THE JONES LIBEL CASE.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1258, 19 March 1878, Page 3

THE JONES LIBEL CASE.

[By Telegraph.] Dunedin, March 18. The trial by jury of the Jones case came on this morning. After the Crown prosecutor had opened the case evidence was taken, but only of a formal character, as no evidence of justification was admissible. The following is the evidence : Colin McKenzie Gordon—l am DeputyRegistrar of the Supreme Court, I produce affidavit sworn to by defendant on the occasion of the x-egistration of the “ Evening Mail.” Richard Dignan—l am clerk of the Customs at Oamaru, and know defendant, who is proprietor of the “ Evening Mail” newspaper. I purchased this paper at that office. The title of the paper is the “ Evening Mail.” It purports to be printed by George Jones, John Edward Dcnniston—lama barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court practising in Dunedin. My attention has been directed to an article in the Oamaru “ Evening Mail.” With reference to the passage in the article —“That hideous thing of which the Attorney-General is the parent”—l should think it meant that Mr Whitaker introduced and fathered the Bill in the House With regard to the alleged swindle, I would think it meant that Mr Whitaker had introduced a Bill for the apparent purpose of legitimately selling Native lands, but which was really intended to enable some Auckland speculator's, afterwards mentioned as Mr Whitaker and his friends, to obtain lands in an unfair and objectionable manner. I think it would stand stronger phraseology. I should say “dishonest manner.” With regard to other passage regarding the enrichment of the Attorney General and his ic&y.eagues, I would take it to mean that the AtWney-General and his colleagues had previously enriched themselves at the expense of the colony by unfairly dealing in native lands, and that the Bill was introduced with the intention of still further enabling them to do it. I take the paragraph commencing “ The person” ■to mean that the Ashland land ring, that is Mr Whitaker and friends, mentioned in the article, had some dirty work to do connected -vvitlr land speculation, and that they selected an an&ent whom they knew was doing such work as .a'ucwn in the part commencing “ If the Act vyerc ■allow**! to pass, and the swindle we have just exposed were perpetrated.” I see that the article Alleges that Mr Whitaker did the dirty work. To Mr Rees—l think the whole description of what Brissendcn is alleged in this article to Lave done hi re Moon, says that he did dirty work. I think the expression “further enrich” means further enrich at the expense of the colony, I think £he expi’ession as to how Mr Whitaker enriched is to be gathered from the rest of the article. The swindle was to have been completed by the passing of the Act. Commencing with the part referring to Brisscnden’s relations with Moon, it shows the initiation of a swindle by compelling a man to part with land. I take that pait to moan that Whitaker, as one of the clique, would have prevented Moon from getting a title la the Native Lands Oourt. The whole article Infers a swindle. I am merely giving my opinion after reading the article as a plain citizenl know nothing of the operations of the Native Lands Court. With regard to lands being detained by lawful means, and afterwards termed a swindle, I have not heard of that here. I should he surprised to hear it. To Mr Haggitt—l have not heard any legal transactions here termed swindles. It might ho so in Auckland. With regard to the expressions that Mr Whitaker would be enabled to obtain one estate 300 miles square, and his probability of being able as Attorney-General to pass the Bill, I think that they allege the swindle. Frederick Whitaker, barrister and solicitor, practising ia Auckland—ln August, 1877, 1 held the office of Attorney-General. From September 1876, to, I think, October 1877,1 held the office of Attorney-General. I have read the article in the “ Oftmam Mail” of the 13th of August. It refers to me. I introduced into the A ssembly a Bill to amend the law relating to native lauds. It is entitled a Bill to Anieml the law relative to Native Lands. To Mrliee*.— I assisted Mr Hcggitt in working up the demurrer points. I gave him my opinion. I exercised no discretion in it, as I refused to have any responsibility. There were three occasions when pleas were put in. I heard on the last occasion Mr Haggitt say he would not consent to allow other pleat;. I kcow that under the plea of “Not Guilty” Mr Jones cannot put dn evidence as to the truth of the alleged libel. J am sorry for that, because I came down here for the express purpose of giving evidence, and to answer any questions you may put to me. I Aid not advise Mr Haggitt on tint point. lie did not ask my advice. When I came down here I told Mr Haggitt that he was acting on the part of the House of Reprcsentativos. VS hen $ saw the Pleas I saw immediately that they

were bad. I know Mr Thomas Russell. He is and has been, my partner for many years. Mr Russell and I are partners only in law. We are not p irtners generally. We have entered into land transactions outside the partnership during the past few years. One of those transactions was in relation to the purchase of the Piako Swamp. a fter I became a member of the House I did not enter into a contract with tho Government for the purchase of the Piako Swamp. I paid the money afterwards. Jhe original transaction was not varied. Other land was not put in, and the area was not varied, i think the money was paid in July when the House was sitting. I have not made any contract with the Government since I was elected a member of the House. I asked to exchange some land which I had purchased from a European under the Land Claims Settlement Act. I was under treaty with the Government to take other land in exchange, but it was not carried out. That was before I became a member or tho House. The whole transaction is in print. I remember a committee sitting on the Waitoa land transaction. I drafted tho Native Lands Bill. 1 was in Wellington when Mr Jones was committed for trial. I was at the Police Court, but I was not called as a witness. The Native Lands Bill was considered before I went to Auckland, and the principles were laid d wn. I went to Auckland and prepared the draft. Altogether the drafting and printing of the Bill extended over two months. I took it down to Wellington, and went over it word by word, and some of it was altered to suit the views of other members of the Government. In the purchase of the Piako Swamp I had as partners Mr Russell, Mr Chas. Taylor, Mr Murdoch, and Captain Steele. I was present and voted when the prosecution of Mr Jones was determined on by the Assembly. At first I requested the House to allow me to arrange the matter with Mr Jones. The House would not agree, and I voted. I asked the House to allow the whole of the circumstances to be inquired into. I certainly repudiated making it a party question. It was made a Government question. I said more than once during the discussion that it should not be made a party question. Captain Morris was the Government whip. I remember the case against the “ Wnka Maori.” A Bill was introduced into the Upper House to complete an arrangement I mode with the Government in reference to the Waitoa lands, and it was thrown out on the third reading. This was in 1875. I remember a Bill being brought in while I was in the Ministry to indemnify Ministers from any penalties they may have incurred under the Disqualification Act. It was brought in by the Ministers. I was previously acting for Captain Beadon in 1842 or 1843. Mr Haggitt —Do you wi-h to offer any explanation with regard to these land transactions. Witness- Yes. In reference to the transactions with regard to Captain Beadon, I have simply to say that many years ago I was employed by the Governor, Mr Shortland, to inquire into this claim of Captain Beadon, and to see if anything could be made of it. As far as Captain Beadon is concerned, I had nothing to do with his claim beyond specifying land to be given in exchange. Mr Haggett —Will the Native Lands Act have the effect of influencingthe.se transactions ? Mr Rees objected to the question, but his Honor overruled the objection. Witness —The Native Lands Act could not apply to any of the transactions with regard to tho Waitoa business. The whole subject was inquired into by a committee of the House of Representatives. They reported that the transaction was a fair one, and that I was entitled to compensation, because the Government did not carry it out. Mr Haggitt put in the affidavit and the newspaper. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Rees —I do not propose to call any evidence. Counsel then addressed the Court, Mr Rees made a flowing address of three hours. The Judge then summed up, and the jury, after half an hour’s deliberation, brought in a verdict of “ Not Guilty,” and the accused was discharged THE BLUESKIN MYSTEB7. [Bt Telegraph.] [from the correspondent of the press.] Dunedin, March 18. The police called only one witness at the adjourned inquest on the child found at Blueskin to-day. Her evidence in effect denied Mrs DeCosta’s statement that she gave the child to a man to bury immediately on arrival at Dunedin station on February 27th. The Coroner informed the jury that the only piece of additional evidence was that of two envelopes, both of which were bought from a local bookseller, on one of which appeared the direction about “ If you find my darling,” &c. This was exactly similar in pattern to that addressed by Mrs DeCosta to Mrs Bohanna. The Coroner, in directing the jury, pointed out that he should have liked in the interests of Mrs DeCosta and justice to have recalled Mrs Bohanna and Dr. Drysdalo, as there were numerous discrepances between their evidence and that of Mrs DeCosta. Mr Denniston was quite content, so far as the interests of,his client were concerned, to accept the evidence as it was. The evidence of the medical witnesses was quite consonant with the idea that the child died from convulsions, but the jury must take their evidence conjointly with that of other witnesses. Medical men did not say convulsions were tho cause of death. They simply said that something similar to convulsions was the cause. Then as to the chances of death from what he might call unnatural causes. Tho first witness said she saw a mark round the neck of the child similar to that which would bo produced by a ligature. That statement might be put aside, as neither the policeman nor anyone else saw such a mark as that described. 1 hen there was the possibility that the child was overlaid in the night. It was quite likely that in her sleep the mother might have rolled over and smothered the child accidentally. But all these things must be considered together as one piece of evidence. There was a good deal of mystery about the visit to Blueskin, but one portion of time could be accounted for very easily. The jury had the choice of three verdicts, first that the child died from natural causes, which, as indicated by the medical evidence, would be convulsions, and second, that death was caused by unnatural causes, such as smothering. If the jury could agree to neither of these, there was a third course open to them —viz., to return an open verdict, in which they could say that, whilst the child died from obstruction of breathing, there was no evidence to show how that obstruction was caused. Such a verdict would allow further inquiry to be made. Mr Denniston urged that the whole Blueskin episode should have been ignored, as being ludicrous on tho face of it, but as it had been referred to, he asked tho coroner to point out to the jury that it was impossible for Mrs De Costa to have taken xvith her so large a box as that found at Blueskin without it being observed by some of the witnesses. After about twenty minutes’ retirement, the jury brought in a verdict “ That the child died from suffocation at the hands of its motjier. Mr Denniston—That I take to be an open verdict. The Foreman (in reply to Coroner)—Our verdict is, “That the child died wilfully at the hands of. its mother.” Tho Coroner—That, in plain te.-ms, is a verdict of murder against the mother?

The Foreman—Yes. Mrs De Costa (who had just entered the room) here exclaimed—Do you think I would murder my child? Mr Denniston would ask tho coroner to draw tho jury’s attention to the fact that there was no support for such a verdict in the medical evidence. Coroner —There is support in it. It would support the jury in a verdict of smothering and in a verdict of death from convulsions.

Mr Denniston thought from the evidence there "were practically only two issues before the jury, one death from natural causes, the other an open verdict, and he could not h *lp expx'essiug his surprise at the verdict just returned.

The Foreman thought the jury fully alive to the importance of their verdict. 'J he Coroner—l should bo very sorry to record a verdict like that just given, unless I thought you were quite certain, but at the same time I wish you to understand that as coroner and magistrate I quite endorse such verdict. Mr Denniston —By which you mean, I understand, as far as law is concerned. The Coroner—l mean to say that if they brought in cither of the three 1 have indicated, it would be a perfectly legal verdict. Mr Denniston thought it most extraordinary and monstrous on the part of the coroner to say that he endorsed the verdict. That was prejudging the matter jin a manner never heard of before. A Juryman here suggested that tho jury should coincide the point raised, and reconsider the verdict.

This having been agreed to, the jury again retired for about 10 minutes, and on returning, the Foreman said, in answer to the coroner, that their verdict was the same as before—- “ Wilful murder at the hands of the mother.’ After the verdict was duly entered, Mrs Do Costa was arrested on the coroner’s warrant and convoyed to gaol. She will be brought before tjio City Police Court to-morrow formally.