FRATERNITY.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2149, 14 January 1881, Page 3

FRATERNITY.

In the libel case of Griffiths v. Johnson, just heard at Blenheim, the evidence of ono of the 'witnesses is so remarkable as to call for notice. AMrH. P. Macklin appeared in the witness-box to swear to a conversation he had had with the defendant of a damaging nature. Macklin stated that he was master of a Masonic Lodge, and that plaintiff and defendant werejmembers, and that in his position he had tried to arrange the differences between them. The evidence shows, on the contrary, that Macklin, who was in the confidence of both parties, conveyed to the aggrieved person alleged admissions of the defendant, and fomented the quarrel until the parties were involved in deadly litigation ; and then as the fruit of his duplicity Macklin appears in Court to swear to statements he alleged Johnßon had made to himself in the confidence of private friendship. Macklin swore that he expostulated with Johnson about publishing the letter on which the action was founded, and that the defendant admitted it referred to the plaintiff. Then, to Macklin's ohagrin, the following letter was produced by defendant's counsel in Court: —" High Sohool, October 2nd, 1879. Dear Johnßon, —I have some recollection of telling you to make no apology to Griffiths. Do you remember me saying so ?—Your obedient servant, H. P. Macklin." Then counsel drew from him an admission of writing the following letter :—" I do not believe that there is a libel nor ground of action, so far as Griffiths is concerned. . . . Remember, my own opinion is that there is no libel, and that if there were the settlement protects everything, and further, I do not believe Griffiths means to rake the affair up in Court." The following answers Bnd questions place Macklin and his fraternal obligations in a rather lurid.light:—"As a matter of fact, when the letter appeared did you not advise Mr Griffiths to bring an action ?—I don't remember ; I am not certain : in trying to settle the case I got very angry with both sides. Did you not offer Mr Griffiths financial assistance as against Mr Johnson or the writer of the letter ? —I have no memory of it. Will you swear you did not offer Mr Griffiths financial assistance ?—I will not swear I did not. Did you not offer to give Mr Johnson £lO or an lOU for that amount ? —I don't remember." And so on. Referring to Macklin's conduct, Mr Travers did not exceed a fair commentary on the evidence when he said: "He (Macklin) wanted a scrimmage, there was no doubt of that, and to prove the desire he had offered money, first to one Bide and then to the other. A capital plan, no doubt, to attain his object. It reminded him of the Kilkenny cats. Mr Macklin reached out one hand and collared one party by the tail. Then he drew their tails together, knotted them, and chucked tho two infuriated animals across a rail, where he left them to fight until nothing remained but the tails and a bunch of hair. . . . He was at tho bottom of the whole affair without doubt, excitine tho one and inciting the other." This might be thought amußing were it not for the fearful amount of treachery and baseness which has been associated with a sooiety whoße principles and precepts are unimpeachable. There surely ought to be some means of "purging the society of men like Macklin. The pretence that he was acting masonically has only to be confronted by his own admissions to show how great is the slur this man has caai upon the Order, or rather how unworthy he is to bo numbered amongst its members.—-" Wauganui Herald."