THE PALMERSTON LIBEL CASES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue 76, 24 May 1881, Page 2

THE PALMERSTON LIBEL CASES.

The. following is the cross-examination, (as reported in the Manawatu Times) by Mr Staite of Mr M 'Minn during the hearing of the seconl charge of libel against Mr Duncan :— Have you laid any other information against the defendant ? No ; I have not. What, Sir, will you awew that. .Yes, certainly. You will; what were you engaged in yesterday ? Oh, that one, I thought you meant another. Have you laid two separate informations asking that the defendant should be bound, over to keep the peace ? - Mr Hawkins objected. Those informations were not before the Court. Perhaps they would be soon enough. Mr Staite— l must certainly protest against these unseemly interruptions while a witness was under cross-examination. His learned friend appeared anxious to conduct himself in his usual blackguardly style. Mr Hawkins— Who is the blackguard ? Mr Staite.— Yon, Sir. The Bench interposed, and Mr Staite pointed out that his reason for the line of cross-examination was in order to show malice. The Bench ruled that the examination could proceed. By Mr Sfcaite— Why did you apply to have the defendant bound over to keep the peace. I was, in the first instance, advised to do so by my friends. For what reason. For protection. Has the defendant ever threatened you. No, not verbally. Can you point to a single article in which you are personally threatened. I oannot think of any particular one. Then, Sir, why do you ask that he be bound over. The witness would not answer, and an appeal to the Bench to compel him was made. Mr Ward, to informant— Surely if you were threatened in an article to such an extent as to need protection, you would remember it. His articles were aggravating, and likely to aggravate me. Mr Staite— Oh, then, while you are likely to be aggravated to commit a breach of the peace, you ask that defendant be bound instead. I do not think it necessary to bind me over. Has defendant in any of his articles threatened to assault you. No ; but I ask that he be bound over in order to cause a cessation of his attacks. Why did you take criminal proceedings, when you had a civil remedy. Beoause I was advised to that course, and thought it the better one. Are you addicted to strong writing. I don't think so. Were you cautioned against strong writing against the defendant. I was cautioned not to retaliate. And did you retaliate. On one or two occasions I had to retaliate On one occasion in particular. Did you write a strong article attacking the defendant's private character. No, I did not. Will you swear that. Yes. Did you write an article in the Standard beaded " Suffering a Recovery." I don't know. ■ Do you swear, Sir, that you do not know whether or not you wrote an article entitled " Suffering a Recovery." I can't say, let me see it. I will not, Sir. Answer my question—* Yes, or no. ; ' ' , I will swear to nothing that I don't see. You swore yesterday that you did write it. Will you swear today that you did not. Let me see the artiole and I will tell you. Mr Staite appealed to the Bench, and eventually the witness admitted that he might have written such an article. Mr Staite— To whom did that article refer. I believe it referred to Mr Dungan. Did yon attack him socially, professionally, and publicly. I don't think so ; I can't remember. Notwithstanding that the article was read aloud yesterday. Well, I will bring them to your ra^nd.. Did you write these lines ;— "Heha's degraded himself in the eyes of the community by Borne social backsliding, some swinish proclivity that stamped him as a disgrace te any position in life, social, professional, or public." I did write those lines. Do you consider they are libellous, and calculated to hold the defendant up to ridicule and contempt. They may be. That article was pubished in your paper on the 19th February, several weeks before the publication of the alleged libels. I believe so. ■ What provoked the attack on the defendant. Was it an artiole which appeared that same morning in the Times. [It was a denunciation of Mr M 'Minn's action as editor of the Feilding Guardian, in writing against the West Coast Railway, and a compariaon of the views he had expressed in the| Guardian with those he had written in the Stangard.] ; In what way were yon attacked in the defendant's article. I am attacked as a journalist, and it alleges that I was inconsistent. Had you not written in the very Apposite terms on the West Coast Railway while at Feilding. No, fsaid it was premature. Did yon write the following passage — "By no argument and by no stretch of imagination could it be considered even desirable, much less advantageous from either a looal or a. colonial point of view." ■ . . Ido not know'thafc I did: ' ' Will you look at that paper and try if I yon see the sentence. 1 No; I don't k* it,

Why do you shuffle in that manner. Dp you nsfc see the very sentence is in itkes^-. ■■• i "*S • Oh, now I see it Did you write that sentence. Yes, but that alluded to it being made by Government. Did you write that work, at New Ply* mouth and other parts of the colony were much more necessary. I may. In whose employ were you when you wrote the attack on the West Coast Railway. In Mr Capper's. I Wan he not much annoyed about it. i I never heard so ; he never complMned to me. '•■•'•" '• •■• -' '-■■ '* -• '■•' Did not Mr Macarthur and others complain to-M*X2apper*-»< -■ ..- .«» I never heardso, nor have I the least reason to think that the article gave dissatisfaction in Feilding. By whom was the article in th Standard, " Cause and Effect*." written. It was written by me. To whom doet it refer. To the defendant. To whom does the letter "Oar City Fathers " refer. To the defendant. In your opinion do those articles hold the defendant np to ridicule and centempt. • I believe they do. ' Who wrote "Old Settler." I decline to answer. I altered, added to, and aapprcssed portions. The writer wan* ted to pay for the suppressed portions as an advertisement [The witness was then examined at great length about his ante-nuptial relations with ibis wife, and imprisonment, but the evidence was somewhat similar to that in the first case.] ... By what contortion do you assume that the defendant insinuated in the allegory that yon were in gaol on a criminal ohaiyet : The word monastery is italicised. Yes, but you told us yon were in prison for debt. Where is the accusation of criminality. ""' •■-" My inference is that it is insinuated that I have been in gaol on a oriminal charge. ,', How can you connect the abominable offence alluded to in the information, with the passage in the allegory. By reading it with the context. By leading it with the context do yen put that construction on it. . - No, I did not, but others did. ■ ■ Who were the others. Mr Batt, and Mr Allen/ Do you not think that you arefarmorecom* potent to place a correct interpretation upon the context than either of those named. Ido not know ; I cannot say. As a journalist, should you not be a better judge. I daresay I should be. Was it you or your solicitor put that construction in the information. I told him what the public said and he acted accordingly. By the public, you mean Mr Batt and Mr Allen. Yes. [The witness was then examined at con* siderable length, touching the various libels in which he had involved his employers, thealleged libel on Messrs Gray and Dungan, the assistance whioh he had received from the defendant ; but the evidence elicted was the same as that in the previous case.] . , ¥^_ Are you on speaking terms with Mr jp Kirkbride. No, I am not. Does he imagine you have done him an injury. Very probably he does; but I do not know the reason, unless it is that I left at the termination of the notice I had given. Does Mr Capper speak to you, and may he consider you have done him an injury. No, he does not, but I don't know the reason. He may consider I have done him an injury. Do you know Mr Russell, of Foxton. Yes, I know him. - Are j ou on friendly terms with him. Yes, I spoke to him when I met him last. When did you see him last. Yesterday. Did he speak to you. No, because he was in Court, and had not an opportunity of doing so. Have you not threatened him with an action. I have threatened him I would take legal advice as to something he had written ; and I would have done so had he not made a withdrawal. That something was to the effect that the defendant had taken criminal proceedings against you. Yes. You are on friendly terms with Mr Dun* gan. He has tried his best to ruin me. And no doubt be also imagines you have .. done him an injury. ■ , ■ I expect so. > [The witness was then examined with regard to the productions of ■' Squib," but the evidence did not differ in that reßpeot from the previous day, unless that he ad* mifcted the persons written about might have been held up to ridicule by them.] Do you not think that the proper con* „ ._ struction of the sentence " incarcerated In default of payment for the wedding break* fast," is that you were imprisoned for debt. No, I do not think so. : ' - Was your father-io-law ever in gaol on a criminal charge. >; ' * \ :■' He was. ; - Is he in gaol at the present time. I cannot say. I heard that he obtained „-r his liberty about six months ago, but I have not heard from him. Now, I asked you yesterday about some unbranded horses. I must return to that to that matter again. Did your ever take unbranded horrses to Wellington -and,. sag ■; :, 7 them. •■.-■?.• .i'^.f /..., •._ I could not say. I took many hones „-, there. ' ,-..-. : , , ; Did yon ever take unowned horses, ■ ; No, never. . ; . Will you swear that you did net ad mit the fact to Mr Kirkbride. ... . ; 1 Most positively. i 1 Then if Mr Kirkbride were to sweat, -; such was the case, he would be owianjg ;,. what was not true. *■ . :.■-. . . .... „ . Most certainly. ' ■ -.- - j Did the Wanganui Herald twit ytm wijth „ dealing with unbranded horses* ,; •-• I never heard so. < . - . . Will you swear that it did not. „ . . „ . No, I cannot swear that, bat I never . „ heard so. I will explain. I was on a anr-^. ;1 ~ vey party with Mr MitahelL and some . Maori horses got mixed-up with thet mpb. ... I, consider the line of cross^xamination ..* most unfair. ■ ■ ,'■ -. . , J0 Have you any malioe against the de* ~*- fendant. 1. .•;•'■.. . . About as muoh as he has to sac. ..-.■. Re-examined— l was in no way contteoted ,, with the ciime for which my fatksx*inrlinr wasingoaL ? ■ < ■ . . iv This concluded the case for the prosecu* tion.i« ; ->: . i).; . .. . > ■■• . --I „j „: - . The defendant was oomnitted f or trial on this charge also.

The Eight Hon. W. £. Gladstone j8 recovering from his recent indisposition, and is now able to transact business.

skipper, was overtaken, when the summons was duly served. It is proposed to form a company to lay down tramways in the principal streets of Oamaru. Land to the value of £25,000 was sold by ihe New Zealand Agricultural Company in one week. Westport coal is now being exclusively used by the Lyitelton Harbor Board. A piece of land has been recently purchased by the Australian Mutual Provident Society in the centre of Melbourne, at the corner of Queen and Collins streets, at the iate of £400,752 an acre. This is an enormous price for land in so young a city, and yet at that rate the investment is realising five per cent per annum on the purchase money. A bill was recently introduced into tbe Senate of Indiana, United States, which is designed to prevent the marriage of persons where either is a habitual drunkard or criminal, or is weiik minded, or has the taint of hereditary insanity. The Bulletin states that certain' of the Sydney civil servants have received an official no 1 ice that sbou'd it be discovered they borrow from money-lenders on the security of their salaries they will render themselves liable to dismissal. There is a rumot that duplicate orders to draw the same salary gave rise to the above.