Correspondence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume X, Issue 630, 20 November 1858, Page 5

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir,—-I hoped to have been able to offer to 'ie jury in the case of Bowler v. Mackenzie, an tplanation of a circumstance in connexion ith that trial which has lately been the subct of some comment, both in your columns id those of your cotempnrary. I allude to ie circulation in this province of an extra imber of the ' Independent' newspaper," conining some.comments in' the pending trial, hich appears to have been considered here as i unfair" attempt to prejudice the jurors and ie public opinion of the province. Mr. King t" course made the most of this matter with the jry, but-when I-was about to offer an explanation I was stopped by his Honor the Judge, 'ho ruled that not having objected to Mr. ling's irrelevant remarks •at the time when hey were made, I could not, (M>. King object\g) reply to them when my turn came. The explanation I have to offer is this. For myself (though the real defendant) I had othing to do with the circulation of the papers. was absent from Wellington at the time when j was done, and it was done without my con'irrence, advice, or knowledge. Mr. Mackenzie, me of the proprietors of the paper, holds himself asponsible for the act; and the reason which ie requested me to give the jury for his act was as follows:—

Mr. McKenzie became aware, that a pamphlet containing Mr. Varnham's (one of the •laintiffs) version of the affair had been pri ately printed, without even a printer's name, ad clandestinely circulated, very extensively, as c believed, not only through the whole colony* at in Melbourne and elsewhere. It was done i a clandestine manner, not in the columns of public journal, and only a stray copy or two une under Mr. MeKenzie's personal notice, 'he object of this publication clearly was to rejudice the minds of the readers of the pamihlet wherever it might be circulated, and Mr. McKenzie conceived that he had no other course to pursue except to give his version to the public,-which he did, not clandestinely and without a printer's name, but openly in a public journal, with his own and partner's name at the end of it. •

I think there was no neees>ity for his doing 60, and the result has proved that there was not; but at the same time I think your readers will agree with me that if there was any attempt to create a prejudice in the minds of the public it was initiated by Mr. Varnham and not by Mr. McKenzie. Mr. McKenzie had also observed- in the Canterbury papers, and in those of other provinces, statements respecting these cases which were not accurate, copied from the ' Wellington Spectator,' which ho'conceived to be a further justification of the course he pursued. I remain, sir. your obedient servant, J WILLIAM FOX,