DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3746, 24 February 1875, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Wednesday, February 24. (Before his Honor Judge Bathgate.)

Garrick v. Pyke.— Claim L? 00 for alleged breach of contract on the part of defendant as proprietor of the * Southern Mercury,’ and for moneys due.—The adjourned healing of this case was continued. Mr Barton appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Haggitt defended. Vincent Pyke re-exsmined: Since I was in the witness-box on the last Court day, I searched for a letter, and in doing so found au account put in by plaintiff for Ll7 4s for travelling expenses, and the amount is said to be advanced. The account produced (and afterwards drawn) is for L 24 expenses on the same journey. The ‘ Southern Mercury,’ produced of May 8, states that the paper bad changed hands. The management was taken over by the ‘ Guardian ’ Company on May 2. Plaintiff published on May S for the * Guardian' Company and at the expressed request of the directors. On May 9 plaintiff was appointed temporarily as reporter for the ‘Guardian,’ continuing with the company after my ownership ceased.—Cross-examined : Plaintiff was not able to make up the proposed calculation in & ovember, 1873. I assigned to plaintiff as a reason for refusing to take him into partnership that would wait to see if the paper was a financial success. If would be an insane idea for any man to say that he would pay money out of his own pocket to start a paper, and then to promise to take in a partner if the publication proved a success. If I did so I would be a fit subject for a lunatic asylum. Mr Morris, who was in my employ, may not be paid m full. He called pretty regularly to get his money, while plaintiff and Mr Wheeler did not. I do not remember saying that Wheeler made a muddle in the publication of “ Wild Will Enderby.” I do not believe that he drew money from the book. To let plaintiff become a partner at the close of two years and under the conditions stated would be a preposterous thing, as it would be LIOO less than if the money was paid cash down. It is both a risky and expensive thing to start a newspaper. I thought it unnecessary to answer in writing plaintiff’s letter ot November 23. Plaintiff accepted as salary L 250 per annum ; but he did not draw it regularly. Ho made a mess of the sub editing generally, but was a very good publisher, and I found him in the right place when I tried him as such. When Mr G. B. Barton edited the ‘ Times,’ things on the paper were very dull- even duller than now. —(Laughter.) He might give plaintiff very good testimonials —those things often occured. Sir F. D. Bell appointed reporters on the “Hansard” and I know that plaintiff has been dismissed from the staff. Mr Creighton was a very competent man to form an opinion of the abilities of a newspaper man, and so was Mr Pyke, though at times the latter was rather rash. (Mr Barton then read letters from Messrs Creighton and Pyke. The latter, on behalf of the directors of the ‘ Guardian ’ Company, wrote to plaintiff, conveying to him their entire satisfaction with the manner in which he had discharged his duties, and said that his dismissal had only been occasioned with a view to economy, and it was not proposed he should be replaced by any other person, and that should any vacancy occur he would be taken on again.) Witness continued : That is true it testified to his com-, potency as a reporter on the * Guardian.’ He never reported for the ‘ Mercury.’ Reporters often wrote locals, some were published, others were consigned to the waste-paper basket and re-written by the sub editor. I could not possibly point out one paragraph—either commercial or otherwise—in the paper of which plaintiff made a mess. It would be impossible to do so, as I had to revise the copy before it went into the printer’s hands. If plaintiff swore that he had the sole management of the ‘Cluthi Leader,’ that in the last number all the original matter, with the exception of one short article, was written by him, and if newspaper man after newspaper man stepped into the box And. said that it was a creditable pro - duction, I would say that such work would not do for me.—Mr Barton then questioned witness as to an article in the ‘ Guardian’ on February 15, and asked him who wrote it.—Mr Haggit; You need not answer that question.—Mr Barton replied that Mr Haggitt knew the writer and object of the article.—Mr Haggitt: My learned friend called me a liar throe times in ten minutes the other day, and is trying to do so now. lam trying to behave myself as a gen tleman, and if I cannot .Mr Barton said he had not called Mr Haggitt a liar, and his Worship observed that Mr Barton should not have interrupted counsel by telling him that he knew all about the article.—Mr Haggit said that his objection to the question was this—whatever articles Pyke wrote in.the ‘ Ginrdian’ could have no connection with the case. The article was entirely iuathnissable, and it was wasting the time of the Court by introducing matters which could have no bearing on the case. —Mr Barton submitted that if he could trace to air Pyke or his counsel the authorship of the artice, it should form a very important element as to the credibility of his witnesses and the result of the case. The ‘ Times ’ next morning had pointed out that the article in question referred to this case.—His Worship said that it was sufficient for witness to swear that he had not written the article : but this would not satisfy Mr Barton, who asked if the Court would not protect practitioners from rascalous scurrility like what was contained in the article. If they were not co be protected they should not practise in the Court.—Witness ; I read the manuscript before it went to the printers, and did not think is referred to my own case, to plaintiff’s solicitor, or anyone in particular. It is one of those nasty insinuations to say that it does, which no honest man would ever have thrown out. The imputation by tho 1 Daily Times ’ is a base and heartless one.—Mr Barton : Was not the manuscript of the article fetched to your office by au articled clerk?— Witness asked tho Bench if it was necessary for him to answer the question. -Mr Haggitt: Then I ask you did I write this article ? Witness : No. [Mr Barton here questioned witness as to his willingness to settle with plaintiff. Defendant stated he was always prepared to come to a settlement with Garrick, and that he would have paid him the salary he was entitled to after going through the books, there being a dispute of something like three or four pounds between them. He had an interview with Cnrrick in relation to tho matter, but the latter did not threaten to assault him ; all he did was to make ugly faces at him. (Loud laughter.)]—Mr Barton : You have attacked Mr Garrick’s character pretty _ hotly. Were you not yourself originally a linendraper ?—Witness : No.—Mr Barton : Then a hosier?— Witness: I am not ashamed if I was. I was a miner, then I kept a store, and then became a member of Parliament and warden.—Mr Barton :Do you think that a good training to become an editor?— Witness: Capital. You get an insight into life. (Laughter.) I swear I was never dismissed from the wardenshin. An inquiry between Sergeant Farrell nnd me was taken before Mr Maitland, K.M., but did not result in my dismissal. It was made at my instance, and they cut down my salary to such an extent that I was obliged to leave. I could not exist. This was defendant’s case. The following rebutting evidence was given : Plaint If re-called : I was engaged as subeditor solely. Wheeler kept the books. Defendant njvor took the sub-editing out of my hands, and I continued in that capacity till the close of my engagement. The first time I hoard a complaint was when Drumm stepped into the witness-box. Drumm used to blackguard me at night for not having the coramei* cial read v.

J. M. Perrier, editor of the ‘ Bruce Herald,’ said that in conversations with him towards the end of April last Pyke denied the sale of the ‘ Mercury,’ though witness was aware it had been sold to the ‘ Guardian.’ He admitted he had an ill-will against Pyke, but not to do him an injustice in a court. What he meant was that he had no faith in Pyke’s word, and told him he must not be surprised if he (Peirier), if similar circumstances occurred, acted the same as he (Pyke) had done towards him. That was if he was ottered Pyke’s billet it would give him glory to turn him out. The position that he (Perrier) had now the honor of holding was much better than Pyko’s, but he would sacrifice his interests for a little satisfaction. Judgment was reserved.