if any communication had been received from Mr Justice Ward on the action. _ Mr Smith objected to the question, Mr Ward being a total stranger to the action. Mr Barton quoted Taylor to show that a communication between a client’s attorney and one of his witnesses was not privileged (Lewisand Penington 29, L. J.; 1870,|p. 670.) If a solicitor obtains information from his client or from other sources he was bound to disclose it. It was ruled that privilege only extended to communications by hj s client. ..His, Honor said the case showed that communications between the attorney and one of his.client’s witnesses, were not privileged. \ Mr Hagaitt submitted that communications verbal or as letters were not privileged. It was laid down that no communications were privileged; and those cases fully bore out that statement to be correct. (Goodall and Little.) It was held letters written by defendants to their solicitors were privileged (Best and Menzies.) It was also held letters passing between co-defendants were not privileged. (Qlyn v. Caulfield, M’Naughton and Gordon, page 463.) Mr Smith submitted that [not one case touched the point, which was that communications between a total stranger to the suit and the defendant’s solicitor to tbe suit ought not.to be admitted. In the cases cited the communications were between parties to the suit, and parties to tbe suit and his solicitor. Such a conclusion, would [render any letter on the subject producible, no matter what the subject. He did not care who had written to Mr Turton, except with permission of Mr Bell, or in his interest. Mr Stout said the only case bearing on the. point was Glyn v, Caulfield, . which did not touch the general question of privilege. What they proposed to do; was to get out of Mr') nr ton what one of their witnesses told another witness. Mr Barton cited the case of Sketchly v. Conolly, 2, New [Reports, Queen’s Bench, p. 23 Mr Smith held that the case did not touch 1 the point. ; His Honor considered the questions inadmissible. The defendant, by adopting the article, made himself the real defendant Mr Barton would ask the witness, ‘ Did he receive any interview s or communication from Judge Ward respecting the defence to be set up in this action ? Next, If so, had the witness acted upon.it? and the third, Did he receive the original draft pleas from Judge Ward? and, Did he receive suggestions, for counsel from him?. Did he draw up defendant’s case, or any part of it ? Was Judge Ward the real defendant? Did he know whether Judge Ward had indemnified the defendant, either directly or indirectly ? and, lastly, Did he know whether Judge Ward was looked to to indemnify the defendant. directly’or indirectly? His Honor would reject all the questions except the seventh. . Mr Smith objected to the questions. .(Mr Barton read the cprrespondence between the Editor of the Star and Messrs Smith and Anderson. The former’s letter was as follows : nr f „ ... , . Dunedin, May 22,1872. Messrs. Smith and Anderson. Dear Sirs,—l am favoured with your courteous note of yesterday, in which, instructed by Mr. Macassey, you ask an apology for insertion in the Evening Star of an expract from the Wakatip Mail containing a sentence which Mr, Macassey appropriates to himself, and considers grossly libellous. Personal regard for Mr. Macassey, apart from public duty as a journalist, would prevent my allowing any wanton attack uponniiiLto appear in the journal,but in tbis cose I conceive the msertion of the offensive passage, no matter to whom it alludes, was a public duty. The character of one of our ablest Wardens was attacked, and Under discussion "Y."“ e Provincial Council, many of the members of which may not have access to the Wakatip Mail, and that which was published in the Evening Star was merely an account of a fact bearing evidence to the high character and respect entertained for Mr. Beetham py the Acting-Mayor, Councillors, and Justices of the town! The intention of the passage complained of they themselves only can give. To me it seemed necessary to show that m their opinion the allegations in the petraon were groundless. Personally, I am unacquainted with Mr. Beetham, but as his character was endangered by the action taken in the Provincial Council. I considered it only bare justice to one who has the reputation of being a highly efficient officer, that those who are asked to condemn him on the allegations of the Chinese, should have placed before them the opinion of the European residents; before they, decided. On these grounds I must decline to apologise, but in justice to Mr. Macassey, I shall be glad if he thinks it worth while to insert an authorised contradiction of what he assumes to be a charge against him, and which I with yourselves are rejoiced to learn, and everybody will bejieve, is groundless.— l am, Ac., G-EO. Bell. .Letters, from Mr Kettle to Kenyon and Turton, and the reply were put in. ~Jas. Macassey: Remembered going up to Queenstown about the 4th or sth February, 1872, and arrived on the 6th pr 7tb, and left Queenstown on. the 14th March. On his arrival at Queenstown Messrs Hallenstein and Miller declared themselves as candidates, and a man named Shepherd, a shoemaker. Mr Smith objected to any question respecting negotiations with Mr Miller to retire. fitness said all the matter between ' Miller and himself was in the depositions. As a matter of fact he did not attack the Press, but thp Press opened the ball by an attach upon him. Mr Beetham was mistaken if he thought witness cut him in the street. He might have passed him in the street. He happened to meet him at Feaney’a hotel; he shook bands with him. He quite admitted before the day of nomination he did pass him without notice, but that was;in consequence of a communication from Dr Douglass and Mr Boyes. The nature of it was .such as to render it desirable communication should cease. It was evident it could, not have been .made without Mr Beethara’s knowledge. His first letter was written on 213t February, and it was after that the coolness took’plad 5. He was often from Qaeen town, and did hot see Mr Beetham more than half a, dozen times. He' Was under the impression at that date that Scott was deputy returning officer, and that he had taken an active part for Hallenstein. He had received the information from |cott. At the time of writing that letter he had no feeling against Mr Beetham. The universal rule was. to reappoint a deputy returning [officer. The nomination of can didates: took place on the 9fch March. The three' Candidates were Hallenstein, Miller, and himself. It was true his speech was a personal speech, with the exception of a few goldfields subjects. The speech was in reply to the gossip of the town, and he had only to refer to the ‘ Wakatip Mail’ to show that defence was needed. , He then wished to impress upon electors that they were called upon to resist the official influences with which he had to contend. The third portion was in regard to goldfields subjects. He first alluded to school teachers, who had voted in a manner, Mr Scott as being in contravention of the rules of the Education Boards He objected to its being imputed as making a wholesale attack on persons connected with the place. He attacked the minister, because he thought he acted_ in. a way. that no minister of religion would act. He forgot whether he referred to anything until he came to the action of the Returning Officer. He spoke in his usual way, : saying what he had to say | simply, and'only raising his voice, so as to be heard by thirty or forty peopki, and was loudly cheered. In speaking 6f Mr Beetham, he spoke of him as

one that had been highly eulogised to him. and during ten years’ residence in Otago hj( had only had to complain of two officials ; and concluded that he thought those present would see he was not likely to attack any one. It was stated by Wesley Turton, Man ders, and Beetham, that he had said any officer that offended him had occasion to rue it. He dcu ; ed moat positively he ever said so, and had half-a-dozen witnesses to proveit With regard to his being supercilious, he addressed them in the same way as at present. Ho had no intention of insulting. As to the statement that he would make it hot for Mr Beetham, it would be denied by Mr Henry Barton or Mr PowelL The only conversation between Mr Powell and himself that could be construed into that was during dinner on the nomination day. Mr Powell said. “ Well, sir, you make it hob for Mr Beetham and it seemed to be a reflection on his plain speaking. He was positive sufficient polling-places had not been appointed.

Friday, Mat 8.

MACASSEY V. BELL. We continue Our report:— Mr Macassey explained that he was misunderstood yesterday when he said Mr Henry Barton was in town, and Mr Henry Powell was in Court. He meant to have said Mr Powell was in Queenstown. Examination continued: Twelve months previously I, in company with Mr Barraud and others, went on a tour to Queenstown, and was introduced to Mr Beetham. Mr Barton proceeded to put a question in a form to which Mr Smith objected. His Honor read from his notes Mr Beetham’s evidence of what the plaintiff’ said on the hustings respecting his conduct as returning officer. To Mr Barton : I wish to say before alluding to Mr Beetham, that I proposed saying what I had to say prior to the declaration of the poll; that if I reserved what I had to say until after the poll of the election was known, my opinions might be attributed to the mortification of defeat; and I thought it fairer to every one to say what I had to say before the election took place; also that if what I said was damaging to myself, I would be the sufferer, I also wanted to know why the election was so needlessly delayed. The writ was issued on February 6, and it arrived on the 14th; and I made arrangements for addressing the electors. I then said that appointing March 9, for election day, left a wide margin between the time of my addressing the electors, and that it was natural to suppose that the effect of my speeches would become evanescent; that the result was that I had to make a second appearance in ■ some instances; that at least a fortnight might have been saved by fixing the election a fortnight sooner; and that such a space of time was useful to me personally and otherwise. I then referred to the Waiau election and said that although th,e writ for that place had been issued some time after that of Wakatipu, a contested election had already taken place there. I did not accuse Mr Beetham of purposely, but only of needlesly and unnecessarily doing so. I then spoke of the difficulty of obtaining copies of the electoral roll, only getting two or three, and on sending through Mr Barton for a further supply, I understood they were refused- I said the result was that I had to get copies written out, putting me to considerable expense aud inconvenience. About a dozen were written out for my use. On my first applying to Mr Beetham about the roll, I paid for the one I obtained. He took it from a bundle of fifty or sixty, but I lost that on my way to Arrow. On the next day I got a copy from another person and subsequently through Mr Powell aud others. There were seven polling places appointed, with a deputy returning officer at each place, and of course a roll at each. On the hustings I also complained of the practical disfranchisraent of a number of the miners by tbe non-appointment of sufficient polling places. Two witnesses have said I complained of Shotover Bridge being appointed, because of its being Mr Hallenstein’s stronghold, but they got that from the ‘ Wakatip Mail.’ I never said so. I said the principal one is at Queenstown, another at Arrow, and one at the Shotover—equidistant from the towns, and that if it was necessary to have one for the Shotover, it was surely equally necessary that the miners between the Gentle Annie and the Arrow—about 25 miles—should have had a polling place at Gibbstown for their convenience. X said there was a considerable number of miners in that district, and it was scarcely to be expected that they would spend tvyo days in riding to the Arrow and back to vote—paying their own expenses and horse lure. All that could have been obviated in the way I stated. I made a similar explanation with regard to the miners at the Shotover branches, and I said that for them to come down to Skippers to rote would cause a loss of two days and expenses ; and I also complained of the absence of a polling place at Bracken’s Gully, It is certainly only' three or four miles from Arrow, but is very inaccessible—it would make the loss of a day to a person going to Arrow to vote. I also said that if these various places had been appointed a large number of votes would have been recorded for me by persons who, as it was, did not vote at ail—several electors told me so. I said that it was idle that because the advertisement had been published fixing the polling places, new ones could not have been fixed, and that of my own knowledge, in the Dunedin election of 1871, and other elections, such had been done. X also said the returning officer had been applied to, to have more ap" pointed, and that he had declined to do so. At the close of my address, I alluded to a number of mining questions—among others the desirability of a periodical removal of wardens. 1 did not,, as Mr Beetham has stated, say that I had that opinion before I went to the Wakatip, as I knew nothing of wardens or goldfields, but that when I went there I came to the conclusion that the periodical removal or shifting of wardens was not advisable. Mr Beetham told me before the nomination, when I was at his house, that this question had been frequently brought up, and mainly through the instrumentality of goldfields’ agitators—such as Mr Shepherd, perhaps. Mr Smith objected to the statement of any conversations with Mr Beetham. His Honor thought such was inadmissible, unless Mr Beetham had been examined on thorn. Witness: All the candidates discussed is this question of the removal of wardens. I told the electors I had found a strong opinion among the miners in favor of it; that the .Mining Commissions had recommended it in their report; that the same rule obtained with regard to County Court judges in Victoria ; and that the principle, especially in small communities, appeared to mo a correct One. I said I had visited a part of the district where the face of a warden had never been seen, and that I thought these periodical changes would infuse greater vitality into the organisation of the goldfields department; a- 0 Relieved such changes, had been efieced in the Province hence it was desirthey should be all placed on the same footing. Mr Miller followed my address, and the scene became somewhat animated, the returning officer giving permission to the candidates to speak again. Mr Hallenstein came forward spluttering like an egg in a fryingpan. Dr Douglas also spoke, and then Mr Shepherd came forward. His Honor: Is that the great Mr Shepherd? (Loud laughter, Mr Shepherd being ‘in the Court.) Is it the member ?

Witness : Yes ; the gentleman is in Court, your Honor. Mr Shepherd made a stirring address, but a short one. He said he had complained of the proceedings, but that thby were not to be compared to those at the previous election, which was a disgrace to the Colony. Mr Beetham then turned round to me and said—“Do you accuse me of partiality ?” I said, “No, I do not.” I went forward again and said to the electors—- _ Mr Smith again objected to the conversation being admitted, and after another wrangle with Mr Barton, His Honor ruled it was inadmissible, and expunged the conversation from his notes. Mr Smith said he would be willing that Mr B eetham be recalled to be examined as to the conversation, and then it would be admissible. Mr Barton agreed to this. Honor: Then I shall have to write “ stet.” against my erasure. Witness: I said, “ I wish you not t.p associate mo with what has fallen from Mr Shepherd, but take what I have said with my own lips and judge me accordingly.” Mr Beetham then came forward and said, after referring to what had been said about the delay of the election, “ What has fallen from Mr Shepherd I shall treat with the contempt it merits, but Mr Maccaesey is. a gentleman of a very different stamp, and I shall treat him with more respectalso that he would show that the day had been fixed as early as possible, and that ho defied me, lawyer as I was, to prove him wrong. I did not make any complaint against Mr Beetham. I did write a letter to the Colonial Secretary, but I did not press the matter. Was a partisan of Mr Hilllenstein appointed as returning officer? Mr Smith objected to the question. Mr Barton said defendant’s side wished to defendant’s acts with the action of p.aintiff in reference to Mr Beetham. Because plaintiff was supposed to have committed wrongs against Mr Beetham, therefore defendant was not entitled to commit a wrong against plaintiff His Hoaor disallowed the question. Witness : Mr G. B. Barton introduced to me the subject of a Chinese petition, sometime in February, near the end of the month. I stopped at Powell’s hotel, nearly opposite Mr Barton s, so I used to see a good deal of the latter. He was also my business agent, a political ally of mine, and a friend for many years. I met him at this time in Ballarat street, and he said, “ By the way, a deputation from the Chinese has been to my office, and want to know whether you will present a petition to the Government which the Chinese are getting up, asking fpr an inquiry into Beetham’s conduct, and his removal.” I asked him what it was about, and he stated there was a violent prejudice against the Chinese all over the|Lakes“dißtrict; that they were singularly unsuccessful in their lawsuits (Mr Barton saying he was their legal adviser, and standing counsel) ; that they had lost all confidence in Mr Beetham ; and that it was almost useless to take a Chinese case into Court. I knew myself there was a strong feeling against the Chinese. I told him that if he thought there was any grounds to warrant such a petition, aud it reached me through him, I would present it. I think Mr Barton used the words “ to the Government.” The petition I received afterwards, aud presented to the Provincial Council. I believe a day or two afterwards Mr H. Barton alluded to the circumstance of the Chinese deputation coming to his brother’s office, and I said I had hoard about it. I don’t remember more than this one conversation with Mr G. B. Barton or his brother on the subject; in fact I did not know, while I was in Queenstown, that anything had been,done. Almost immediately after this interview we were walking slowly up the street, I think on the same day, when he said “ Here’s John Alloo, the Chinese interpreter; I’ll introduce you,” Then “ Alloo, allow me to introduce you to Mr*Macassey.” He said. “Oh, I know Mr Macassey.” I said “ Yes, I believe you acted as interpreter in the St. Bathan’s shooting case.” Alloo told a parcel of lies in that case. Mr Barton said to Alloo, “ I have spoken to Mr Macassey about the petition,” and he replied “ All right.” I don’t think I referred to the petition again until I went to Arrow some time after, with Mr Barton in some case. A Chinaman on horseback stopped me and said “You, Mr Macassey?” I Ba id “ Yes.” He then said, “ You know me ? ” I said “ No. He replieddhat his name was Quan Hao, and he reminded me that ho had acted as interpreter in the case of Sew Hoy v. Chaplin. He then asked if Mr Barton had spoken to me about the petition ; to which I said he had. He then asked if I had agreed to present it to the Government, to which I replied that I had promised to do so on the condition that it came through him. The conversation lasted not over a minute or a couple of minutes. It was a casual meeting. I never opened my lips to one of the many hundred Chinese I have seen in the Lakes district all the time I was there,, except the two I have just mentioned. I had no hand, directly or indirectly, in getting up the petition; The statement of the article that I bad concocted it, is utterly and absolutely false. After I left the district Mr Barton’s letter, with the petition, reached me onMey 6,1872 ; also the translation in the handwriting of Mr Barton. Mr Barton said he wished to put in the letter as evidence. Mr Smith asked His Honor if he had not ruled that it was not evidence ? His Honor: I really don't remember—but it is not evidence, Mr Smith: Still, I am willing to admit it. We shall see who can be accused of keeping anything from the jury. Mr Barton : I object to being placed in this position. I shall not read it; it is not strictly admissable. Witness: My recollection is that the letter and documents were handed to one of the clerk’s in my friend’s office, and Mr Barton’s instructions carried out. I should be glad to have that letter read, as it is a matter which affects me personally. Mr Smith : You shall have an opportunity in cross-examination. Witness: On May 10 I presented the petition in the Provincial Council in the usual form, handing it to Mr Gillies, the Sneaker. Ho called me back and pointed out that I had not signed it, ns required by the Standing Orders. I at once wrote my signature across the translation, and across the Chinese book. Mr Gillies at once took his pen and struck out the words “ presented by ” in the latter, and said as it was not in the English language it could not bo received by the Council, but that he would keep it as a curiosity. A few moments later he said that on looking at the petition he found it contained a charge against a Government officer, and that therefore it could only be presented through the Government. He suggested therefore that I should rise and move that it bo withdrawn, as I was out of order. I did so, explaining my motive, and a. member opposed the motion. The Speaker rose and censured the opposing member for his discourtesy, as if one member opposed the petition could not be withdrawn. Thereupon a Committee was ordered to be formed, I moving that it (the petition) should be referred to one elected by ballot of the whole House. A select committee was appointed and met. Before this a telegram was read by Mr Innis, member for Arrow, and in consequence of a statement in that, I made a statement before the committee. It was the written statement produced, which is in the writing of Mr Bastings, chairman of the committee. On the occasion of the Stab’s publishing a reprint from the Wakatip Mail,

I placed myself in the hands of Messrs Smith and Anderson,*who wrote to Mr Bell with reference to the matter. I left for England in April 1873. After the letter to Mr Bell, there wasno publication imputing my having garbled the petition until when at Home d saw the article in the Star. The paper reached me in September, 1873. I sailed again on September 27, and arrived hero on December 29, and caused a writ to be issued a day or two after my arrival. Although my action was influenced by the article in question, it was not solely .and materially caused by it, as you (Mr Barton) stated in your opening address. I had ether reasons. In the, : article, the subject matter of the action, it is stated as a translation, that a lawyer is to get £2OO for removing the Warden, The : whole statement is without foundation. I never saw or heard of any such alleged’underatanding—anything which could by any possible construction be made to set forth that I was to receive L2OO for the removal of the Warden. Mr Smith : I may say that such is not imputed to you. Witness : I can only say, Mr Smith, that I have always read the article as containing an imputation on me. Mr Smith (to witness): lam afraid you have not exercised your wits sufficiently well upon it. By Mr Smith ; Previous to contesting the Wakatip election, I was proposed and defeated at Dunedin and Oamaru. I was proposed at Mount Ida against my will. I have said as to the statement of Mr Beetham that I cut hi.n, that it was an act of inadvertance oi ] my part. Afterwards, in consequence of what Dr Douglas told me, Ipassed i him without noticing him. From that day to this I have not recognized him—it is impossible that I could do so after the statement he made. Dr Douglas told me a few days before the nomination that either Mr Beetham had shown him or told him the correspond-' ence read in Court which passed between him and me. My strong impression is that Douglas used the term “show, 1 - but I have no wish to say so after Mr Beetham has said that ho did not show Dr Douglas the correspondence. Dr Douglas told me that Mr Beetham considered I had insulted him, and very grossly insulted, him; that Mr Beetham was one of his (Dr Douglas’s) oldest friends in the district, and that lie ( r Douglas) regarded the, insult to Mr Beetham as an insult to himself; that he (Dr Douglas) had previously taken no active part in the election, but he would then do his very utmost to secure my defeat. ‘ I could not well say that I had then addressed the electors at Queenstown. I think I must have addressed them, as I felt aggrieved that Dr Douglas had promised to preside, and did, not do so. Dr Douglas, in the matter of the statement he made to me as to what passed between him and Mr Beetham, kept his word. I complained of his unhandsome treatment in leaving me in the lurch. I did not canvass the district under Mr Shepherd’s auspices; I kept clear of him as much as' possible, because I was told he was not popular in the district. He once went to a part of the district in which he was said to have made an impression on . a previous occasion, and made a speech which did me more barm than good. I believe but for the communication of Dr Dpuglas I should never have passed or cut Mr Beetham, though 1 was highly dissatisfied with the conduct of the election. In consequence of Dr Douglas not coming to take the chair, as agreed on, Mr Shepherd, after a delay of half-a i-honr, was .put in the chair by my opponents, which did not improve my chances for the district. I complained of Dr Douglas taking part in the contest, because he was to an extent a Government official, being resident surgeon of the Hospital, which is partly supported on a Government subsidy. As to whether I had besought his influence previously, I took him a letter from town from a member of the Assembly, whose name I ueid not mention, bespeaking his influence on my behalf, and- Dr Douglas then stated that he was already pledged to support Mr Hallenstein. I afterwards wrote to Dr Douglas that I would report him, as an active partisan, at the following meeting of the Provincial Council. I complained of the schoolmasters, and was told that their conduct was a direct contravention of the minute of the Education Board. Some time after I had made the compiaiut, a man apat one of my meetings, holding a paper in his hand containing my telegram complaining of the schoolmasters,’ ■ and sayiug: “ Did you not send such and such a ; . telegram as that to the Education Board ?” A number of explanations were published, some of which vyere without foundation. One of these was that Mr riislop had written forwarding a copy, whereas the Supe intendent and Mr Hislop have written to me that such a statement was untrue. I alluded to this as a matter of which no explanation had been furnished. Indirectly it may be said to be an attack on the Telegraph Department. I said, on the matter being inquired into, “ If an explanation is given I am quite content. . At present it is a mystery to me ” ; and inasmuch as I vyould not make a direct charge against the Telegraph Department, Mr Strode declined to make an inquiry. On the ■ bustings I made no charge against the Telegraph Department. The telegraphist on that occasion complained of my making an attack on his department. I replied that I did nob intend to make ;ahy reflection on his department. - I said it was a mystery to mo having received a telegram from the Education Board which 1 had not disclosed to any one, and the contents of which had become known, and that the matter should be cleared up. [ say most emphatically that I made no charge against the department. It was to me, and it is still, a most extraordinary circumstance that a matter confined to the Education Board and myself should have become public. I said at the hustings that I had made only two charges against Government officials. As to the allegation tliat I had made a third charge, namely, one against Captain Fraser, 1 may say that in the prosecution of the Superintendent for the construction of the road across Anderson’s Bay, Captain Fraser was seen pacing up and down the street, and when the case came on at twelve o’clock he took his seat on the Bench. During the case a most marked asperity was shown by Captain Fraser towards the prosecution, and after Mr Haggitt had finished the Crown examination Captain Fraser took it up, I then published an advertisement that I would not appear in the Resident Magistrate’s Court again till further notice. I felt it very keenly, and I may say that I had never witnessed such conduct on the part of a magistrate. Soma time after that Captain Fraser stopped me in the street. He made use of personally offensive language, and accused me—l won’t say what be accused me of—and lat once forwarded an affidavit to the Colonial Secretary, Mr Gisborne, but he refused to interfere, on the ground that it contained no specific complaint. I venture to say there is not one word of these statements which cannot be substantiated by dozens ef people. Mr Barton submitted that this evidence should not be adduced. Mr Smith replied. Witness (by Mr Smith): I wish most positively to adhere to the statement I made as to my manner at the meetings at Queenstown. Notwithstanding that Messrs Beetham, Manders, and Wesley Turton have sworn most distinctly that my manner was supercilious and insulting, I can only tell you that I was as cool and collected as at this moment. However much they may consider I was insulting in matter; JL was not instating in

manner. I was free from excitement. I haye in my possession the note-bbok in which I had entered what I had resolved to say to the electors. My mind w’as made up as to what I should say, and, having made up mv mind, I expressed it as creditably as I could. With regard to what took place when I excluded my address, Mr Beetham, after a remark from 'Mr Shepherd, said, “ you accuse me pf-partiality, Mr MacasBey ?” I then asked to be'disassociated from what Mr Shepherd had said. If Mr Beetham is prepared to deny that he pub that question to me, it would not alter my confidence in my recollection. I don’t remember his stating to the electors that I had charged him with’partiality,' or words to that effect; and if he is prepared to swear so, I may say that I don t think he did, as otherwise 1 would have again addressed the electors. I really would not like to contradict him positively on the point. I wrote a letter to the Colonial Secretary, of which I did not keep a copy, making a general complaint as to the conduct of the election. My recollection is that it did not make distinct charges against Mr Beetham; I understood Mr Barton to give the statement as to the Chinese not being able'to-'get justice in Mr Beetham’s Court as a statement from the Chinese, and not from Mr Barton. I never remember asking Mr Barton what was his opinion as to the statements of the Chinese, I never made use of the expression to Alloo, “ What about the Chinese petition you are getting up ? ” We had a conversation in Powell’s stable, but it was a chaffing conversation about the figure of a woman on the bowl of a pipe. Alloo yesterday denied the statement alleged to have been, used by him, and I most positively deny it now. I had one conversation with Qnan Hay, and the, only difference between him and me is that 1 put it as taking i pl ace opposite the Post-office at Arrowtown, and he as opposite the Post-office at Queenstown. There is no difference in our recollections of the substance of the conversation. Mr Barton wrote to me from Queenstown, forwarding the petition in Chinese, and the translation in his own handwrit-ng, and asking that the translation should be copied out and the copy presented to the Provincial Council, as his hand-writing might be recognised by Queenstown members, and he did not want to be identified with the petition. [Letter read.] I handed the letter and papers to the Clerk. A copy was made. I had no hand in the making of the copy—-not even to the dotting of au i or the .crossing of , a I have not Mr Barton’s manuscript—my impression is that it is. in the possession of Messrs.Smith and Anderson,. My reason for this belief is that when I consulted that firm about the paragraphia the Stab, I took a number of papers to them which seem to have gone astray. That is my impression. I have had most careful search made. I presented the petition on the 10th May, and asked leave to withdraw it on the 14th. Telegrams were read to the Provincial Council from Queenstown—one of which described the petition as a disgraceful underhand business, of which Europeans knew nothing. It is my impression that a telegram was read .stating that the petition must have emanated from the defeated candidate. 1, have seen such a telegram; I believe it was read in the Council. I could not say that these telegrams , were read . before I moved for leave to withdraw the petition. They were read before the appointment of the Select Committee. Before I made the motion for the appointment of a Select Committee, 1 anew that I would, by moving the motion, be a member. I did not wish to be in the invidious position of chairman in my own case, and proposed Mr M‘Lean, who declined, and I then proposed Mr Bastings, who was elected chairman. Mr Smith then referred to the letter sent by the firm of Smith and Anderson to the defendant, at the instruction of plaintiff, in which an extract from the ‘ Wakatip Mail,’ appearing in the Star, was described as a libel as gross as it was foul; and Mr Smith asked witness if he considered the article to be what the letter described it ? • f ifcness,; wish to question your judgment, inasmuch as the letter was written by you. ■ Mr Smith pointed out that the. letter had been written by Messrs Smith and Anderson at plaintiff’a instruction. Witness ; I have no doubt you have rprorepresented the article. lam quite willing to answer the question in the affirmative, and say that the extract is in my judgment what it is described. The letter contains my estimate of the extract, and I ■ approve of what Messrs Smith and Anderson did. ■ The Court then rose. [The report of to-day’s proceedings in this case will be found in the body of the paper.]