ALLEGED LIBEL AT ASHBURTON.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2326, 17 September 1881, Page 3

ALLEGED LIBEL AT ASHBURTON.

Yesterday, before Mr J. Nngent Wood 8.M., and Messrs O. Percy Cox and H. T. Winter, and Dr. Trevor, J.P.’s, on the resumption of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at 2 o’clock, after luncheon, a case of some interest was called on, being that of alleged libel by Mr O’Reilly against Mr Ivose. The Court was densely crowded. Mr Wilding appeared for Mr Ivess; Mr O’Reilly defended himself. The information and complaint of Joseph Ivess, auctioneer, of Ashburton, was to the effect that Francis Philip O’Keilly, solicitor, of Ashburton, on the 2nd September wrote and cau-ed to be published in the Ashburton “ Guardian,” concerning the said Ivess, a litellous, defamatory, and offensive letter. Wm. Hall Zouch, proprietor of the Ashburton “ Guardian,” deposed that the newspaper (produced), dated September 2nd, was a copy of the “ Guardian ” of that date The manuscript letter (produced by witness) was the original o' a letter written (he believed) by Mr O’Reilly under the nom dejphime of “ A Lover of Truth.” Mr Dixon, witness’ clerk, gave him the letter after publication. Prior to publication witness had not seen the letter. Witness had several conversations with Mr O’Reilly on the subject of the letter, and in the course of these the authorship was recognised as being Mr O’Reilly’s. By Mr O’Reilly—Witness remembered being at a co-operative meeting at Quill's Hotel. Afterwards, wit ess. Mr Jacobson and Mr Ivess were together, [Mr O’Reilly eubmitted that he was entitled to ask the question whether or not Mr Ivess had said to Messrs Zonch and Jacobson as follows ;—" I have no interest in the question of co-operation, and only wanted to min the merchants of Ashburton, because they would not support my paper, the ‘Mail.’” After argument, the _ Bench ruled that the question was inadmissible.] W. H. Zouch continued —Mr Ivess had taken a very leading part in the co operative movement, and ha' gone about the country addressing meetings thereon, announced by advertisements in the “ Guardian.” Mr Ivess had stated that he had no pecuniary interest in the movement, but was taking part for an object. Mr Ivess also said he intended taking shares. Mr Ivess told witness he wished to have some of hie statements to the meeting sappressed from publication. Mr Ivess also made a remark to witness privately, in Mr Jacobson’s presence, that, so far as he (Mr Ivess) was concerned, the object of getting np the association was simply to oppose or min tbe merchants, if possible, who had not supported the “ Mail.” The discussion being renewed as to whether this and similar questions were receivable, and Mr Wilding urging their inadmissability, the Resident Magistrate happened to remark that he considered Mr O’Reilly had acted unwisely in not procuring legal advice. Thereupon, Mr O’Reilly said he would accept the hint, and asked for an adjournment to enable him to obtain legal advice. In compliance with this application the hearing of the case was adjourned until Tuesday next at noon.

A BURNING QUESTION. [Music at the Booksellers’ J “ \itLin tho last fourteen days there Lave been comm itod from tho Ee-ident Magistrates’ Courts at Christchurch and Ashburton no fewer than twelve children, including two babies in arms, to the Industrial School at Burnham.”— The “ Press.” Ist Voice— What shall we do with our criminal children ? 2nd Voice — Criminal children, neglected children. 3rd Voice— Poor little wretches ; send ’em to Bnmhara. Ith Voice— Burn ’em ! Bum ’em, send ’em to Burn ’em ? All— Burn ’em. Burn ’em, send ’em to Barn ’em ? Ist Voice— What! cremate them ? 2nd Voice— That would abate them! 3rd Voice— Miud your h’s, I said Burnham, 4th Voice— Ha,’ha. ha! send’em to Burnham. All— Bnrnham, Bnrnham, send ’em to Bnrnham ; To train and restrain ’em, send ’em to Burnham. G. B,