Supreme Court.

Hawke's Bay Times, Issue 1537, 26 December 1873, Page 62

Supreme Court.

MONDAY, 15TH DECEMBER, Libel—concluded.

John Thomas Tylee, sworn, deposed : I am Receiver of Land Revenue for this province. I remember on the 22nd November receiving a sum of money from Mr Wilson as agent for Rhodes and Aynsley. It was before 1 o'clock, though I do not remember the exact time. Mr Wilson called upon me for his receipt, as it was close on 1. I refused until the signature was affixed to the book, in which are two attested copies of the receipt, one of which goes to the Receiver in Wellington, and the other to the Commissioner here. He gave me the cheque before the receive order, at some 20 minutes to 1. He brought me the cheque, and asked if I would accept that as money. I said " Yes," and asked if he was going to buy land with it, and he said " Yes." I asked when he was going to bring in his receive order. He said "To-day." I said "Let's have no misunderstanding; you won't catch me here one half-moment after 1 o'clock." He said, "What am I to do? There's Sealy gone away, and how am I to get him back in time ?" I said " I can't help that; I tell you what I'll do ; Sealy's office shuts up at 1 as well as mine ; it you succeed in getting the receive order from him before 1 o'clock, dated to-day, I will give you a receipt dated to-day, even if I have left, provided you leave me the cheque to show that it has been a bona fide transaction." It was then about twenty minutes to 1. I got the receive order ten minutes before 1.

By Mr Cornford: I knew the time. Early in the morning Hallett called, and I told him I would close at 1. A few minutes before 12, when I went to the Bank with the cash, I altered my watch to telegraph time. It was twenty minutes to 1 when Heyland left. lam quite certain that it was before 1 when Wilson gave me the order; he would not caught me there one minute after.

Alfred Chapman sworn, deposed : I am a sheepfarmer, and reside at Havelock. I remember the 23rd April last; I saw Mr Sealy on that day on Tiffen's run. I met Mr Tiffien afterwards; he stopped- Mr Sealy, and said he wished to buy all the 10s land on Rhodes and Chapman's run. lam the Chapman of Khodes and Chapman. Sealy said " I suppose you mean on Buchanan's application?" He said " Yes, and on Chapman's too." Sealy replied to the effect that he had a perfect right to apply on Buchanan's application ; but not on mine. He said Rhodes and Chapman had always been anxious to purchase that land. He said, " Yon will know the result of my examination of Buchanan's application on Monday." He did not say that the land could not be bought before Monday. I believe I heard all that took place between them. I did not hear Sealy tell Tiffen that the land would not be open for purchase or selection till Monday ; he did not say so,» he said he would not be back till Monday. I came to Napier next day, and bought the 800 acres which Sealy showed me as 10s land. That was after we had gone over the run. Mr Sealy remarked to me that this must be bought, and that bought. His qbject in coming, was to certify what he considered ,to be 10s land on Rhodes and Chapman's application. We had informed the previous Commissioner gf our intention to buy all the 10s land," The previous Commissioner, in 1862, had informed us that there was no 10s land unsold on the run. I told Mr Sealy that Tiff en, the previous Commissioner, had eertsed it all as ,5s land, and ho said ho was aware ,i)iii f

By Mr Lee : I had heard before this of the Commissioner's intention to have the old .system altered. As th&land had all been certified at ss, we made* no attempt to'. purchase it. When the land was certified we did not pay'a deposit oh the whole run—only on what we applied for. I knew, about January, of the altered system coming into force. Before that time, land certified as 5s land was locked up from selection. That land was open all January and February. Mr Buchanan had made a simultaneous application with mine. It was only through Mr Sealy pointing out the 10s land to me that I applied and bought it. By Mr Wilson : I was not aware that though the land was certified at ss, myself or anyone else could buy at, 10s. H. B. Sealy, recalled : I stated the other day that I had no recollectipu of Mr Harding's application. Since my examination, I have been reminded by various circumstances that Harding and Tollemache came in together. At that time all land which had been certified was tajni, and was not open for selection, so that I very likely said what has been represented. Regarding Mr Tift'en's evidence, I told him that I did not recognize his right to any information as to Chapman's application; but that I would be in town on Monday. I did not tell him that the land would not be open till Monday, because the land was then open. I was cautious, because I expected he would make some official complaint. I considered that there was a binding understanding with Rhodes and Chapman. I considered that I properly gave Chapman the information ; and in consequence of the information he went and bought the laud. Regarding the tracings, I was absent at Waipawa at the time ; it is no part of the duty of the clerk to make or remove tracings. Mr Cornford then addressed the jury. He had no doubt they were all wearied with this case, into which mush irrelevant matter had been introduced; but the whole question had at length been reduced to a very fine point. The contention now was, whether Mr Sealy's administration of the system under his control had been proper or otherwise. He maintained that there had been impropriety of a serious kind in the Crown Lands Commissioner's department. Mr Sealy said that everything had been conducted with perfect propriety. On neither side had there been any accusation of dishonorableness—nothing more had been alleged than that the conduct of affairs in the Land Office had been sadly indiscreet and improper—a bad system, badly administered. The first' plea he had put in was this—that the article was not a libel, and this was the point for them to decide. The other point of defence was this—assuming what the prosecution alleged—that the article itself was libellous, he would justify the charges; and this he was fully prepared to do. He would also show that some of the passages relied on by the prosecution were not in any way referable to Mr Sealy. Regarding the expression " rigged," he denied altogether the imiendo of the prosecution that it implied that the business of the office had been " conducted in a tricky and fraudulent manner." The term, applied to shares in a company, or anything else of the kind, was well understood, and always referred to influences brought to bear from without: thus, to say that the shares of a company had been "rigged," did not convey any imputation against the directors. When, as was shown in evidence, a man might take up a long strip through a piece, of fertile country, utterly marring the land for anyone else, they had an instance of the manner in which the office might be worked or " rigged" for the benefit of a class, without any blame attaching to the Commissioner. Another passage—" The Land Commissioner is responsible for this misfortune," was no libel. If the word had been " crime," or " abomination," it might have been. The statement that information somehow got abroad was no reflection upon Mr Sealy. There were three or four offices, and a good many officers ; and Mr Sealy must not take upon his shoulders the whole of the blame which was cast upon the office generally. But he had shown that Mr Sealy did give special information to runholders, and the instance of Chapman aud Aynsley's land was sufficient to justify all that had been said on this subject. The first of the pleas of justification related to the office being left for days together in Parker's charge. He submitted that Parker had no more right to receive applications and grant receive orders than any outsider. The law was very strict both as to qualifications and disqualifications of a Land Commissioner. He must be so far removed above the common herd as to be disqualified from sitting in the General Assembly ; yet here we saw a lad of twenty years performing all the functions of the Commissioner according to his own sweet will. The next plea was that no correct time was kept, though under the system of simultaneous applications, this was often a matter of great importance. What did they find? That there was one clock, in the Survey Office, which sometimes took a spell for a week together. His Honor said he thought it would not be a difficult matter for the Government to have telegraphic clocks in all the principal offices, agreeing with the central one at the station.

Mr Cornford continued; " Owing to the bad character the ofiice had so long enjoyed, the utmost caution and secresy had to be observed in making applications." This, at least was no libel. If the office bore a good character, why such care and caution as had been exercised in every case that had come before them? It seemed that the apprehension was so deep and so general that every applicant put off his application till the last moment. He now came to Mr 11. K. Russell's case, the evidence concerning which was very clear. They would not be justified in saying that Mr Russell was rightly nerved for delaying his application to a quarter to> 1, —on the contrary he maintained that if Mr Russell went at that time, he had a right to expect to get his receive-order signed in time. There was only one or two minute's writing in the application ; there were scarcely more than twenty words in the counterfoil, and only the work of a few seconds in the receiveorder. If the Commissioner was otherwise engaged, why could not Parker, who was present, have done some of the writing for him? Regarding the information given to Mr Kinross out of office hours, Mr Sealy said' he was perfectly right in giving it; he maintained the contrary—that it was unwise and improper, and that Mr Sealy was not justified in doing as he had done. The question was simply one of propriety—there was no imputation of anything dishonorable. The nest point was that the Commissioner had improperly declared Mr Kinross's application to be simultaneous with Mr Russell's. The applications not being put in on the same day, were not simhltatiebus according to the Regulations. 1 He n6w came to'Heyland's application. The plea set forth 'that at the time that application was put in Mr Kinross was improperly permitted to

be in a portion of the office not accessible to the general public, that by this meansf he/obtained certain information, of which j he made use to put in another application', for the same land, which was" declared; simultaneous, although: the purchasemoney was not paid imtil after the closing! hour. There was no question as to the; absolute correctness of this issue —the main facts had not only been proved, but admitted. Mr Kinross; said he! did hot read much ; but he read too much—it cost Heyland the land. Mr Kinross had no business to be where he could see an application which had not been properly completed. Mr Tylee, he contended, had no authority to take the money when he did—it was no payment until the receiveorder came in ; and this did not occur till after the closing hour. Mr Heyland, outside, watching the parties, swore that it was one minute past one by the telegraph clock when Wilson went in with the re-ceive-order. In connexion with this application, the word " connivance " had been used. He would ask them not to take the word in its alleged deadly meaning. In Roget's " Thesaurus" the word was classed in the same group as " permission, leave, allowance," and " admission." If the information was obtained surreptitiously by Mr Kinross through Mr Sealy's admitting him into an improper position, and he used that information to the prejudice of another party, the use of the word was warranted, and there was no reason to to suppose that it implied anything like scandalous or dishonorable conduct—anything, in fact, more than indiscretion. That the regulations were greatly in fault was undoubted ; but the worse the system, the more need for it to be well and carefully administered. Regarding the alteration of the plans, it was not assumed that the original ones were corruptly destroyed ; but he maintained that no one had a right, to protect the interests of an applicant, to make the slightest alteration or amendment of any plan put in. It was a bad practice, too, which allowed the draughtsman to remove documents from the Crown Lands Office. The next point —the contrary decisions in the cases of Harding aud Kinross—he had established ; and the Commissioner's defence was a strangely weak one—that he did not speak to Mr Harding officially. With regard to certifying land at Mangakuri, the Commissioner had committed a lamentable indiscretion. He said he never certified the land to the Government, yet the regulations distinctly directed him to do so. To keep the information in his own breast until he had occasion to certify it on the back of an application, was certainly a very improper proceeding. Mr Sealy had spoken of an extraordinary arrangement of his predecessor, by which he considered himself bound, but he protested against any such doctrine. Here we found Mr Sealy protecting Rhodes & Chapman's interests by giving them information which he withheld from Mr Tiffen. He tells Mr Tiffen he will not be in his office till Monday : Mr Tiffen comes on the day named, to find that Chapman has bought the whole 800 acres set apart as agricultural land. In this case, Mr Sealy's obvious duty would have been to have kept the information to himself, and to have declined to certify any of the land till Monday. He had succeeded in showing gross mismanagement and and indiscretion ; the facts brought out in evidence were unexampled in any Government department, and disclosed a most improper state of affairs. He came now to the last plea relating to the conduct of the office—that land at Pourerere had been improperly gazetted for sale, having been illegally surveyed. The regulations provided that a proper plan of the land to be sold should be exhibited in the Crown Lands Office ; yet it appeared that this regulation had never been complied with. According to the regulations, the land should be laid out as far as possible in rectangular divisions : a glance at the plan would show that this had not been complied with. Mr Sealy certainly had it altered; but the first survey and gazetting were illegal, and no public announcement was ever made that the land had been improperly gazetted and surveyed. He now came to the final plea—that the article complained of had been published for the public information and benefit, and with a view to the appointment of a more efficient officer than Mr Sealy as Crown Lands Commissioner, After the evidence they had heard—cogent, clear, and forcible—it must be admitted that the expressions in the article were amply warranted and perfectly justified. No such facts had ever been brought out in any previous inquiry in this North Island, and they fully justified the recommendation that the present Commissioner should be removed from his office. (The learned gentleman then entered into an examination of the law of libel in reference to its bearing on the present case. He quoted the celebrated case of Bex v. Lambert and Perry, as well as others of less note, but our space will not permit of our following him into this portion of his address.) In conclusion, he maintained that the article had not gone beyond the limits of a fair and proper criticism of the public acts of a public man ; and if the jury thought there was no imputation of corrupt motives to the plaintiff, but only a charge of mismanagement of his office, it would be their duty to find a verdict for the defendants.

Mr Lee was here called upon for his defence, but said that Mr Cornford's able address had left nothing for hira to say.

His Honor agreed with Mr Lee that Mr Cornford had adduced all that could be urged on his side of the case. Mr Wilson said that at this late hour he would spare them an address, and would only reply on one or two points. If the criticisms complained of had been fair—reasonably fair—he would not have been here to-day. The double defence introduced a difficulty into the case. First, it was not a libel at all; secondly, it was quite true, and all manner of charges were raked up in justification. The defendants had endeavored in every possible way to shuffle out of the responsibility for what they had published, even to the extent of saying that the " Commissioner" when they charged with "misuse and abuse " of his powers was not Mr Sealy. No such flimsy excuse as this would go down with intelligent men. What did the justification amount to ? Simply nothing. The first plea was that Parker was left in charge of the office. Well—Mr Sealy did not appoint him. Next, that correct time was not kept. Was Mr Sealy responsible for the clock in the Survey Office? The plea was ludicrous: Then, that the office had a bad character. Who was called to prove this ? Mr Luff. And he refused to give it a bad character, ' lie was doubtr less a sharp man, he'had studied'the land regulations to advantage and profit, and he had his little grievances'against the office—yet his evidence amounted to nothing. In cross-examination it appeared that he had once been very properly summoned by a Commissioner for the payment of a deposit, and judgment—wrongfully, of course—had gone against him. This beih'g the case ? if he had even called the office a dfin of iniquity, of" what value would the testimony have been?,. The next charge was wore Berious«-that Mr

Russell had been purposely delayed. If, for his own purposes, he went .toythe office at the last moment, he must have known: the serious risk he ran of not being 1 -in. time to finish -his business. Even Mr Kinross, in his anxiety to overreach some- • body else, lost oue';of his chances. If Mr Sealy had really delayed Mr. Russell,* it; ; was very disgraceful. Such might be the impression om, Mr Russell's mind; but there was no proof of it, and the fact -was that Mr Sealy merely did his duty, and it was Mr Russell's own fault'that he came too late. He defied the other side to prove that Mr Sealy improperly informed Mr Kinross of Mr Russell's applicationit was the very thing he did not do—Kinross knew of it beforehand. What he did do had not .been pleaded. ~„,,» ~,,,■

His Honor said that if he had power to amend the plea on this point, he would very likely do it. The consequences to Mr Russell would have been serious if Mr Sealy had voluntarily gone out of his way to give Mr Kinross the information, but he did not do so. Mr Kinross was already in possession of the main fact, and Mr Sealy only gave him such further information as he required. Even if it had better net have been given, the act was exceedingly venial, it was done with no bad purpose, and no harm accrued.

Mr Wilson continued : He now came to the decision about the simultaneous application. This was a matter in litigation, and he would not enter into it. As for Mr Kinross being admitted behind the counter, it was only courteous under the circumstances, and he failed to see the slightest impropriety in it. While there Mr Kinross accidentally catches sight cf a public document, containing information which Mr Sealy could not lawfully have withheld if it had been demanded of him. It was no doubt unfortunate for Heyland ; but what proof was there of connivance ? And in reference to that term, who ever heard it used in a good sense ? It distinctly referred to something underhand and bad. As for the change of plans, that was done in Mr Sealy's absence, without his knowledge, and in a department over which he had no control. He now came to the last charge but one—that relating to Chapman's. He maintained that here Mr Sealy acted with a good purpose, and that after what had occurred between Chapman and the former Commissioner, great hardship would have resulted if Mr Sealy had acted otherwise. He now came to the last charge, about the Pourerere land, and really could not see what the grievance was. The surveyor made an egregious error, and Mr Sealy did the best possible thing under the circumstances—as soon as he found it out, he had it rectified. He again read the passages complained of, which he maintained constituted a most unfair and unwarrantable attack. The present action was not vindictive —no damages were asked ; but the prosecutor felt it impossible to conduct the duties of his office if he was to be subjected to continual attacks of this kind.

His Honor in summing up, said this action was one of great importance, concerning, as it did, the welfare of the whole of the public. He was gratified at the great propriety with which the defence had been conducted, and at the absence of the usual arguments about" the liberty of the press," as though it differed in any degree from the ordinary liberty of the citizens. A free and independent press was one of the greatest blessings a country could enjoy ; and, on the contrary, a corrupt and venal jpress, used as a means of promoting the sordid interests of its proprietors, was one of the greatest calamities that could afflict a community. No doubt a bold, fearless, and independent press, in its comments on abuse or public matters requiring investigation, might sometimes be led into expressions of opinion not justified by facts; and, in such a case,'if it could be shown that it was the result of inadvertence, without malice, there might be for the offender some locus penitential, This was provided by an Act passed early in the reign of her present Majesty, which enacted, tha^it should be sufficient that the offender should withdraw the statement and make due amends in the case of inadvertence or mistake. By the celebrated Fox's Act, it was made entirely a question for the jury whether libel or no libel had, been committed—this being the sole exception to the rule of common law that the Court is to decide what construction is to be placed on all written documents. It was competent for the Judge to give his opinion on the subject, but the jury were not in any way bound by it; for his own part, he made it a rule to refrain from expressing his opinion on the subject. 1 In old times, truth was held to be no justification of a libel; but the better commonsense of modern days had done away with this rule, and it was now held to be a sufficient defence if it could be shown that the allegation was true, and that it was published for the public benefit. For though a libel might be perfectly true, it did not by any means follow that it would be for the good of society to spread it abroad—in many cases it might be just the contrary. In this case the plea of justification had been alleged, and evidence brought in its support. It would be for the jury to consider how far these pleas were supported by the evidence; and should they find one single expression in the article before them which was not justified by the evidence, it would be their duty to find a verdict of guilty. (His Honor here read the legal definitions of a libel from several standard authorities.) There were three modes of procedure iu cases of alleged libel. First, an action for damages—a comsc which the present prosecutor would scorn to adopt; secondly, by obtaining from the Supreme Court a writ for a criminal information ; and, thirdly, by bringing the parties either before a Grand Jury in a direct manner, or before a Bench of Magistrates. The latter course had been taken by the prosecutor in the present instance, and it possessed 'certain advantages, as it enabled him at the earliest possible opportunity to enter th e witness-box to clear himself from the charges brought against him. Regarding the propriety of the present prosecution, there could not be two opinions. Direct charges of incapacity and improper conduct having been alleged against the prosecutor, it devolved npon him to take some steps in self-defence, and none appeared more ready than to submit himself to cross-examination before the Supreme Court of the Colony, and a jury of his neighbors. Regarding the defence,_ he could say that it had been conducted in a very creditable manner ; the learned counsel, most ably and most discreetly, having disavowed any intention on the part of tlie defendants to lower the prosecutor in the estimation of mankind generally. In the interests of the community, it was well that a matter of this kind, affecting the reputation of a- Government officer, and the amount of confidence placed by the public in the department under his coutrol, should be thoroughly investigated. He could understand a well-established journal taking this high position—We ftrf! actuated by rm malevolence morn's matteir: and by directing public attention to-cer* tain abuses we have done a great good to

the community. Yet even in a case of 'this kind, with a full belief that the indentions of the journalist were good, it might bo the duty of a jury to find that hjß: had published a libel. In the article before them there were passages beyond what a man in Mr Sealy's position could bear passively—the degree to which they had gone was such that it became his duty to defend himself and his office from their imputations. At the same time, by finding the defendants guilty of libel, they would not necessarily imply that all the statements in the article were libellous. He would now examine in their order the alleged libels, and the pleas put in in defence. First, that the office had been " rigged," or, in the sense imputed to the words by the indictment, that■■'•' the business had been conducted in a fraudulent manner." The defence that this was intended to apply generally to the office', and not specially to Mr Sealy, was not, he thought, consistent with the tenor of the "article as a whole, which, at its very outset, charged the Commissioner with abuse or misuse of his powers and privileges. Yet they might not come to the conclusion set forth in the inuendo; and if they looked upon the expression as a bond fide comment upon facts, they would find that it was no libel. Regarding the alleged misuse or abuse of powers, two instances were pleaded—the cases of Mr Russell and Mr Heyland, in each of which it was sought to be established that information had been improperly communicated from the office. The article said, "We could multiply instances of this kind;" but no attempt had been made to do so to-day. The concluding passages—that Hawke's Bay, through its Land Commissioner, was doing its best to drive settlers away, and the suggestion that a more competent officer was required—were prima facie libels, and must be found to be such by the jury, unless they considered them warranted by the facts. It would not be necessary to read the whole of the evidence, much of which was irrelevant; and he would therefore confine himself to those parts bearing upon the principal issues. (His Honor here read extensive extracts from his notes of evidence, making

comments as he proceeded.) It was a serious error on the part of the Government if they imposed on important public officers duties irreconcileable with each other: it might be their duty to group the offices ; but they should be careful not to impose too great a number of duties upon one man. In this instance the Commissioner was also Resident Magistrate, and was frequently absent from his office in the discharge of the duties of both of these functions; he had no deputy; and it would be for the jury to decide whether he was guilty of impropriety or culpable neglect in doing what really appeared to be the best he could do under the circumstances. Regarding the removal of documents to the Survey Office, and their alleged abstraction, he did not see that Mr Sealy could be held responsible—-the Survey Office was beyond his control, though practically a x necessary adjunct to the Crown Lands Office. Regarding the Survey Office clock, it was not suggested that there had been any tampering with it by any person whatever; it had merely been shown that it was defective and not to be relied on —for which, again, it Avas difficult to see that the Commissioner of Crown Lands was to blame. It was a very proper suggestion on the part of the defence that where correct time was' of importance, such a loose system as had been shown to exist should not prevail. Too much, he considered, had been made of the admission of Mr Kinross and Mr Wilson to a private part of the office behind the counter: it was, perhaps, a discreditable thing—it would be for the jury to decide whether it was anything very enormous. He now came to Mr Russell's application, and the point here lay in very narrow compass. According to Mr Russell's own account, he wanted to run it fine—according to the other account, he ran it too fine. As for having improperly given information to Mr Kinross, it was certainly true that information had been given by Mr Sealy in an irregular manner; but it was not such information as to affect Mr Kinross's action in the matter. He must not be understood to say that Mr Sealy's action in this instance was right and wise—he might have been more discreet in a case where important interests were in conflict. Something had been done which had better have been left undone—it would be for the jury to determine whether it was sufficient to justify the allegations.. Then there was the case of Mr Heyland, in which Mr Kinross admitted making use of information accidentally acquired in the office to protect the interests of a party concerned. The question here was, whether Mr Sealy was responsible for this. As for the question of improper removal of documents to the Survey Office,— improper or not, it was a part'of the ordinary system. Regarding the variance of decisions given at different times by the Commissioner, they had heard the explanation, that a new system had been introduced into the department, and they would consider whether this explanation was sufficient and satisfactory. He now came to a very important allegation—as to what took place at Mangakuri. It was this—that the Commissioner while on a public errand, gave Mr Chapman such information as enabled him to rush to Napier and purchase 800 acres of land which he otherwise could not have got. It was alleged that to Mr Tiffen, who applied to him, he not only gave no information (which he admitted), but also that he told him it was no use to apply at the office before Monday. This, which was denied by Mr Sealy and Mr Chapman, was the only point in question, and the jury might possibly conclude that Mr Tiffen had misunderstood the Commissioner. Whether Mr Sealy had acted rightly or not was a point on which he could not give a clear opinion. As a matter of fact, Mr Chapman was enabled to buy at 10s, earlier than others could have done. Perhaps this circumstance, and the writing to Kinross, were suggesf tive of ' indiscretion; but were they sufficient to justify the charges of abuse and misuse of powers, of disgraceful trickery, and fraudulent conduct ? The case of the Pourerere rural land was more to Mr Sealy's credit than otherwise—instead of proving flagrant disregard of rule, it tended to show a diligent observance on his part. In conclusion he would once more remind them that if the article was not a fair comment on the facts established, they must return a verdict of guilty: if, on the other hand, the libels were shown to be facts, and the article no more than a fair comment on the same, they must find the defendants not guilty. The case, he felt assured, was how in' safe would see a public officer' : and the-public both protected, and they would protect the press if it had honestly and fairly stated what was true.

The jury then, at 8.20 p.m., retired, and returned after an absence of nearly two hours. In a few minutes the Court was crowded with the public, who were waits irig for the Verdict. His EJonor 'havs|j taken his seat, the jury were'-asked if they had agreed upon their verdict.

The Foreman : We have come with a question, your Honor. If a journalist, iu exposing irregularities in a Government department, uses language s ronger than the circumstances warrant is that libel ? His Honor : What is the duty of a journalist ? Not to tell lies ; not to make charges which are not correct. I have heard much of a journalist’s duties. I know of none which ho does not impose on himself by the nature of his position. Why is he a journalist ? To make money. He has no duty or privilege beyond his brethren. His only duty is to tell the truth, and defend the truth. If ho uses language beyond the truth, he is certainly guilty of libel. I must be careful in my answer to your question. If a journalist, exposing an undoubted irregularity, accuses a person of more than he is guilty of or uses language which the facts do not warrant, he is certainly guilty of libel. Are you justified in making accusations against a man which his acts do not fully warrant ? If so, libel of the very worst kind could be justified on this ground. If a man who is guilty only of irregularities is accused of actions of a fraudulent and tricky character, it is undoubted libel, and libel of a very serious character. I can only answer the question of the jury in a vague manner. Where publishers are evidently only actuated by motives of public welfare, we must not put too narrow a construction upon their expressions ; but they are bound to bo careful of their epithets ; they are not to vituperate and calumniate ; and where there is mere irregularity, for them to accuse of fraud and trickery may be a very gross libel.— Perhaps, gentlemen, you wish again to retire ? The Foreman : I think not, your Honor, I rather dread retiring again. (After some discussion with the rest of the jury,) The jury wish to know if they are required to give merely a bald verdict, or whether they may add a rider, expressive of their opinion ? His Honor: Certainly they have no right to add a rider. They may if they choose add a recommendation to mercy ; beyond this they have nothing to do but find a simple verdict guilty or not guilty. The Foreman : They only wish to give a reason. His Honor : The defendants are charged with a punishable offence. Do the jury find them guilty or not guilty ? The Foreman ; If we are allowed to make an addition to our verdict, we can agree. His Honor; Then let the jury retire till they can agree. It is no part of my duty to temporize with a jury. Your duty, gentlemen, is not with the results of your verdict ; but upon yonr oath to decide simply whether the defendants are guilty of the offence with which they are charged. I will be ready to take your verdict to-morrow, or the day after. (Applause in Court.) If any officer sees a man making any demonstration, let him bring him here in custody. This is not a theatre or a public-house. The Foreman ; I am happy to say, your Honor, that we have coine to a decision. His Honor ; I hope it is not under the supposition of any pressure on the part of the Court ? The Foreman : Not the slightest, your Honor. We find the defendants guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. His Honor: Then you find that the allegations are not proved ? fhe Foreman; Not warranted, your Honor. Mr Wilson applied for costs of prosecution, which were granted. His Honor then addressed the jury. A great defeat of public justice would have ensued, had they returned a different verdict, The recommendation to mercy showed that the jury believed there was no actual malice on the part of the defendants ; but that, in their allegations and their comments they had gone further than circumstances would justify. If they had properly examined the subject, before writing upon it, they would have found that there was nothing to justify the charges of trickery and abuse of power which they had made ; though one or two irregularities might have come to light, such as he should be sorry to see occur again. He believed that great good would arise from this prosecution. The character of the prosecutor would be vindicated, and the case for the defence had been conducted in so able and temperate a manner as to reflect great credit on the community, and especially on the legal gentleman who had conducted it. He repeated that much good must arise from these proceedings. We could not shut our eyes to the fact that the system of dealing in land was probably not what it should be. As for the defendants, some person in whom they placed confidence had been guilty of a serious error of judgment, which had brought them to their present position ; but he hoped that journalists in New Zealand would never go to greater excesses in their comments than these proprietors who had just been found guilty of libel. He could not make their punishment merely nominal, lest it should appear that the offence might be repeated ; and he wished the case to be a warning to the community. He did not wish to trifle with the case, but in consideration of the fact that irregular acts had been committed in the department under criticism, and of the jury’s recommendation to mercy, he considered that the ends of justice would be served if, in addition to costs, each defendant were fined £s,—to be imprisoned till the fine was paid. The fine was at once paid. His Honor, addressing the jury, said: Gentlemen, I now discharge you with the thanks of the Queen, after your long and arduous but very useful inquiry. The Court then, about 11 p.m. adjourned.