SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3499, 11 May 1874, Page 1 (Supplement)

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Saturday, May 9. (Before Mr Justice Chapman and a Snecial Jury.) ALLEGED LIBEL. Mr Smith spoke as follows : Gentlemen of the Jury,—This is a case brought by Mr James Macassey, a barrister and solicitor of this Court, against Mr George Bell, the editor and proprietor of the Ev siting Star newspaper. Mr Bell is charged with having falsely and maliciously published, concerning the plaintiff, an article set forth in the declaration. As regards the character of that article I shall have to make some particular remarks to you, with a view to showing what is really meant by it, applying the ordinary rules of construction to it which you, as men of education—and I know you are men of superior education, as you are thought worthy of bring on the special jury of this Province In the plaintiff’s declaiatipn there are three defences set up, but in reality there are only two. The defence is first, that this is no libel—there was no publication, and this is no libel. Now, I admit the question of publication has been proved. The first issue is—- - Did the defendant falsely and maliciously pnnt and publish of and concerning the plaintiff the article in the declaration mentioned and set forth ? Now, gentlemen, that point, as I told you, involves two questions—Was the article published, and was it a malicious libel? The second defence was the statement of fact contained in the said article is true in substance. And the third is included in the first-r-is the article a fair and bona fide comment without malice? I tell you, subject to his Honor’s correction, that that is included in the first. , His Honor ; In England that is included in the general issue. Mr Smith : So it is here, your Honor. His Honor ; I have some doubt of that. If a person relies on some evidence to Drove the ti uth of a libel, in all cases, it can be given on the general issue. Mr Smith : I will accept that as the law. The third ground raises a distinct ground of defence : Was the article a fair and legitimate comment on the matters contained in the article, and was it published without malice! I admit the article was published • so you must say “ Yes” to the first issue, ie., so far aa concerns mere publication. The real malice will be investigated under the second and third issues. The question raised by the second issue is, were the statements in the article true in substance? *®d the third relates to the comments made in that Article. I will shortly state what I understand to be the law with regard to the privilege of the Press, when discussing the public acts of public men. The name of the writer of this article, whoever he was, •whether Judge Ward, or Judge Richmond, or. whoever he was, or however distinguished, has not a single iota to do with this case. The defendant has made himself responsible »y it insertion in his newspaper. For editors of papers have not inexhaustible brains, and are very often under great obligation to men of talent, who write aa article and say ‘‘ If that agrees with your ideas, you may make use of it.” Whether or not it was done in this case, we do not know. There is a bare suggestion that Judge Ward is looked uponas the author of thisarticle; bub there is not a tittle of evidence as to who the writer was ; and if there were, Mr Bell, and Mr Bell alone, is responsible. I am reminded by my learned friend, Mr Stout, of a most s gnal failure in the plaintiff’s oise. My learned friend undertook to prove that Judge Ward was the writer of this article, but that my learned friend on the opposite side has failed to prove. It is a salutary rule in all Courts ©f Justice that Counsel who value their own reputation are watchful of the words they make use of. That is why my friend Mr Stout understated the case when he opened it to you. I am goiug to state the case much more strongly than he did. My learned friend contented himself with stating the article meant nothing against Mr Macassey, except that in effect Mr Macassey had been the dupe of “ The Heathen Chinee *’ ; but I am going to state what the article really means. The law, as laid down by Baron Parke, in regard to libel is—- . There is a wide difference between publications relating to public and private individuals. Every person has a right to comment upon those acts of public men which concern him as a subject of the realm, if he do not make his commentary a vehicle for malice and the indulgence of some private spite or pique. “ You have a right to comment on the public acts of a minister, upon the public acts of a general, upon the public judgments of a judge, upon the public skill of an actor, but you have no right to impute to them such conduct as disgraces and dishonors them in private life. ” That is the law on the subject, and well it is that it should be the law. ,We should not be living under a free constitution if that were not the law. If the Press were gagged, there would be. liberty for no person, however high in office—even a judge on the bench, if he misconducted himself, could be properly called to the bar of public opinion ; but now his case may be canvassed as freely as that of any other public man—and so with all other men. And shall a man who has offered himself as a candidate for the position of a legislator be relieved from that rule of criticism which may be applied to so exalted an officer a Judge? The question which you will then have to consider is, Whether the article is fair criticism, bona fidea without malice? The question- is, Whether the defendant, as a journalist, has kept within the limits of that privilege contained in the passage just read? But supposing you should think that privilege was exceeded—although I feel quite confident you will not, but I anticipate the possibility of your doing, so—we have, another defence, namely, The facts stated in the article were perfectly true ; and, if so, they form a complete defence to this case. In a case tried before the Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench—Sir John Coleridge he was, Attorney. General he was lately, and Chief Justice of Common Pleas he is now—in his address to the jury, he used words that deserve to be recorded in letters of gold. He said—--1116 to-did not need to be told that the Press of England was a perfectly free Press. He had never met a single person who wished it to be anything else. No man who cared for the integrity of public men, for the impartiality of justice, for the. decency of public morals, or for the due administration of public institutions, would wish to see it fettered; and if in the honest discharge of its functions it found it necessary to say of a person that which was unpleasant to him, he must bear it, in consideration of the vast benefits which a free Press con ferred upon the whole community. Thev might depend upon it, that the sun of Engliar freedom would have fallen from its meridian sc S «°i^L a ? ® n ßhsh judges began to narrow the la\i of libel, or English juries to mulct the proprie . tors of public journals in heavy damages for ex eroismg that right which it was necessary t( our common freedom they should exercise. Now having read that sterling passage, I wil not use words of mine to descant on the free of the Press, which we enjoy under th British Constitution; and having said thi much of iny case, I will request you to trave through its history from the beginning, was forgetting my intention to go througi the alleged libel carefully to see what is sail against Mr Macassey; but I will first drav your attention' to one passage, about thi gentro of the article, which speaks of thi

Chinese petition thus; “The affair, taken altogether, was as discreditable a matter as ever came before the Council.” By that the writ-.r evidently intends to group anyone concerned in the transactions which have taken place, whosoever had a hand in them oi had been concerned with the fact of the Chinese petition. This article is no doubt intended to stigmatise as improper the proceedings connected with it, and to pronounce them discreditable, including of course the conduct of all that had been concerned in getting up this petition. S’o for as Mr Macassey had a hand in it, or had identified himself with it, I confess the intention of this article was to pronounce judgment on him as being guilty of discreditable conduct in lending himself to the perpetration of a cruel and oppressive act. In the passage where reference is made to a great lawyer, Mr Macassey is not singled out. This affair was “ as discreditable to all concerned in it.” In the issue of the Star of the 16th June, it is said it was as disoreditable an affair as ever came before the Council. You see the writer comments by drawing public attention to a previous issue which contained that translation of the Chinese petition which is spoken of as the translation of the petition to_ the Provincial Council presented last year by Mr James Macassey. This, by an article published on the Ist July, appears to have been a mistake. I wish to recall what t have said. I find it was an article from the ‘ Arrow Observer’ that led to the error. I should have stated, as this is the paper to which public attention is called, in the issue of the 21at, the translation is that which commences with “Please your favor.” That translation in reference to that par;er of the 16th states that the article was added to the Chinese petition previously published by the ‘Arrow Observer* last year. * It is plain, therefore, the article begins with a reference to a translation of the Chinese petition which had been sent by the commissioners, and appended to their report. That translation contained a passage about L2OO to be paid to a lawyer. Now, I have to remark that the writer of the article, having before him reliable evidence that a totally different translation from that presented to the House had been by the commissioners appended to the report, was fully justified in drawing attention to the fact that the two differed. Mr Barton : lb is not appended to the commissioners’ report. Mr Smith ; I must object to my learned friend saying anything about wbafc is appended to the commissioners’ report I say that Mr Bell, having given insertion to the article complained of, had before him reliable evidence that this different translation had been sent by the commissioners. I say my learned friend has put this in evidence himself. But I say Mr Bell, sitting in his editorial chair, had before him evidence quite sufficient to justify his following with this “Please your favor” translation. This was one of the documents handed to the plaintiff. I ask you, was it not open to every one to go to the Provincial Council and see whether the statement was or was not true. Had not Mr Bell, as a member of the Press, the opportunity of examining those documents, as you or I or anybody else might have done ? Those documents were public property. Although they are shut out from you, they were not shut out from the rest of the world ; and the fact of their being set out in the * Arrow Observer’ was quite sufficient to justify Mr Bell in assuming they were correct. This is evidence on which I rely to justify Mr Bell in assuming the truth contained in the article. Whefchsr it-was correct or not is not the question. There might have been a hundred translations, but I say Mr Bell had goo l reason to believe that a translation, seriously differing from that presented by Mr Macassey to the House, was obtained by the Council. And I have a right to call upon y-u to infer that Mr Be’l, being a respectable gentleman, would naturally go to the Provincial Council, look 'over those documents which are in Court, and see whether a petition so worded had been obtained. Therefore, can you imagine that Mr Bell did not honestly believe that a pefii ion containing mention of L2OO for Mr Beetham’s ' removal was appended to the documents which exonerated Mr Beet ham ? Had not that petition been appended to that report, would not my learned friend have been anxious to have those papers brought before you, and said Mr Bell foolishly and intemperately took this from the ‘ Arrow Observer’ without going to the Council to overhaul the papers to see whether or not it is true ? My learned friend knows ! t OO wed that Mr Bell was justified in taking it as a fact that the petition was laid on the table of the Council With regard to that, and ! say it with due respect to his Honor, in trying to get those documents before you, that you should be placed in the same position with Mr Bell, and see with his eyes, his Honor ruled that it could not be done. With great respect, I have said I consider his Honor is utterly wrong, and if this case goes against us it will not end hare, for we shsll certainly appeal; and I wish to say that if we are not justified through not having all documents placed before the jury, then good-bye to the liberty of the Press. If this is the law, the sooner it is altered the better. I shall also remark on the liberty I have displayed in giving Mr Macassey full liberty to state all he had to state. I allowed him to speak of things not at all connected with this action. I allowed him to go into detail of all sorbs—into conversations of various kinds, in order that you might have full opportunity of knowing all about the case. How has the other side behaved with regard to those documents? Has it not been by the instruction of Mr Macassey to his counsel that those documents have been shut out ? I ask you to compare the conduct of both sides in that respect, and then to say who desires the whole truth to come out. The article goes on—“ We reprint it to-day, and with it the so-called translation appended to the petition when presented, which appendix is assigned as a guarantee of its genuine character.” This appears to have been a blunder. The so-called translation appears on the opposite side. That was a mistake by Mr Bell, Mr Barton : Mr Smith is mistaken. Mr Smith : The one on the left hand side is the “please your favor” one, and is taken from a newspaper with the well-founded assumption that it was a translation placed - before the commission appointed by the Council, and the other was appended by mistake, as another translation from Victoria. My learned friend pointed out to the jury that that translation on the right side was the translation obtained by the Government from Victoria, which commences, “Thefivt Chinese characters.” That was the lone translation on the right hand side whicl my learned friend opened to you, and he ii , bound to that. That long translation wai i e obtained by the Provincial Govern 1 from Victoria. That was a mistake bj vu it he corrected in the issue o rm? i in how it was corrected : L.lhe learned counsel read the article pub hshed July L] That evinces an anxioui desire to set matters right, as well as i i desire that the public mind should be rightl l - informed on this subject, and therefore, a ! f T, a , 3 mw J a H e w as discovered, tha right-hand translation was corrected as yoi r r! 6 , f*. The , fc , wo are worth comparing Lt would be useful to recall the circumstance ? under which the printed petition was con I cooted. That expression is applied by th r Plaintiff to himself, as meaning the petitio: 3 was false, and that ha bad a hand in its pre 3 paration, and that that preparation was

process of garbling, as believed by the Rev, Dr StuaH and Mr Strode. And, gentlemen, before I invite you to place your own interpretation on it, I would draw your attention to the attempts to show in what sense respectable men profess to have understood the article. The first called was Mr W. D. Murison, editor of the ‘Duly Times.’ He would not tell you on what portion of the article he based his opinion He grouped the statements in the article as a whole. Mr iStrode’s mode was very much to the same effect. Their reasons were very like what is said to be a woman’s reason ; “It is because it is ” Dr Stuart’s was not much better. I was surprised a gentleman who has so high a reputation should not be able to give a more' precise reason for his opinion, I felt much obliged to my learned friend for calling such truly representative men as Mr Donald Reid and Mr E. B. Cargill, for those parts of the article which were ! said to reflect on Mr Macassey were completely swept away, Mr Donald Reid, in his evidence, said that he understood the expression “the petition had been concocted” by someone other than Mr Macassey. And Mr E. B, Cargill said the meaning conveyed to bis mind was that the Orientals were the coucoctera. And that, no doubt, was the meaning. The concoction, no doubt, took place up in Queenstown by those who had a hand in it in affixing Chinese signatures and other important matters. I tell you that the evidence of Mr E. B. Cargill is worth that of forty such persons as Mr W. D. Murison, who gave such stupid and inefficient an--awers. We all know Mr E. B. Cargill as incapable of saying anything wrong, or of swerving from the line of justice either to the right or left. He says he understood it as I have said, and very sensibly remarks : “No one would ever suppose that Mr Macassey did the manual work of getting up that petition.” To go on to the next part (Mr Smith read that portion of the article relating how’ Mr Macassey attacked the ‘ Wakatip Mail,’ and was replied to). Although there was a trifling inaccuracy, there was really nothing in it. Mr Beetham very properly dismissed the information. There was nothing libellous in saying that after a certain event one man becomes aware of another’s shortcomings, and whatever the other side might confess, it was proved to be abundantly true. “ He attacked Mr Beetham on the hustings, and failing to make an impression there, he wrote to the Colonial Secretary” against him. There is nothing libellous in that, except the fact that “he did write to the Colonial Secretary.” Mr Macassey has not a copy of the letter, and although the letters were in Court we could not have the originals produced. “He had sundry charges to bring against him—charges we may remark that he never attempted to substantiate.” That was proved. “The Chinese petition then represents the results of the labors against Mr Beetham as Resident Magistrate.” This is the first paragraph that contains a distinct charge against Mr Macassey. Ko doubt that is .an imputation that Mr Macassej had something to do with the petition of the Chinese—something more than the bare office of presenting it to the Council. But this chirge of bavir-g “ more to do with it” is a figurative expression like “he bad a hand in it.” What does that mean? It does not mean, and you will not be guilty of believing, that Mr Macassey assisted the Chinese in writing and copying the signatures, or that he did any manual act, or any act, except one to which I shall draw your attention. When we see a man has been closely connected with a matter, we say he has had a hand in it. Suppose a man is aware that the nefarious business of coining 18 going on inside & bouse, and it in Kia duty to watch lest the police should steal a march on his companions. He has no actual hand in it. He is outside the house : yet the law considers him as much guilty of coining as the perpetrators themselves. There is an illustration of ’ having a hand in a thing in which the law makes that person equally responsible with the others If, therefore, it can be shown, as the evidence does abundantly show, that Mr Macassey was really concerned in vetting up that petition to a greater or less extent than getting it up before the Provincial Council, the imputation is sustained'—that the comment was justified, as I hope to show you before I sit down. This is really the first serious paragraph that reflects on Mr Macassey as a public man. This article proceeds, “ In the first place the document in question appears not to be a petition at all, according to the true translation. It is simply a statement that the Chinese have a grievance against the Warden ; that a clever lawyer from Dunedin has offered to get him removed for JU2OO, and L2OO only to be paid in the event of his removal; that the Chinese approve of this proposal, and that each individual who signs undertakes to pay a certain subscription towards the amount required,” Now, gentlemen, Mr Macassey takes that, as some of his witnesses were invited to say, but did not say, it was understood that the writer of the article meant to convey the idea that. Mr Macassey had agreed to accept a bribe for presenting the petition. It says nothing of the sort. All it does is to call attention to the true translation—taking that to be the true one, as this writer had a right to do, inasmuch as the commissioners had adopted that and sent it to the Government, and it coatains this passage. This is one circumstance only to which the writer calls the attention of the public. Mr Macassey presented the petition in such and such words. The true translation c mtains words which the other translation omits. Nothing is said as to whether it was well founded or not. The writer offers no opinion on that. As I told Mr Macassey while in the witness-box yesterday, we have no intention to impute that to him. In the first place I do not think him such a bora fool as to do so ; and, secondly, T do not think he would do such a thing. It was not intended to impute that to him. All the writer intended to do was to call attention to this circumstance ; there is a petition sent by the commissioners as being a true translation containing a passage about L2OO, which is left out of that presented by Mr Macassey. It showed that by whomsoever the translation forwarded to Mr Macassey was prepared, that translation had been garbled. It does not say by Mr Macassey. There must have been many hands through which it had passed before it reached his hands. The writer proceeds, “This statement in the translation signed by Mr 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 omitted ” Now bear in mind the explanation that that sensible man Mr Donald Reid gave to this i He supposed that the translator, whoever he i was, who prepared the translation which Mr Macassey presented to the Council—whether or not that was done by a skilled translator or by Mr G. B Barton, who was not cal ed here to-day—and why he was not called I . leave you to conjecture. I say the fact of i his not having been called condemns the ip case. We ought to have learned from him r and Mr Macassey what part he ready had in 3 the matter—what was understood between b them as regarded the Chinese. A man of i the intelligence of Mr Barton, who was for- . merly editor of the ‘Daily Times,’ and is 3 agent for Mr Macassey, knew the tenor of - the translation, although no translation was 3 mentioned to Mr Macassey at Queenstown, i is not brought forward to establish whot Mr Macassey has said in any particular, nor to * * enable you or me to probe that gentleman’s

mind, or put him on the rack of cross-exami-natioa so as to extract the truth. I say that Mr Barton not being called—a person so intimate'y associated and thoroughly identified with this petition, and thoroughly identified with Mr Macassey as his agentshows that they daVed not expose that gentleman to the risk: of cross-examination. Now, if my learned friends at this stage wish to relieve themselves from the inference that he should not be called, I am willing he shall be called now. Mr Barton: You qould have called Mr G. B. Barton. Mr Smith : My learned friend says I might have called him, and made him a hostile witness, but he ought to have been put into that witness-box. I am going to show that gentleman is unworthy of being called, because of his connection with; the case. He ought to have been allowed to clear himself if he could. Mr Barton : Then Bell’s article is a falsehood. Mr Smith : You have Ihe evidence of Mr Donald Reid. What is the proper construction to put on those words? That statement, which the document really is, has been transformed into a petition, is to be attributed to the translator of the document, whoever he was. The article goes on to say, “ The case would be sufficiently shady, even were this the whole of it.” It appears to me a mild word under the circumstances, “ but there are further facts to come : First. I the (commissioners appointed by the Council ' entirely exonerated Mr Beetham from the. charges brought against him ; secondly, the evidence of an expert proved that the greater number of signatures attached to the petition were written by the same, bind—evidence which accounts for (ihe fact that sundry Chinese whose signatures purported to be attached to the petition declared-to,'the commissioners their total ignorance; of the matter; and lastly. Mr^Macass^s'statement to the Council that-he had net hand in getting up this -petition has beeh most distinctly contradicted. Taken altogether, the affair was as discreditable a matter as ever came before the Council’ I will only remark this on that the greater part is a dry statement bf-facts of what the report contain! I will read that report which my learned-friend l judiciously omitted to read. I shall show-; ybu-ffifSc ample evidence to prove that that.paragraph is true as a statement of factadd what does that mean? That on Mri.Macassey’s statement to the Councila doubt has been thrown by abatement diametrically opposite. I am free to confess there & doubt upon the man’s testimony, but if I canabow you that such a contradiction has taken place, it is the truth and no libel to say— Taken altogether it was as discreditable an affair as ever came before the Provincial Council.” This is the conclusion to which I shall invite you to Cvme when we have gone through the circumstances of the case. The. remainder is a story told, and the anticipation that Mr Macassey would wish to take signal vengeance by hewing the editor to pieces as Samuel treated Agag. His Honor : [ did not wish yout to put to thejjurj a suggestion interpolated by myself. Mr Smith : There :s nothing libellous in that,' so I will not dwell upon it. This article winds up with what may be called moral reflections on what ougr.t to be called the duty of public men, and what ought to be esteemed by them. You will see what is the net result of this analysis of the article. It does not appear to say one word more of Mr Macassey’s connection with this matter of getting up the petition to a greater extent than its presentation to the Provincial Council, and that conduct on his part is stigmatised as discreditable. Now, as shortly as I can, I will go through i.he history of.the case—Mr Macassey goes up to Queenstown, a thrice defeated candidate. That does not make a man very amiable. It is enough to sour a man’s temper, and probably you may have formed some judgment of his natural tendency his hearing in the box Having been three times defeated in his attempts to be returned to the House of Representatives, he became a candidate for the electoral district of Queenstown. Sometuiag was written in the ‘ Wakatip Mail,’ which Mr Macassey considered reflected iibellously upon him, and he made thit article the ground of a criminal information, which was instituted against Mr Warren, the proprietor. I hat was heard before Mr Beetham and dismissed, the r-asons for which he stated in writing which may be called; and consider his judgment. That has been read to you. and I must submit that the terms iu which he dismissed showed be had apparently investigated the matter. And making due allowance for the natural indignation for laying the information, he gave good grounds for showing he could nob have given judgment against Mr Warren, who would, if convicted, have been committed to prison. He showed there was not even a prima facie case to justify committing Mr Warren, and he accordingly dismissed the information. I invite you to say whether or not that does not form the root of Mr Macassey’s animosity to Mr Beetham, whom he began to calumniate, and determined the public should be the medium—l gay the most improper medium for bringing the most serious charges against Mr Beetham that could be brought against a judicial officer. ■ For, recollect, although he presides over an inferior Court to this, he is equally with his Honor on the Bench, a judicial officer, and is equally called upon to do justice between man and man. A day or two after this, Mr Macassey met Mr Baetham in the street, and he was under the impression he cut him. Mr Macassey says he was mistaken. I will let that pass and assume it so, for afterwards, Mr Beetham having made the advance, they shook hands; but that gentleman says it was a 4, e00l proceeding.” However, Mr Macassey admits that a few days after the election he had discarded Mr Beethara’a acquaintance; and why ? I maintain Mr Beetham showed a desire to continue friendly relations with him, notwithstanding the correspondence in which he was charged with wrong conduct as returning officer, and that is demonstrated by Mr Beetham, although under the impression he was cut. Mr Macassey, on being asked why he discarded him, gave a singular explanation. He says he met Mr Douglas one day in the street, who told him that he had been informed of the subject of the correspondence, and that Mr Beetham considered Mr Macassey had insulted him, and that was the reason why he gave up Mr Beetham’s acquaintanca. What singular conduct! Because I am told that one of you gentlemen feel insulted by a letter written about you, I am to give up your acquaintance and pass you without recognition. That would be a reason why I should come to you and say, “ I understand you have taken offence at a letter written about you : I intended no offence, and therefore I have come to give an explanation.” That was what Mr Macassey as a gentleman would have done. But he preferred that further acquaintance should cease. He also shows that the correspondence had reached a stage of irritation, and therefore that Mr Beetham was no longer entitled to his acquaintanceship It will be as well to see whether Mr Beetham had a riMit to feel insulted. I do not attach* much importance to the letter in which Mr Macassey mentioned .'Scott, formerly a returning officer, had taken an active part against Mr Macassey. He was infoimed he had not been appeiuted, therefore there was nothing in that correspo deace, but I wid refer to the letter dated Feoruary 28, 1872, commencing We, the undersigned”-, the

joint letter of Mr Macassey and Mr Shepherd. Now, Ido say it contained a most insulting Mr Beetham is called upon to a/.Mint additional polling places, and it insinuated that the non-compliance to do so would proceed from a desire to advance Mr Hallenstein s interest- at their expense. Had not Mr Heethtim been the true Christian gentleman which I take it from his demeanour that he is, he would have taken very distinct umbrage at that. Mr Macassey alleges that was the reason why he declined further acquaintance with Mr Beetham. I may also notice that Dr Douglas announced his intention to dp all he could to favor Mr Hallenstein’s return, in consequence of Mr Maoassey having insulted his friend Mr Beetham. I think that was a very natural position for him to take. But what do we find that brought down ? Why a charge against Dr Douglas of improper.y taking part in an election—the impropriety being that Dr Douglas was resident surgeon of a hospital supported partly by Provincial funds I Only think what a person must be who could make such a distinct charge! Dr Douglas tells us that a letter was to be laid before the Hospital Committee, to which he was asked to draw attention, as it was to be considered an official letter ; and it Dr Douglas’s conduct in taking part in the election as improper on the ground stated. And yet' this very man was content to take a letter from Mr Haughton to Dr Douglas, which bespoke his exertions in his favor; and was content, to place it. in ; his hands, in order to;secure his support. , There is a trait of character which, speaks volumes—an unmistakeable trait of character, which will lend you to a farther insight into <Mr Macassey*s conduct ia this matter. We have nothing to do. with whether or : nqt -Mr Beetham exercised: a proper or improper discretion in declining tdrecomraend the Government to appoint additional polliug.placea. He admitted freely that , since the . election other places had been Appointed. ■ No doubt as many should be appointed as possible ; buo he has shown he had good reason for tho coarse he took, a wt- 1 ? 16 ? permit his doing so, as the 1 Wakatip Mail’ is only published once a week, and so many days’ notice in the journal are required before the day of nomiuation. The request was made only six days before the election, so that no other arrangement could be made. Mr Beetham asserts that the election was fixed to take place at the earliest possible moment; and more than that, he not only told you that in this box, but we have Mr. Macassey’s admission that he gave that explanation at the hustings. He also gave the additional reason that stamps could not have been received from Wellington, from whence only they could be issued. It appears to me those charges against Mr. Beetham were entirely swept away. Is there uny ground to impute to Mr. Beetham an interested motive in taking the course he did, of endeavouring to favour Mr. Hallenstein’s return ? If ever truth was stamped bn the face of a man in giving evidence it was on that of. Mr. Beetham. He told you distinctly he carefully abstained from taking part on either side, and needlessly abstained from even reading the reports of the meetings of the candidates, as he wished to stand entirely neutral. Is that a man who should be charged with coirupb conduct—of making arrangements to return a rival candidate to Mr. Miacassey ? Is that a man who should be charged with corrupt conduct for which he ought to be hurled from his office, if true? It is the mark of an ignoble mind, whatever other characteristics may he possessed. I quite admit the plaintiff to be a distinguished member of this Court, whose abilities I admire; but I am sorry to say, as this case discloses, the qualities of his heart are not equal to those of his head. He has shown an ignoble disposition to take up charges against a man in a respectable position—whose position itself ought to be a guarantee against the perpetration of anything dirty, or dishonourable, or corrupt. Yet, on mere suspicion, Mr. Macassey rushes to the conclusion that Mr. Beetham was favouring the return of Mr. Hallenstein by the election arrangements. There are no grounds whatever for it. Ido say that it is a mark of an ignoble mind to entertain such a foul suspicion of the conduct of another man,' especially a man in Mr. Beetham s position, unless Mr. Macassey knew something which we did not know here, which would justify that suspicion. Before coming to tho nomination day I will call attention to the correspondence between Mr. Beetham and Mr. Macassey regarding disclosing official correspondence, and especially the letter to Dr. Douglas. Wo have no evidence as to disclosing other correspondence. Dr. Douglas was an old friend and brother Magistrate, whom Mr. Beetham said he told of the persecution of Mr. Macassey, which he never followed up. Most unjust and ungenerous was it to bring such a charge against Mr. Beetham. Was he not the proper person from whom to ask counsel —to whom to say lam accused of corrupt conduct ? Was it a breach of confidence to go to a brother magistrate and say, “What am I to do ? I have to do with a clever lawyer who has preferred charges against me. I cannot cope with him. He is evidently going to bring charges against me; he has given me distinct notice of it, and if he succeeds in satisfying the General Government there is cause for inquiry it will reflect on my character, so that ruin must be the consequence.” But, gentlemen, that was followed up by what took place on the nomination day, when Mr Macassey delivered himself of what I may venture to call a Phillipic against the returning officer. Very smart must have been that Phillipic, because we are told that it made au impression upon Mr Powell—the gentleman who, as we are told, usually commences his observations with the word “sir.” “>ir, you made it very hot for Mr Beetham to-day. ** Mr Macassey—l may here remark with reference to this phrase which Mr Manders says‘ he heard him use when playing billiards at Powell’s hotel—“Mr Macassey said he would make it hot for Mr Beetham, and that he had a good game or card to play : a good game at Mr Beetham ” —denies that he made use of that expression. Ho states that he is not in the habit of using such expressious, and the only person who used the word “hot” in his presence was Mr Powell, in reference to what he (Mr Macassey) has said on the hustings at the nomination. But this appears to me to be like getting clear of Soy 11a only to tumble into Gharybdis. In order to get rid of the effect of Mr Manders’s evidence, you have Mr Macassey putting into Mr Powell’s mouth expressions which were, in fact, his own. And strongly confirmatory of Mr Beetham, you have the evidence of Mr Manders and Mr Wesley Turton: evidence which reflects back upon the action of Mr Macassey on the hustings. That action, I may repeat to you. There he makes moat of these charges against Mr Beetham, particularly the charge of having unduly delayed the election, and of having appointed a poll-ing-place at Shotover bridge—Mr Halianstein’s stronghold : in short, he charged Mr Bee r hatn ou the hustings with corrupt condudt in his offices of Warden and returning officer. That is the evidence of these three witnesses—Mr Beetham, Mr Manders, and Mr Lurton. Mr Macassey denies it, it is true; but I submit you will rather take their evidence, Mr Macassey is the plaintiff, and without accusing him of intentional departure from the truth, he is under the strong influence of personal interest; for it is no doubt all-important to him that he should succeed, because, I admit, his character is at stake ia a great measure in this action.

submit, therefore, you will p efer to take the evidence of Mr Beetham, who swears distinctly to what Mr Macassey said, supported as it is by that of two very respectable witnesses—Mr Wesley TurtonandMr Manders. It must have struck you, gentlemen, that Mr Manders .was a particularly fair witness, because when Mr Barton took him to task for having made suih havoc of Mr Macassey’s lecture on “ Law and lawyers,” as reporting Canaan and Sydney Smith as the most distinguished examples of the legal talent Mr Macassey had passed in review in the course of his lecture, his (Mandera’s) contrition was most sincere in the witness box. At the same time he acknowledged that he was the writer of the leading article in the * Wakatip Mail,’ which excited Mr Macassey’s ire in the first instance. I again say, gentlemen, you are bound to take the evidence of these throe respectable witnesses as the charges Mr Macassey brought against Mr Beetham on the hustings, and particularly on the point that Mr Macassey spoke, in a boasting and supercilious way, that he bad been instrumental in procuring the dismissal of two Government officers, viz., ,a former sheriff and a former registrar of the Supreme Court. To that be added, according to these three witnesses, “No Government officer bad ever offended him without having cause to rue it.” In that vindictive expression you have the clue to his subsequent conduct. From that time forth— probably, from the moment that Mr Beetham in the .discharge of his magisterial duty thought proper to dismiss, the criminal; ■ information for libel laid against Warireh, of- \ the .* Wakatip Mail’—l may invite you to say;, whether Mr Macassey did not determine to make Beetham rue it. There, is that other statement of ganders, that - Mr Macassey, ■ when, in Powell’s, hotel, said “ jhe - would make it ; hot. for .Beetham.: that .he [had a. good game to playtins I will- also leave in your hands—first of all, to consider whether Manders is guilty of a wioked. invention when he says ha heard it, or if you believe he did hear it, what .significance, what bearing it has taken in connection with Air Macassey’s statement : on the hustings that no Government officer had. ever offended' him but had cause to rue it? What light it throws upon Mr Macaasey ? s subsequent conduct will be for you to say. The immortal Shakespeare, in King John, has a sentence which receives apt illustration in this case How oft the sight of means tojdo ill deeds Alakes ill deeds done ! I submit to 'you that you may reasonably consider from the circumstances, that Mr Macassey having determined to make these officials rue it who offended himself, and learning that there was dissatisfaction aroongst the Chinese with the former decisions of Mr Beetham, saw a ready means of gratifying his resentment by instigating, or, at all events, by undertaking to present the petition, of giving shape to this dissatisfaction. Mr Macassey tells us that the first thing be beard on the subject was when Mr G. B. Barton accosted him in the street at Queenstown one day aud said something to this effect :—“ A Chinese deputation has waited upon me and asked me whether you would present to the Provincial Council a petition to the effect that they had to complain of Mr Beetham’a decisions against them as unjust, and praying for bis removal that Mr Barton also said, “ The Chinese also said to me that it was no use taking their cases into Court.” You will have observed that I asked Mr Macassey particularly—and I repeated the question this morning— 1 ‘ Did you ask Mr Barton what was his opinion on the subject : whether in his opinion the Chinese had just grounds for these serious complaints against Mr Beetham ?.” M r M acassey said yesterday he did not recollect whether be did or did not, but this morning he tells ns he is more confident upon the point; that he certainly did nob make inquiry of Mr Barton or any other respectable European in the neighborhood. It also appears that Mr Macassey undertook to present such a petition, if it reached him through Mr G. B. Barton’s hands. He also states that he made that stipulation as a guarantee for tho good faith and propriety of the proceeding. Now, does it not strike you, gentlemen, what would be the conduct of a person in the position Mr Alacassey then occupied, when applied to do such a serious thing as to present a petition to the Government, for that was the word used, charging a judicial officer —with what ? Rave you, gentlemen, considered the nature of the charges brought against Mr Beetham ? That he was in the habit of deliberately denying justice to a class in the community, who are as much entitled to justice as any full born subject of her Majesty. It is one of the Briton’s boasts that one of the dearest privileges we have under our glorious Constitution is that the seat of justice has been from time immemorial, with rare exceptions, beyond suspicion. And nothing can raise a strong feeling in a British community more than the mere hint that justice has been sold or denied. 1 agiin ask what was this charge ? that Mr Beetham was in the habit of refusing justice to the Chinese inhabitants of Queens' own. And, gentlemen, what should have been the conduct of an honorable man who is asked to be at all instrumental in . preferring such a charge - against a Magistrate? Why, ought he not to say “ Show to me evidence to satisfy my mind that there is a prima, facie case against him, or I will not be instrumental in bringing so serious a charge against a Magistrate.” Put yourselves, gentlemen, in the position of members of the Provincial Council. Would any one of you if a particular class- say the drunkards who are fined every morning ; or the prostitutes who are brought up for drunkenness or vagrancy supposing, I say, these classes banded together and came to any one of you, as a member of the Provincial Council, and said, “The decisions of the Magistrate are most unjust; he won’t hear the evidence we have to bring forward, but fines us very severely, and we pray for his removal”; that these complaints were put in the strongest possible way, would you at once agree, and without making any inquiry, to present such petition in your place iu the Council ? 1 ask you again, supposing anyone of you had placed himself in a position of hostility to the magistrate, against whose conduct such serious charges were made—that you had been in hostility to him on the hustings, and there charged him with gross misconduct, not only as a Returning Officer, but as Warden of the district, would you consider that it was delicate, that it was manly, that yours should be the hands through which such charges should be laid before the Provincial Government, Provincial Council, or other body? Would not a man of delicacy have said, “ I am not the person to come to. There is a proper person : you have a member for your own district in the Council; there is Mr Innes, go to him if you want this petition presented—if you will make this matter public at once.” That would really hive been the proper conduct of one who knows as much about the working of political institutions as Air Alacassey must have then known, and who is influenced, as I am supposing all the while he is, by nothing but a desire that the truth should be elicited, aud any well-grounded complaint investigated. Of course, I should think very ill of anyone, whether he occupied a public position or not. who lent all the weight of his influence towards investigating charges which he believed . to have no prima facie foundation.. No doubt any man of honor in the position of Mr Beetham, directly his condnct is called dn question, courts inquiry. But what should

have been the condnct of a r man in Mr Macassey’s position, supposinghim a«t tp.be disqualified by pronounced Hostility, but simply animated by a desire tP bate the charges investigated in ord&,to see it .there is any foundation for them? Ought be not to have said to Mr Barton : “Let the.Chinese send in their complaint or mppaorial tP |he Executive Government, which will make it preliminary inquiry to see whether; there lie aprima facie complaint balling on Mr Beetham for an answer; if there is, then no doubt the Government, in the discharge of their boohden duty, calls fpr a formal investigation to be made, and will act according to the result. If the Executive Government fail in the discharge of that duty, then it will be tittle to bring the matter before the Provincial Council with a view of asking the Provincial Council to insist upon inquiry; and, if inquiry is not made, oust the Government by moving a want of confidence in them.” This, I submit, would have been the proper course to have pursued. Bub Mr Macassey, al? though asked in so many words (according to his own evidence) to present the petition to the Government, presents lb to the Provincial Council. According to his, own statement, nothing further took place until he came to town, when he re* oeived the Chinese petition—the long book—accompanied by an English translation by Mr Barton, Now; here is a piece «f eyi* deuce which I say is ‘ conclusive upon ppint, : and it reflects back upon ■ a|l ,Mt Macassey has 'done ; before. : PwM moment be put bis band to the petition, jut identified himself with ideutifiedhim* iself with a document which bn its fapelyiraa a garbled document. I say' so deliberately | and I invite'your attention ,tb say whether i am not borne out by the facts. . In the. firbh;place, Mr MacaSsey has stated,in nation in-chief that bn two occasions atleaot he was present when Chinese witnesses wetp examined through the aid of an interpreter.., Therefore, by his own admission lib hadprovious experience of the mode in which the Chinese express themselves—of the peculiar idioms in which their language and thoughts are necessarily rendered when translated into English. ■ - N qw,. with his, experience of Chinese ideas read when .TEjiaLt lish, he should, have been on ? detected' the alteration in the document which actually reached him. nWhafc Writ* that document? I ask; you to .take the.;' ‘Evening Star* of July 1, which contains; the translationas.presented to theProvinciaL Council , . • ■ ... To the Representatives ofthe■ Provisos l of ■ • Otago, in the Provincial Council assembled,*— S The humble petition of the undersigned *.Chi- : nese residents in the district of Lalm Wakafcttfti • sheweth— j i •. Here it is perfectly clear somebody ihasibowau moulding the . Chinese into , English : that.; cannot be a literal translation of any Chinese ••• phrase. He goes on in the'middle of the. petition to say : That , your petitioners have long suffered great hardship and injustice at the hands of ; the Warden of this district, whose decisions >im>v mimug and other oases in which your petitionett are concerned are animated by violent prejudice against them, and are consequently oppressive ruinous. That from long experience ™ ™ injustice, your petitioners are com* . peUed to regard the law as merely an instm- 3 raent of oppression to be used against them, instead of a source of protection and redress. That advantage is taken of the notorious ' judice of the Warden against your petitioners by European miners for the purpose of inflict, mg injury on your petitioners, while theincomplaints are unjustly and (unreasonably missed. I i QV ite you to say whether, when Mr Macassey received that document he ought not to have said to himself, “This cannot be a literal translation of the Chinese petition. If not a literal translation, somebody has tampered with it: has given paraphrases which may be more or less correct; therefore I will have nothing to do with it. 1 will not present such a petition. I will send it back and say —‘ if any petition is to ho - presented send down a literal translation of it. Whatever may be your opinion now, I s .'i re y° u wiU say that should have been Mr Macassey’s conclusion, when [ read to you the letter from Mr Barton which acoom* panied this translation : ~ , Queenstown, May 6, 1872. My dear Macassey—- . P l 6 Chinese petition herewith, in a rather informal condition— A. rather informal condition! Is it possible for any document to be of a more formal character ? The book of Chinese characters contains the names of the petitioners written in Chinese—the translation in _ English on • foolscap. The prayer of the petition has been written by myself, and accompanies the English names. But I should be very much obliged to you if you would have my draft engrossed by another so that my handwriting may not be attached to the affair. If it were, it would, of course, be recognised by the Queenstown members m the Provincial Council, aud would become the subject of remark. You cau underthat X do not wish to be personally identified with the petition. Yoursffaithfully, . G. E. Barton. I am assuming that you will undertake to present the petition to the Council. I say that was a disgraceful letter for Mr Barton to write, aud whoever received it ought to have declined at once having further to, do with the matter, because there was evidence of a desire to conceal Mr Barton’s f part in it. There was strongly presumptive evidence that there was somebbing wrong. Concealment is always the badge of fraud.” In such a matter as attacking the character, and possibly involving the ultimate ruin of Mr Beetham, it behoved Mr Macassey to have at once declined having anything to do with a matter in. which Mr Barton desired to practise such underhand concealment as this. If he were clean-handed in the matter, why want to conceal the part he took in it, Mr Barton is a grown-up man, is well able to ’ take care of himself, and what should he £ av ® j°. fear? I repeat if he . were cleanhanded in the matter, why pursue such a course? If it were true that he had been asked by the Chinese to forward such a petition, or to assist at all in its preparation, ought he notas a man of-honor to have let Mr Beetham know, and said to him ; “I am asked in my professional capacity to be the medium of communication and of forwarding a petition against yourself, that petition bringing most serious charges against you, and praying for your removal. I think it only honest and manly to let you know what is going on " Yet instead of taking that course, Mr Barton skulks into obscurity-disgraceful obscurity; and writes the letter to Mr Macassey desiring that he should not be made to appear as being identified with the petition. I say Mr Macassey ought at once to have cast away , the vile production, and said, .“an enemy hath done this,” if he was so innocent and guiltless of complicity in this matter as he would have you believe. But I rely upon this evidence as showing that Mr Macassey did identify himself with the getting up of this petition : it shows his conduct was underhand in the sense of encouraging and favoring it, by undertaking to be the medium by which so much dirt snould be thrown at Mr Beetham. Instead of directing the petiturners, if they had a ground of complaint, to go to the Executive Government and in* ' sist upon inquiry, he gets launched in the Provincial Council this petition containing ’ such vile charges against Mr Beetham..- , ; More than that, not content with doitig that, 1 Mjp Macassey follows it up by proposing a ' motion for a select committee. Why should he do that ? It was not incumbent upon

him to give such a notice of motion. He had discharged the duty he had undertaken to perform, and if he had been anxious to diaconne.ct himself with the petition, he might simply attend to tho presentation of it, and there have ceased all connection with it. Blit now we find that nob until after a certain event, to which I shall refer bye-and-bye, did he follow up the notice of motion for a select committee, to put Mr Beetham on his trial, as it were, on these charges. I now come to that part of Mr Macassey’s evidence where he describes the mode in which the petition was presented. He said he rose in his place in the Provincial Council, and mentioned the subject matter of the petition in the usual way, and asked leave to present it ; or rather he had the petition, walked up to vir Speaker, and handed h* j that shortly afterwards the Speaker called him and pointed out that the- regulation of the House, which requires a petition to be sighed by the presentee, had not been complied, with ; that accordingly he (Mr Maoassey) signed it as the person who presented it; that shortly afterwards—possibly a few minutes, certrinly during the same sitting—the Speaker called attention to the fact that regulation 44, which required that a copy of any petition making a charge of misconduct against. a Government officer, should be seat to the Executive Government, had not beep complied with. That was going to pass, but my learned friend (Mr Stout), who was fortunately looking over the journals of the House, found that three days elapsed. The petition was presented and received on May 10, and on the 14th Mr Macassy asked .to be allowed to withdraw it. Mr Macassey explained at first why he came to ask leave to withdraw it was that MrGilliea had pointed out to him that it did not comply with the regulation requiring a copy to be sent to the Government. Upon that I asked him how it was Mr Gillies came to know a copy had not been sent, and Mr Macassey replied—“Terhaps Mr Hides himself asked, and I may have given him the information that it had not.” But what turns out to be the real fact ? Not till the lapse of three days, during which time a tele graphic communication came down from Queenstown, dated the 13th, to the following effect:— Disgraceful underhand business, European residents know nothing about petition, Chinese signatures possibly forgeries, residents here highly indignant. John Alloo says, knows nothing about it. Malaghan, Dr Douglas, J. W. Robertson, &c, This was read out in the Provincial Council • by Mr Innes, and only after that did Mr Macassy think fit to ask leave to withdraw the petition. I say then it was not because of : non-compliance with the rules of the House that Mr Macassey wanted to withdraw it. . He had no occasion to a'.k, but when he did ask, the Council would not let him withdraw it, because they rightly thought “iu a matter so public as this we cannot stop, something must be done.” What was done afterwards, on the metion of Mr Mervyn, was to discharge the reference to a select committee and to recommend the Government to investigate the matter themselves—the course that ought to have been taken in the first instance, Mr Gillies has explained, in reference to the asking of leave to withdraw, that there was no occasion to have asked, as the petition kad been received, no question as to its admissibility having been raised. In point of fact, Mr Macassey only made the attempt to withdraw, it after he found its presentation had caused such a commotion at Queenstown, and had caused the sending of the telegram from Malaghan, Douglas, &c. It was only when Mr Macassey perceived that he had put hisfoot upon dangerous ground that he wanted to withdraw the petition. I invite you to form this conclusion from that attempt; that he thought he had better retrace his steps while he still had the opportunity of doing bo. Probably had that been done, we might nothave heard of this petition ; but on second thoughts, I am not sure of that, because Mr Beetham, on the slightest breath that such charges had been made, would have insisted upon an inquiry into bis conduct, such as subsequently took place. Well, ■ Wa find Mr Macassey, after getting a select committee appointed, thinking it fit and proper, inasmuch as according to the forms of the House he, as mover of the motion, became chairman of the committee, to request relieved from further attendance. 1 think it was high time he should, in his own interest, have retired from further connection with the petition. After this the Executive appointed a Commission consisting of three very respectable gentlemen, viz , Mr Gillies, Speaker of the Provincial CounMr Maitland, H.M, ; and Mr Warden Robinson. The result of their investigation is given in the report which I will now read. It is set oat in the defendant’s pleas. I do so regret that you, gentlemen of the jury, cannot see the evidence and the documents which are attached to that report; but I was shut out from getting that in evidence, because they are not set out in the pleas. Next time l am concerned in a case of this kind I will have the whole of the documentary evidence put into the pleas, though it should require waggons to bring it here. Mr. Barton: Will my leamod friend say that he drew the pleas ? Mr -Smith ; I shall take no notice of such remarks 5 and X only ask the jtfry to pay any regard to my own remarks so far as thev are consistent with the evidence. When interrupted I was about to refer to the report of the Commissioners, from which I shall now read. We, theCommisioners appointed by the Provincial Government to inquire into the petition of certain Chinese residents of the Wakatip district against Mr Warden Beetham, have the nonor to .report as followsAs to the origin of the petition, we find from the evidence that on "“■.f, 1 ™! a meeting was held at the Arrow, at which twenty Chinese were present. This meeting seems to have been convened by letter, and among those present were several men of someinnuence amongtbeir countrymen. At this meeting a petition was drawn up and adopted. Tins petition was written in book manner three, ana copies of it were made into books numbers Tof 6 ’/i vT °\?' Il< Wi?. ul > ese were afterwards circulated by the Chinese throughout the district for signature. It appears that Mr Macassey, during his candidature atQueenstowu, was asked Dy two of the leading promoters of the petition personally, as well as through Mr Barton, if he would present it, and that he consented to do so. About March 20, a fair copy of the petifaon m Chinese (book A) was brought to Mr ? a v^°. n Q > one Quan Hay, who appeared to have taken a leading part in getting it up. The purport of this document was explained to Mr Barton, who wrote pat, “from memory,” the forTOrded 40 Mr Mr Beetham is an honorable gentleman, in an important public position, is widely respected, ind without a stain upon his character, and this petition levels the grossest charges Against him; yet Mr G. B. Barton thinks it proper, as the commissioners find he did, to content himself with writin? down from memory the contents of a translation Vfiuch he must have got somewhere, I sav such (conduct is disgraceful, and ought to ensure Mr Barton’s being struck off the rolls of this Court, l am sorry he was not placed m the witness box to explain his conduct, if , “ e could- My learned friend has done that gentleman an injustice in not putting him there. I should certainly have had the opportunity, if he had been put there, of putting him to such a searching cross-examina tion as he would.no doubt have dreaded. He dare not face it ; therefore he was not put there. Gentlemen, what do you think of a case conducted in that way ? Mr Barton I was actually brought all the way down from Queenstown ready to give evidence for the plaintiff if the plaintiff saw the opportunity

for his doing so, and at the eleventh hour he m held back, although Mr Barton is the per- ?- 01 u °^ ers w bo could throw a flood of light, if Mr Macassey has told the truth, on his own and Mr Macassey’s connection with the petition ; yet the plaintiff dare not expose him to the test ot cross-examination. The purport of this document was explained by Mr Barton, who wrote out from memory the English version, which he forwarded to Mr Macassey for presentation. 'lhat was a most nefarious proceeding. I say that Mr Macassey had before him, when that document reached him, in such a shape as to show that it had been tampered with, with the accompanying letter from Mr Barton, in which he prayed for concealment of his handwriting, sufficient to have caused him to have put the vile, underhand thing from him, as being utterly unworthy of him to touch. _ Erom the translations of the Chinese petitions, which we have been able to obtain, it seems to us that the English version piesented to the Council contains a more stronglyexpressed statement of grievances than is to be found in the original. As we find material points of difference in the translations, and as the interpreters say they are unable to render the Chinese document verbatim, which both parties are anxious to have done, we would advise the Government to take steps to obtain a really accurate translation. It appears that the European population were kept in total ignorance of the movement. It was a hole and corner proceeding. Mr Barton : By Chinamen. Mr Smith ; By Mr Macassey and Mr Barton. I say that plainly, and I have no doubt Mr Macassey was correct to a great extent ; but his proceedings in Queenstown were of such a character as to leave very little trace behind. He would have been the greatest of dolts if he had not left as little trace as possible. Shrewd man that he is, he took very good’ cat 6 not to leave any such trace. But he has not taken his measures so warily ; he has himself betrayed the real significance of the part he took in the matter, and his friend Mr Barton has assisted him to enable you to draw that conelusion. -From the translations of the Chinese petition which we have been able to obtain, it seems to us that the English version presented to the Council contains a more strongly expressed statement of grievances than is to be found in the original. I should think it did. As we find material points of difference in the translations, and as the interpreters say they are unable to render the Chinese document verbatim, which both parties are anxious to have done, we would advise the Government to take steps to obtain a really accurate translation of it. It appears that the European population of the district were kept in total ignorance of the movement. The large number of names appended to the petition would seem to show a wide-spread feeling of satisfaction among the Chinese; but this conclusion is open to grave doubt, for the following reaThat one party of about forty Chinese, whom we have examined and whose names appear to the petition against Mr Beetham, positively assert that the signatures are not theirs, and that they never authorised anyone to sign on their behalf. It is quite possible that if we had had the opportunity of pushing our investigations further, other instances of the same kind might have come to (2nd.) That as a rule in the Queenstown distnet, the Chinese work together in large companies, under headmen who appear to exercise a great influence and control over them, and that the mere number of names attached to the petition does not on this account carry tho same weight as if any large proportion of the men had been in independent positions. We have been at great pains to discover whether there is any foundation for the charges contained in the petition, that Mr Beetham has in his judicial capacity shown prejudice against the Chinese leadmg him to acts of injustice towards them. We find nothing whatever to support this view. We have procured an analytical list of cases heard throughout the district, in the Warden’s and Kesident Magistrate’s Court, since November, tw j • e t'hat there were heard in the Warden’s Court fifteen cases between Chinese and Europeans, in eight of which judgment went against the Chinese. In the Resident Magistrate s Court, during the same period, torty-three cases between Europeans and Chinese (this number includes all cases brought by the police against the Chinese). Of them twenty-four were decided against the Chinese, snowing 1 as a result that the decisions for and against them have been equally divided ; and m those cases adverse to the Chinese there does not appear pnmafacie evidence of any injustice having been done. Was there ever a more triumphant vindication against the foul charges which had been levelled against Mr. Beetham? No doubt my learned friend on the other side will say, “ True, Mr. Beetham is to be vindicated, but it is the duty of a person occupying the public position of Mr. Macassey, and for the benefit of the administration of justice, that such charges should be investigated.” It is so : but I submit that, even supposing a gentleman like Mr. Macassey had not manifested such a spirit of hostility as he showed to Mr. Beetham, he should have had some prima facie evidence that the charges were well founded before he consented to be the party to make them public. What was the position of Mr. Beetham? These charges were made in 1872, and the report of the Commissioners was not presented until 12 months afterwards. Eor 12 months, therefore, that poor gentleman lay under the grievous suspicion of having been corrupt in his office—for a whole 12 months, until his exoneration was made public through being placed on the table of the Provincial Council. And yet Mr. Macassey, having been instrumental in inflicting on him such grievous torture, comes and asks you to give him damages of Mr. Bell for making comments in this article! It is complained that it was published in Mr. Macassey’s absence. Should Mr. Macassey be the only person to be considered ? Was his absence to prevent a journalist commenting on the discreditable character of all concerned, when such daring avidity was displayed in making and publishing charges taking the extraordinary course of bringing them before the Provincial Council, and thus giving them undue publicity, instead of going to the Executive Government if there was a prima facie case for them to investigate ? It is the bo unden duty of the Government to do it, and if they neglect their duty in such a matter they must be brought to the bar of public opinion, and turned out of office. But here Mr. Macassey comes and asks for damages against a journalist for taking an opportunity of commenting on a report when it appeared, and as an additional grievance it is complained it was done in Mr. Macassoy’s absence. Was the Press to wait before they mado comments on tho Chinese petition ? If Mi. Macassey cliose to leave the colony before this report came out, knowing as he did that Hie Commission was appointed, was the Press to wait his return, which might, for aught they knew, be delayed for 10 or 20 years? He knew the Commissioners were sitting, and he knew they could not connect mm with direct connection with the petition, because he knew perfectly well there was no evidence. He tells you the knowledge was confined to himself, and Mr. G. B. Barton and his brother. I will ask you whether the absence of Mr. Macassey should have restrained all reference whatever to that petition ? Had they not a solemn duty to tulfil, a duty which Mr. Bell 12 months before, as is shown by those letters, did perform when he published a more severe article against Mr. Macassey, containing charges of fabricating the petition ? Mr. Bell sent an answer to the letter, asking an apology, and said, “I will not apologise ; but, if Mr. Macassey likes, I will publish a denial of the imputation. But I myself owe a duty to Mr. Beetham, who has the reputation of a highminded Magistrate. I

fed. in duty bound to give insertion to a denial.” Ho said, “ I am glad to hear (as everybody else will be) that Mr. Macassey is free from the charges against him.” My learned friend will show that Mr. Bell was convinced there was no ground for the charge made in this article. I beg you to bear this in mind: the charge made in the extract from the WaJcatip Mail was a different one altogether from that made here. My learned friend will try to persuade you that Mr. Bell wrote a letter to show that he had reason to believe the charges groundless. The charge was totally different and very much grosser than any iu this article. It was a charge of fabricating a petition—that the Chinese communicated with Mr. Macassey, and that he forged thepetition j and it was for giving currency to such a gross charge by admitting it into the columns of his paper that an apology was asked. Mr. Bell said, “ I will not apologise: it is only justice to a high-minded Magistrate; but if you like I will publish a denial.” It was a most chivalrous act on his part—on the part of a man who had a high reputation to uphold it was a dangerous line of action, for unless he was prepared to sustain that charge he exposed himself to serious consequences. But it was a totally different charge from this. All I mean to say is, Mr. Macassey did identify himself with the petition, which, when it reached his hands, was manifestly a garbled document, accompanied with most damning evidence that there was something wrong—' something vile in the transaction; because Mr. GK B. Barton asked that his name should be concealed, and that Mr. Macassey should have a copy made for presentation to the Council. I say no man of any credit, whose mind was not blinded by resentment, would have done other than say, “ No, I will not have anything to do with such a petition as this, which Mr. GK B. Barton is ashamed to connect himself with.” Why what a coward a man must be to ask to be so treated ! I come to the conclusion there was something foul, and that he garbled that document. He knew about the £2OO and the clever lawyer. I did not charge Mr. Macassey with that, nor is it charged in this article that he knew the contents of the petition. All that is said is that that passage is judiciously omitted. Is it not a fact that a translation was obtained by the Government which is appended to the report, and that it contains reference to £2OO, while it is altogether omitted in the translation presented to the House? There is strong reason to believe that Mr. G. B. Barton omitted that passage, and as to Mr. Macassey he might or might not know. I do not impute to Mr. Macassey anything about his knowledge of the £2OO, nor is he charged with that knowledge iu this article. There are only one or two points more on which I wish to say a few words. My learned friend Mr. Barton, in his opening, .referred to the notice which is appended to the pleas in that denomination of matters to be given in evidence in mitigation of damages. Thatis only given as a technical matter. I will tell you the real object. It is to satisfy your minds that Mr. Bell was not guided by malice in giving insertion to that article. Whether he was the author of it or not, does not matter one straw. He admitted it, and is responsible for it. To show that he was not actuated in any degree by malice, only nine days after the issue of the writ, on the 14th January, an article appeared in the Evening ftar, giving an account of the Chinese petition, as received from a gentleman from Queenstown—very likely Mr. G. B. Barton. _ I think Mr. Barton said it was he. (.The article of the 14th January was read.) Now, my learned friend made a strange statement that it rendered Mr. Bell defenceless iu the action. I say it assists his defence, for it entirely removes the imputation of malice. He went out of his way t® give an entire explanation of the matter, and exonerates Mr. Macassey, as is now proved, far beyond the truth. No doubt the insertion of that article was intended as a kind of placebo to prevent further proceedings, and Mr. Macassey ought to have withdrawn his action and been satisfied. It was doing more than Mr. Bell was bound to do. But, instead of that, he went on with the action. Why ? Because Mr. Macassey believes that through it he can attack one who he thinks owes him a grudge, and he wishes to stab Judge Ward. We are told by some that they ought to have passed by that article as harmless; but, at any rate, 1 think you will admit it would have been more prudent, after the issue of that article, nut to have proceeded further. Bear in mind that it was published before the pleas were recorded, and when Mr. Macassey showed a determination to proceed in this action. The pleas were put on record, and they amount to this : “Well, if you will have it, that we must go into the facts of the case, then you shall have it,” and therefore it is I have endeavoured to point out to you its true significance. Gentlemen, one would have expected to have heard something about Mr. Macassey on his return to this country, on learning the complete and triumphant exoneration of Mr. Beetham from the foul charges under which he had lain 12 long months, subjected to mental butchery, the butchery of being accused of crime, all the evidence of which could have been suborned, and perhaps it is not difficult to secure such evidence; for the evidence of Ah Chew was totally different from what was read to me. Mr. Beetham, I say, had been in that mental butchery for 12 months. Not only was his means of existence at stake, but, for an honourable man, what was far dearer to him, his credit and honour, as a man who had kept the oath he had taken to administer justice to all parties before him. He knew if the report of the Commission wore unfavourable to him he would be dismissed from office not to another district, but thrust n'om his office and sent to eternal infamy, lhat was the fate of a wretched man whose honour was impugned, for more than 12 long months. Mr. Macassey has been now some months in the colony. Ho we hear of him tendering an apology to Mr, Beetham for throwing so much dirt on him ? On the contrary, when Mr. Barton put Mr. Beetham through cross-examination, trying to show the charges of corruption were well founded, Mr. Macassey was prompting Mr. Barton to sheet home those charges made on the subject. So far from Mr. Macassey thinking he has reparation to make, he wishes still to press his charges as far as he can. And this is the gentleman who comes to you asking for damages, because a journalist has, in the fearless , pursuit of his duty—and all honour to Mr. Bell for having done so—characterised his conduct in the terms it deserves : I say in terms' far below what are true. He is described as having been concerned in a discreditable transaction, and I say he presented a fictitious document, keeping Mr. Barton’s name a secret in a manner that it is mean to think of. I say Mr, Macassey made himself a party to the transaction, by not throwing the document and letter away, and saying, “ 1 will have nothing to do with it, more especially as my conduct in the matter will be called in question through suspicion, because I have made charges against Mr. Beetham. Therefore, I am just the man that ought to have nothing to do with it; therefore, through regard to the purity of my reputation, do not ask me to be the vehicle for throwing so much mud on that honourable gentleman Mr. Beetham.” If Mr. Macassey’s connection witli the petition had only then commenced, I should ask you to conclude—l do ask you to conclude he was a party to it, for there is strong evidence that that petition had been tampered with by Mr G. B. Barton ; and then to try to hoodwink a jury of twelve, men of common sense,

that, because we cannot see the hand that affixed the signatures to this Chinese petition, is monstrous. They were chuckling over the opportunity of satisfying a craving for revenge against Mr. Beetham, and because we cannot trace Mr. Macassey from day to day and hour to hour in his conduct at Queenstown, you are to be hoodwinked in saying that the article is too strong when we say that is the result of Mr. Macassey’s labours, and imputing an improper connection of Mr. Macassey with the petition, because that is in other words saying he had no hand in it. I shall say nothing further on that point, but I leave it to your grave consideration, that a man of upright character, actuated by a sincere desire to forward the ends of justice as he ought to do, has been assailed; and on receiving a petition in the shape in which this translation reached Mr. Macassey, it was accompanied by a letter suggesting fraudulent practice. And also bear this in mind, that although Mr. GK B. Barton was sitting in this Court; although he was bound to be about the Court during the trial, having been brought down by Mr. Macassey, subpoenaed by the plaintiff; and although he was identified with this business; although it is known that through him the petition came, as he was the only person to whom Mr. Macassey spoke about this petition,—l ask you to bear in mind that they have not dared to put that gentleman in the box; and of Mr. Barton himself I have to say he would not have dared to face a cross-examination, for I would drag the truth out of him and make him declare the fraudulent practice he has k. een guilty of in this case, for it it a fraud upon the Provincial Council to give what he says is the purport of a petition, and to put it into a different form altogether from that which it bore in the original; and, not content with this, to strengthen the language, which those Commissioners found he had done strengthened the charges against Mr. Beetham, and sent it down as a genuine translation. I do not wish to use stronger language than the case deserves ; but l. feel I should be a moral coward if I did not use language fit for the occasion, and to allow that to be presented to the Provincial Council I say to all and purposes was a fraud. My learned friend, Mr. Stout, reminds me that the other side changed their tactics ; they did call Mr. Barton, and then put Mr. Macassey into the box, . His Honor: Oh, no. Mr. Smith; Mr. Haggitt says I am right. I say their conduct covers him with shame. If they wanted the truth to come out, why did they not put him in that bar P Have I dabbled in reticence on my side ? Have I not allowed Mr. Macassey to repeat his Queenstown speeches. It is a marvel to me the manner in which the words flowed off his tongue in those smooth silvery, Queenstown speeches. I did not stop that evidence, although my friends opposed that evidence which ought to have been before you. If they wanted a fair case, why did they oppose that evidence ? You will remember, in this case the Judge’s law is better than mine. We will therefore assume he was right to do it, but it ill became their side rejecting that evidence. You must have felt an intense desire to see that evidence on which Mr. Bell has founded his article. Mr. Barton: You could have put Mr. Bell into the box. Mr. Smith : I am speaking of the evidence that cannot lie, if truth or falsehood is the question: that that documentary evidence warranted the writer of that article in his comments by facts. He was privileged by law in his character of journalist, and in reflectmg upon the individuals named, so long as he was legitimate in his remarks, and was not actuated by malice. On that point Mr. Bell did more than he needed to have done, for now we have been pledged to meet the circumstances. Of the only two paragraphs reflecting on Mr. Macassey which have been brought before you, the evidence amply warranted such statements and comments. I feel I may have trespassed at too great length upon you, and I have to thank you for your patience ; but, before I conclude my remarks, I will again glance at the issues, that there may be no misunderstanding the question. I claim your verdict on every one of those issues. Juries sometimes give a half-and-half verdict. They give 40s. damages, which carries costs, or one farthing. I, however, claim your verdict on all the issues for the defendant. I remember, I have neglected one point, namely, that Mr. Macassey’s statement was distinctly contradicted. There is ample evidence on that point from what Mr. GiUies and Mr. Maitland said. Mr. Grimes qualified his evidence by saying it was a contradiction, for Mr. Macassey was not there to get up the petition. Mr. Maitland’s statement was, “1 understood witnesess to make a statement contrary to that of Mr. Macassey’s statement in the Council that he had no hand in getting up the petition.” Therefore every one of the statements made has been proved m evidence, and I submit we are entitled to a verdict on every issue. If you give a verdict for even one farthing, then that could be made to carry costs by the Judge giving a certificate to the effect that the libel was malicious. •“T®, 1 * that case Mr. Bell would be subject to enormous costs, for it would involve the expense of several witnesses from Queenstown, and necessarily incur , ® r .„ heavy expenses, whereas the plaintiff, if the verdict goes against him, would not have to pay his professional brethren, the etiquette being they take no fees. I thought it necessary to say this much, for juries desire to be made aware of it. I leave the case in your hands, feeling that you will by your verdict assert the liberty of the Press, and teach Mr. Macassey a lesson of which he stands much in need, and which will be salutary through the whole of his future life. Mr. Barton: I feel very painfully the extreme personal animosity which has been displayed towards Mr. Macassey lias for some reason or other extended to myself, and which, to a certain extent, has prevented mo doing my duty. I was going to say I am not surprised, but I am surprised, that the quarrel between Mr. Macassey and Mr. Smith Mr. Smith : If Mr. Barton dares to make allusion to such purely personal matters, I will expose him as having been the cause of Mr. Macassey s displeasure towards myself, it is not in evidence, and, if persisted in, I shall make a personal explanation to the Court and to the jury. His Honor: I know nothing of it. Mr. Barton; It is stated that Mr. Macassev should never have presented that petition r " ee^am ’ have as great a Mr. Smith: I claim the right of protecting myself. Gentlemen of the jury, upon my solemn word I am actuated by no personal animosity to Mr. Macassey, but I tell you if you can perceive anything that has emanated rom us unworthy of the case that you can set own fairly to that, you will dismiss it. As I told you before, in my address, I* want no reference to anything except the evidence. s to Mr. Barton and his reference to Mr. Macassey, it is very disgraceful, for it was instrumentality that he has been kept m his profession at all, for Mr. Macassey tried to exclude him from it, and that is the Macassey ° <JUarrel befcween myself and Mr. Mr. Barton: I am in a painful position. I have been attacked personally in such a way S M? 8 \ CarC f y able t0 kee P my temper, and that not only, through the 1 Press but by the counsel m this case. How, gentlemen, I

will endeavour to show you the points of this case ; I will show you that the true question is not Mr. Beetham’s character or conduct. I have not a word on my brief to say either good or ill of him, but I am in the painful position that the case of the plaintiff is whether he did a wicked and cruel thing, and whether Mr. Macassey has attacked everybody. It really amounts to this: that because he has attacked everybody Mr. Bell has a perfect right to attack him, and deal in falsehood, however foul or wicked; that because Mr. Macassey may or .may not have rightfully or wrongfully attacked people, you must allow any to attack him, however falsely or vilely. First of all, you have to decide whether the article itself is a libel on Mr. Macasseyin other words, does it charge him with the following things : —Did ho have any hand in getting up the Chinese petition which was presented by him, and did he concoct it?— for that is what the article charges somebody with. Smith says it was concocted by Mr. Barton, and Mr. Macassey, and the Chinese interpreter, John AUoo. Let me make the first point clear: that Mr. Barton, along with Mr. Macassey, got up this pretended petition, representing Chinese grievances and Chinese discontent that did not exist. Second, did the article charge Mr. Macassey with making a corrupt bargain: that for £2OO he would get Warden Beetham removed, and that if he failed to get him removed he would not require payment. Assuming for a moment that he did make such a bargain, did he tamper with the petition that was sent down to him for presentation, by removing the true translation which would have shown the corrupt bargain subsisting, or, to use the words of the article, judiciously omitting all mention of money, transforming a Chinese document which wae really a book for the payment of money into a petition ? On the first question, it is the article itself that says these things. According to Mr. Stout, the article does not; but according to Mr. Smith, who attacks Mr. Macassey in the strongest possible manner, the charges are made. One of two things: either the article says these things of Mr. Macassey, or it does not. But Mr. Smith even goes further; >he charges it against Mr. Macassey that the petition is a forgery. Mr. Smith: I charge the petition as a forgery! I never said a word to that effect. Allow me to explain what I said. I asked the jury to distinguish between the charge made by this article against Mr. Macassey, viz., that he had had some hand in getting up this petition, and the charge made by the Wakatip Mail 12 months previously, in an article which was copied into Mr. Bell’s paper, and contained the very serious insinuation that the petition had been forged. Mr. Barton: When I asked why the other side had not called any of the Chinese, the learned counsel used these words in reply : “ It is not difficult to see that there has been subornation of these Chinese witnesses. The evidence of Ah Chew was totally different from what was briefed to me.” Who suborned these witnesses? Subornation of perjury is charged to some one. The meaning of the learned counsel was perfectly plain, and I shall say no more on that head. Let us recur to the article. I say it charges the plaintiff, as I have told you, and I submit you cannot possibly come to any other conclusion. I will now tell you what evidence there is that it does so charge him. You have the evidence of Dr. Stuart, Messrs. Strode, Reid, and Cargill, upon the meaning of the article. But you, gentlemen, are not bound by what any witness says ; you are twelve gentlemen who have to say upon your oaths what you consider the article to mean, and not even the Court can decide it for you, much less the witnesses. But it may be useful to you to know what is the opinion of a number of respuetaWAgentlemen, picked from people on both sides of politics and thought, some of whom may possibly agree with Mr. Macassey, but others who are politically opposed to him. Dr. Stuart says, “Mr. Macassey is charged with manipulating the document, and with corrupt dealing.” Mr. Strode thinks the charge made against Mr., Macassey is that he “ garbled ” the petition, and by using the word “garbled” witness meant that he left out the most material parts to suit his own purpose. Mr. Reid understands by “concocting” that Mr. Macassey had some hand in getting up the petition, and he added that he would be sorry to be in a Ministry along with a gentleman who was guilty of doing such a thing. Mr. Cargill said ho should think it was “ a discreditable transaction,” and he added, if he had been just coming from India with a lac of rupees, he would not have entrusted his business to such a person. Therefore, I take it, there cannot be a shadow of doubt as to the meaning of the article. It meant to charge Mr. Macassey with these things ; it meant the public at all events should be left to suppose Mr. Macassey to be guilty of these things. That was the whole tenor of the article, and the only question to be considered is this—Are these charges true ? Mr. Smith tells you that his plea that they are true has been entirely proved. But there is a second question for you to consider, which is independent of their truth—that is, whether they are true - or not. Is Mr. Bell, as a journalist, privileged to publish those things as facts, and comment upon the facts he has so published? The matter of privilege is really this : Mr. Bell has pleaded that he was privileged to make these comments, and that he made them bona fide and without malice. But the first point to be considered under such a plea as that is, if Mr. Bell depends upon the report of the Commission, was that Commission duly appointed for the purpose of inquiring and reporting as to whether the things stated in the article were facts; that Macassey was to receive £2OO if ho got Beetham removed ; and that he had a hand in getting up that petition improperly ? If they were appointed for the purpose of making such a’ report, and did so report, then I quite admit this : if a Royal Commission is appointed to inquire into and report upon a particular subject, and makes its report upon that subject, if any journalist publishes that report, ho is entitled to protection for so doing, and the fact of his being entitled to publish it really entitles him to make fair comment upon it. I have never disputed that from the commencement of. : this action. Anri so far as the comments are concerned, not only are they fair and reasonable, but I again say they are weak if these things be facts. But was this Commission ever appointed to ascertain whether Mr. Macassey was guilty or not of these things, and did it ever find that it was? If it did so inquire and find on that question of privilage, I must be out of Court, and Mr. Macassey must bear it the best way he can. But there cannot be a shadow of doubt that the ■ Commission was never appointed for such a purpose, Mr. Macassey’s conduct and character was not a question for the Commission, which was solely appointed to find whether or not the Chinese had a fair grievance or complaint as against IMr. Beetham, and the Commission had to confine itself to that, as it really did. No man has any right to dispute the result they arrived at. I don’t care whether the evidence does or does not discharge Mr. Beetham from the charges the Chinese chose to bring against him, which the Commissioners were appointed to inquire into. That evidence has nothing to do with the issue in this case, and I shall not attempt to defend one man by maligning another, who is not before this Court. That Commission did not report one single word justifying such a statement or such things as are set forth in the article.

Nowhere |in that report is it said that Mr. Macassey was guilty of getting up the petition in an improper or underhand way. It is true Mr. Smith has read paragraphs from the report to show that Mr. Macassey was aware of the petition being got up. But what is the fact ? There is not the shadow of doubt—or was there ever any doubt ?—but the first Mr. Macassey ever heard of the petition was when Mr. Barton asked him if he would present it. Another thing complained of—and complained in of the loudest manner passible—by Mr. Smith is that I, in my discretion as counsel for Mr. Macassey, refused, and improperly refused, to allow him (Mr. Smith) to put before you the evidence taken before the Commissioners. I a S reat deal to Ba y upon that. There was a way in which my learned friend could have . got it in evidence at once. The statements of these witnesses before the commissioners, whether true or false, would have been evidence upon this plea of the journalist making bona Me, comments and would have been evidence onhis behalf upon the simple issue, whether or not the journalist was making bona fide comments upon facts fully, within his knowledge when writing the article. Did my learned friend attempt to take that course ? No. A nd why ? Because he dare not put the writer ef this article into the witness-box for one of two reasons ; either because it was written by a person having the strongest malice towards Mr Macassey—and I would be able to prove that —or el*e because the writer of the article was not able to swear that he wrote it with a full knowledge of the facts. Mr objected to introducing matter which was unsupported by evidence. Mr Barton: I ana not going to mention the name of Mr Justice Ward or any other person—(Laughter.) At . all events, if I could only get the writer of that article—- | whoever he may be-into the witness-box/ his malice would be at once exposed under cross-examination. Gentlemen, Mr Bell has been picked ©ut, but I do not charge him with being the writer. He is merely the shadow in the case : he is neither the writer of the article, nor will he have to bear the damages in this action, as evident from the fact that bis counsel in his reply far exceeded in his attack anything that was necessary for the defence of the article. Mr Smith : Will my learned friend be good enough to say where there is any evidence on that point. Mr Barton : There is no evidence to the contrary. (Laughter.) Mr Bell took good care not to go into the witness-box ; and yau saw how every attempt I made to get at the real writer of the artic e was foiled. Let us refer now to translation No. 1, which the commissioners found to be the true translation. The report not only does not adopt that translation, but distinctly repudiates the whole of the translations. According to what appears by this case, the only translation obtained by.the Government—Mr Maitland tells you that the Commissioners did not consider any they had belore them correct -is the one sent from Victoria; which was a translation of the book with five Chinese characters on red paper on its cover. You will notice that those five Chinese characters are not upon the cover of the book Mr Macassey is answerable for. On that book there are eight characters. Mr femith objected to the last-mentioned book being handed in, as it was not in evidence. Mr Barton : I say distinctly the book is in evidence However, I have got this fact out in evidence beyond doubt. Iu the artide itself, you will see one of the transla tions given in parallel columns is said to have five Chinese characters on the top of the cover, and that is a book for the payment of money; and I now give you the only book that is in evidence. On its cover there are eight Chinese characters. When Ah Chew was in the box I was very particular iu getting from him the number of characters. Bight, he said, and he counted them. He gives you the following translation : It has always been heard that a man of all virtue is a princely man, and benevolent and righteous. It is believed by all under heaven: therefore is it necessary to walk the great path or reason, which induces love to all creatures and compassionate tenderness, THferefore 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 flues on us. Thus it may be seen this magistrate appropriates the fines in the dark. A blessed means of support—a large 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. Seeing 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 glad.—(Then follow the names.) —Wong Kun Yin.” There was nothing about subscription or money in that copy. From that it is perfectly clear, so far as Mr Macassey is concerned, this commission were not reporting upon the petition he presented. Therefore all observations on that head may be brushed out of the case. There might bs something in it if the issue had been between Warden Beetham and the Chinese, which is. a very different thing from the issue in this case, which is between'Macassey and Bell. I say you may search the commissioners’ report from top to bottom, and you will not find one word which ought to be considered, or which can be fairly construed into any reflection upon Mr Macassey, except one which, however, has nothing whatever to do with the case, although the article makes much of it. My learned friend. Mr Stout, in stating his caSf \ said the Chinese petition had a number of signatures that were forgeries. Now what came out before the commissioners “ On resuming, at three o’clock. Mr Barton read a paragraph from the • Wakatip Mail,’ and drew the attention of the cotnmi-sioners to it, whereupon Mr Beetham said neither he nor his counsel had any intention of insinuating that the signatures were forgeries,” Here it was announced publicly, when there might have have been opuortunity for disproving the contrary assertion if it had been made—that it was never intended for a moment to impugn the fairness or correctness of the signatures. Could it be pretended for an instant that that piece of evidence could be got rid of ? Take the matter another way: The Chinamen in this Colony were mostly of the lower classes of their people, and China was one ot the least educated peoples m the world. Was it unreasonable to suppose that the Chinese movers in the matter cf the petition explained it to their countrymen and were authorised by those who could not write to sign it ? We regret that the necessity of getting a defaned quantity of matter into this sheet and the want of time to transcribe our notes, prevent us giving in extenso, as we intended the remainder of Mr Barton’s speech, which condensed, was as follows r-He coild very well understand how the Chinese up at Queenstown were anxious to get out of the hands of Beetham’s clique, and would of course deny all knowledge of the petition. 1 he character of Warden Beetham was not m question in this case, but whether there was discontent among the Chinese was a question to be considered, because if there

were no discontent, among the Chinese, it would be said that Mr Macassey had some part in the petition. As to why Mr Mauders should not be attacked for writing the libellous extract which had been copied into the Star, there was an old phrase of Horace, which he quoted, and which might be freely interpreted—“ 1 hat the needy editor may whittle before all the lawyers put together.” He thought the jury had seen enough of Manders to show them that he was not a gentleman in the best of circumstances, to judge of him by his clothes. Like most men living by literature he was a remarkable instance of a clever fellow, and • ho' believed, a university man, reduced to writing for newspapers. His friend said the Chinese should have re. ported to the Government; but had they not asked Manders to do so, and he refused?' Of course no man at Queenstown would ‘ report Mr Beetham, and especially JMr Manders; who was struggling to make a precarious living on a newspaper. While he (Mr Barton) did not say th*re was misconduct en the part Mr Beetham ; he did say the Chinese had a feeling of discontent before Mr Machssy went up, and as a member of the Ligislature he was bound to present the petition. That the petition was well on foot when Mr Msccassey came to the district there was amplest VT CO „ A ® toheingtold that he should c 11 Mr G. B. Barton, he was very much astonished at the charge made. According to Mr femith. there was no color too black for the purpose of painting Mr Barton, and vet i e gG n tle f iail^lr Smifch expected the plaintiff to call Mr Smith had if he had got Mr Barton in the witness-box, he would show that he had nude a false translation. ' Sup. posing Mr Barton had done so, what had Mr Macassey to do with that ? : If they beheved Ah Chew, who was • independent of the people m Queenstown. Mr Barton's was the only fair, legitimate,-ani honest translation, and he (Mr Barton) would say that it was so, m spite of all the Smiths and Stouts and commissioners piled up together. John Alloo saw the statement retarding the 1 L2OO m a book with which Mr Macassey had mo.thing to do. Mr Barton then spoke to show :that the Chinese would not lot Mr G B thl T°9nn r 1 * Macassey into the secret about the L2OO bub would raise as much mouoy as C °wt iV th . eu ’ cou ntryraen andefcick to it. Why, he asked, should he call Mr G. B. Barton unless for his friend to abuse and ' bullyrag him. Mr Barton then referred to the article put m in mitigation of damage (that containing the statement of “ the gentleman from Queenstown ”), and said it Was no mitigation and that if Bell wanted to apoogise why did he not publish a plain apology, withdrawing all expressions that had been used m the article that was the subject-matter of this action, and paying aU costs of the action i vso far as it had gone. ‘ his-libel was one of the crudest he had ever heard of. and if the jury gave a verdict for the defendant, they could not but come to the conchision that they were ruining the character of “£“• The commissioners reported that they distrusted the accuracy of the pretended[translations, whereas the plea invited em to find that the translations were correct, and, having done that, to find that Mr Macassey was what Mr Smith said he (plain: t!tt) and Mr Barton were. He concluded as follows : Gentlemen, in opening this case i said it was not one calling for vindictive damages, and, that such a thing was nob asked by Mr Macassey. I now withdraw every word; and, after the abuse that has been heaped upon him, would urae you to give him the fullest damages you can—to give him a verdict which will redeem his character and show that he is entitled to hold his_ place at the bar and amongst his private friends ; to be invited and received m their houses. This case has been amended evidently with instructions to V aad utterly ruin Macassey if you can throw all the dust at him you can; and this is done through the mouth ot one of the ablest counsel at this bar, -ft will bo spread through the length and breadth of the land that M r Macassey was of utterly abandoned, wicked, and vile character, and one who ought to never again be allowed to hdd up ins head. It is impossible for me to suppose more personal malice against Mr Macassey that has been shown against him in this r **°wever, entirely acquit Mr femith of that, but I regret that his idstructurns should have led him to attack myself. My character is nob well able to bear such attacks. I was once cruelly treated myself, and the sting I will bear the best pirt of my life. But I will leave that alone. The attack u P° Q , the plaintiff in this action is such an attack as might be expected from those who gave such instructions. Now, the man who wrote this article-Mr Bell cannot bo supposed for a moment to pay these damages; neither did he, nor would he, instruct connsel to make such statements as have been made T lß a man wll ° has large sums of money, and who says-“Don’t spare the money. I "V 1 &ny da «Jages-the full LI,OOO asked—but don’t spare Macassey.” Gentlemen, I hope you will give the LI, 000 and teach this person the lesson that he cannot utterly destroy the private character of a man, or cause that man t6 lie down m the gutter for the rest of his life, or drive the plaintiff from the bar with dis* grace and discredit, as might be done as the result of this, action. If the plaintiff does not receive a verdict at your hands, he will be . unable to hold up his head as he has done hitherto. Will you allow that ? Will you allow his character to be entirely taken away from him ; as you are in effect asked to do in the speech you have just heard If you do not clear Mr Macassey’s character by giving the whole LI,OOO. you will do a great wrong to yourselves, and an immense wrong to the whole of the community, and make the Brqss the complete masters of our private characters, as well as of our public ac s. Gentlemen, if you do not give Mr Macassey the full Ll.ooo, and so mark in the strongest possible way the lascality of this proceeding, you will greatly disappoint me. [Hor continuation of report, see body of paper.] ,