TELEGRAPHIC.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1449, 8 October 1878, Page 2

TELEGRAPHIC.

NEW ZEALAND TELEG-RAMS. [PEB PEES 3 AGENCY.] Timaru Libel Case. Timaett, Oct. 8. At the Resident Magistrate’s Court to-day Edward Ball, proprietor of the “ South Canterbury Times,” was charged before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M., with libelling Messrs Hayes and Benhamo, circus proprietors. Mr white appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Hamersley for the defence. Accused was committed for trial at the sitting of the Supreme Court in December. He was admitted to bail. Dunedin, October 8. A contract has been signed for the extension of the Green Island Branch Railway, and work will be commenced shortly. It is stated that a Supreme Court, action will probably result from some verbal remarks made regarding the stability of a wellknown mercantile firm in this city. The Dunedin Fire Brigades are endeavouring to arrange for a reunion of the Fire Brigades of Otago and Canterbury at Christchurch on November 11th. There has been a great demand for the immigrants by the ship Invercargill, and nearly all have been engaged at current rates of wages. Judge Richmond and the “ Jurist.” Wellington, Oct. 8. In a letter from Judge Richmond to the Colonial Secretary, tabled last night, his Honor says, “In the recent debate on the J udicial Commissions Bill, several members of the House of Representatives appear to have founded their opinion upon a report contained in the “ New Zealand Jurist ” for July last, of the oases of Spence v. Pearson and others, and Gallon v Macdonald and others. This has, for the first time, called my attention to the reports in question, and I feel it to be my duty to point out to the Government certain misstatements therein, which materially affect the merits of Mr G. E. Barton’s case.” He then enters fully into the true bearings of the case, after which he says “ It does not appear to have occurred to any one who relies upon the report in the ‘ Jurist’ to enquire into the origin of that report. I declare it to be quite untrustworthy. So far as it is original, I have reason to believe it was not furnished to the ‘ Jurist ’ by either of the barristers, who are announced as the reporters for this district. Without some apprehension of these questions, it is not possible for anyone to understand how thoroughly without ground of complaint Mr Barton has been. I respectfully submit that it is desirable to lay this letter on the table of the House of Representatives. It will be understood that I have confined myself to noting a few important misstatements in a report which some members have relied upon.”