The Globe. FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1346, 7 June 1878, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1878.

The bill of costs for tlio dofcuco in the Jones’libel case has naturally given rise to some little comment throughout the colony. Our readers may remember that in consequence of an article which appeared, during last session, in the Omnaru Mail rcllecting on the character of the character of the Hon. F. Whitaker in connection with certain laud transactions, the House ordered the prosecution of Mr, Jones for libel. It was resolved that in the event of the proprietor of the Mail being convicted the cost of the prosecution should fall on the colony, but if he was acquitted he was to be“|vepaid his costs, Jones was acquitted, hence his

bill of costs has boon presented for payment by tbo colony. It amounts to the modest sum of £2117 14s. Messrs Roes and Hislop wore senior and junior counsel for Mr. Jones, and hero are some of the items of the bill—“ Paid Mr. Rees £540 “ paid Mr. Rees, refresher, £275;” “paid Mr. Hislop, £270 “ refresher to Mr. Hislop, £137 10s.” For the above sum a contemporary points out “ that the public efforts of the learned counsel in defence of the sacred freedom of the ‘ Oamaru Mail ’ were confined to the preparation of the drafts of three pleas of justification of Citizen Jones, and to what the ‘ Timaru Herald ’ calls c gassing ’ in court by Mr Rees. The first plea as wo have already said, in a former reference to this cause, was at once withdrawn on being challenged, as being unfit to hold water. The second plea was rejected by the Court, upon demurrer, as being insufficient. Then, having received their respective refreshers, the learned counsel nerved themselves for a third and supremo effort by which they declared they would ‘ stand or fall.’ They fell. The third plea, as we have said, might have been prepared by Sir George Grey himself, who was then, by accident, in Dunedin. It reproduced all the Premier’s favorite charges against Mr. Whitaker the utter falsity of all of which had been publicly demonstrated over and over again, and, with the minuteness of a French Acte d’accusation of a prisoner in a criminal trial, —detailed every land purchase, which Mr. Whitaker was known to have made during the last thirty years, to all of which the expletives illegal, fradulent, dishonest were applied with the true pettifogging iteration, and are no doubt charged for, per folio, in the Bill. The third plea shared the fate of the others.” Mr. Jones was, of course, at liberty to engage whomsoever ho thought necessary, and if after undergoing the scrutiny of the taxing officer, it is found that these large sums claimed were justly due they would have to be paid. To the unprofessional mind they certainly look very excessive. There is one feature of the matter which has received considerable notice. Those fees and refreshers are to be paid by the taxpayers of the country to two members of the House of Representatives who, in such capacity, ordered the prosecution, and have now sought to dip their hands as deep as they dare into the public purse. Wo hope when Parliament meets that some member will take care to have the bill produced as it was presented, and as it was paid by the Government. As a contemporary points out, “ twelve hundred and twenty-two pounds ten shillings, besides perquisites, is too much to pay two legal gentlemen for having failed to draw even one plea for Jones which an impartial and indulgent Court could receive as being sufficient, or in accordance with law. The effective ‘ gassing ’ for the verdict was not done in Court by Mr. Roes, but was done at the theatre and at a banquet, by an advocate whose bill, not yet made up, will be much larger, indirectly, than that of Messrs. Roes and Hislop, and will not be liquidated or wiped out, we fear, for a very long time to come.”

Some time ago it was announced in some of the Australian papers that it was the intention of the French Government to the time it was strongly urged, in some quarters, that the English Government should take the initiative, and so save those islands from the curse of convictism. It seems that the attention of the French Government has been directed to these articles, and some correspondence between the two Governments has passed on the subject, from which we learn that neither country has any intention with regard to the group. We hope that the French Government will honestly adhere to the promise made in the correspondence. The Australian colonies cannot allow hotbeds of crime to bo planted at their doors without protesting in the strongest possible manner.