THE BILL OF COSTS IN THE JONES LIBEL CASE.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1341, 1 June 1878, Page 3

THE BILL OF COSTS IN THE JONES LIBEL CASE.

[Dunedin “ Herald,” May 28. J The purity of Parliament is a most commendable virtue, and we look to Sir George Grey to protect it with his Quixotic shield. He has already darted his lance against Piako Swamp transactions, and we would now furnish Sir George Grey with one of the minor incidents arising out of the Piako B.vamp debates. It will bo remembered that the House of Representatives directed the prosecution of a Mr Jones, the supposed proprietor or editor of an Oamaru paper, for alleged libel, in consequence of the publication of an which reflected upon the conduct of the lion, Mr Whitaker in connection with t he introduction of tDo Native Lands Acr. of session. The whole House agreed that the attack upon Mr Whitaker was a very gross one, and that while a wide latitude should bo allowed to comments upon public men, the article, then under review transcended all reasonable limits. The House, however, in a very laudable endeavor to prevent either Mr Whitaker or the accused from being unfairly handicapped, resolved that the costs of the prosecution should fall upon thp colony in

the event of Mr J ones being convicted, and in the other alternative of his being acquitted that the cost of defence should [also be borne by the colonial taxpayers. The costs and charges of the prosecution conducted by Mr Haggitt, the Crown Prosecutor, will be, we believe, considerably under £2OO. The costs of the defence, according to the bill recently delivered, amount to the tolerably respectable total of £2117143. The bill is about to undergo the taxation of a Government officer —the Registrar at Dunedin—and we feel persuaded that he will acquit himself properly in the emergency. We commenced with the subject of Parliamentary purity, and wo shall conclude with it. The bill of costs for £2117 14s is rendered by a Mr J. A. Hislop, a name familiar to the muster roll of the House of Representatives. This gentleman happens, however, to be the town agent of Messrs Hislop and Creagh, solicitors, Oamaru, and it appears by the bill of costs that he has “ paid” them the trifling sum of £1709 10s. Mr Hislop of the Oamaru establishment is a member of the House, and his name is therefore not merely familiar to its muster roll. The bill of coats of Messrs Hislop and Creagh is really a very interesting document, and we feel sure it will yet make its appearance in the parliamentary blue books. But ns some of our readers may not wish to wait until after the close of next session of Parliament, we will furnish them with a few items from the bill referred to :

Paid Mr Rees £540 0 0 Paid Mr Rees refresher ... £275 0 0 Paid Mr Hislop ... ... £270 0 0 Refresher to Mr Hislop ... £137 10 0 Many other items in the way of perquisites claimed by Messrs Rees and Hislop may be culled from the bill of costs, but wo select these as most likely to rivet attention. Here wo have two members of the House, while declaiming in their places in the Assembly against the nepotism of a former Government in connection with the Piako Swamp, demanding their thousands of pounds as leading and junior counsel in connection with a purely political trial. Does any one in all Dunedin suppose that Mr Hislop would be brought from Oamaru in an ordinary case under a fee engagement of £270, or two hundred and seventy shillings, or with the prospect of “ refreshing ” himself at a further cost of £137 10s. Mr Rees may bo an excellent author, an admirable lecturer on the lost tribes of Israel; but in all conscience we venture to think that when Dunedin numbers its thirty or forty practitioners, it seems puzzling that an Oamaru resident should have to go to Auckland or Hawke’s Bay for the means of defence. We shall probably publish the bills of costs in extenso one of these days, and when they see the light of day it will be discovered that Messrs Rees and Hislop claim something more substantial than the fees end refreshers already quoted. We do not for an instant implicate Sir George Grey or his Government in the action of their political henchmen Messrs Rees and Hislop, but we trust we have said enough to induce some member of the Legislature to move at its next session that a copy of the bills of costs shall be laid upon the tables of both Houses. If the sums demanded are anything like legitimate, nobody will quarrel with them. Upon the other hand, should it be considered that Messrs Rees and Hislop have been seeking to take advantage of their relations with the Government, a similar sentence will probably bo passed upon them to that which fell to the lot of the unfortunate Mr Lusk. It may seem strange, but after all it is only in accordance with human nature, that while representative men will follow a leader upon a broad question of public policy, they will none the less exercise their own individual judgments upon any matter appealing to a personal sense of honour.