SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 205, 26 August 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CITIL SITTINGS. [Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.] This Day. Eyes v. Henderson. This was an action to recover £2000 damages for a libel alleged to have been published by the defendant. Mr Travers and Mr Acton Adams appeared for the plaintiff, aud Mr Conolly and Mr Pitt for the defendant. A special jury was sworn consisting of the following gentlemen : — Messrs Barnicoat (foremau), Watkins, Macdonald, Greenfield, H. Davis, Staverfc, R. Levien, Symons, Lowe, Sclanders, Wells, and Mirfin. Mr Acton Adams having opened the case, Mr Travers stated that the action was brought on account of a resolution read by the defendant as chairman at a public meeting held at Blenheim, when he was also appointed a member of a Committee which took an active part in getting up a petition to the Governor relative to the conduct of the defendant, W. H. Eyes, who at the time was Commissioner of Crown Lands, Sheriff, and a J.P. of the Province of Marlborough. The defendant was charged with the publication of a false and malicious libel; and in his pleas he was not content to deny having done so, but undertook to prove that his allegations were true in a sense, if possible, more exaggerated than that which the plantiff could have put upon them. He (Mr Travers) on the other hand would show that there was no truth in them, and further that, taking the part he did against Mr Eyes, the defendaut was not aoting in any good faith, and was not actuated by such sentiments as he no doubt would pretend existed. Out of his own mouth he would show that he had no justification whatever; that he was not acting in good faith, and if not so he must have been acting in wanton malice; and that he was dealing with, the prospects and character of another individual in a

manner that could only be characterised as gross and wanton in the extreme. H. O. Baddeley was called, and produced certain documents. George Henderson; I am the defendant. I was Mayor of Blenheim in October last. The letter to the Colonial Secretary produced bears my signature, but I attached that signature to a blank sheet, leaving the letter to be written by others, who I knew would express my views. I did this because I had to go away. I was chairman at a public meeting held on the 25th of October. I read a resolution to the meeting which was put into my hands by Mr Gorrie, I then handed it to Mr Hoskins, a reporter. I saw a report of the meeting in the Marlborough News, I thought it gave a fair idea of what took place. I believe the resolution was similar to that read at the meeting , but will not undertake to say that it was verbally correct I may have produced a copy of the resolution and of the petition 10 the Commissioners sent by the Government to enquire into the Kyes scandal. At the enquiry I was cross-examined by Mr Eyes. In reply to him. I said that I had no personal knowledge of the immorality alleged against him. In reply to the Commissioners I said that I had never seen Mr Eyes in company with Miss Johnson. I said that Mr Eyes' conduct had never been such in my sight as to cause a public scandal. This was three months after the public meeting. All I knew about the matter was Jearned from persons whom I deemed credible. I think I heard of scandalous conduct on the day following Charlotte Johnson's arrival at Blenheim, I made a few remarks on the subject at the opening and close of the meeting. I afterwards went to Wellington as a member of a deputation, and had an interview viih the Premier on the subject of the petition We wanted to obtain an enquiry. I entertain no serious doubt of the accuracy of the copy of tlve resolution produced, but will not say it is verbally correct. The cross-examination of this witness was postponed. Timothy Milliogton : I am proprietor and publisher of the Marlborough News. I wa«i present at a public meeting at Blenheim on 28th October last. I have a man named Hoskina in my employ, who occasionally acts as reporter. I reported the meeting. A resolution was proposed by Mr Gorrie. und put to the meeting by Mr Henderson. I published a resolution which 1 believe was the one put to the meeting. I never saw the original. I cannot §&y what became of it. Hoakinß might have handed it to another paper without my authority. My report I think was a fair one. George Henderson recalled: I have no knowledge of how the petition which I assisted in drafting came into the hands of the newspaper proprietors. I don't know how the signatures wtre obtained. W. 11. Eyes; I resided in Blenheim in October and November, 1872 I was Commissioner of Crown Lands and Sheriff, and I was a Justice of the Peace. I was also Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, lie istmtion Officer, and held other Provincial offices. I know Charlotte Johnson. She was at Blenheim about that period. I saw her there first between the 20th and 28th of October. She did not come there at my dfrsire. She was residing at Mr Lawrence's hou=e. I was not in the habit of visiting her there. I had no intercourse with her then or since. She came to Blenheim contrary to my wish. I whs at that time a married man, but don't know whether Ism now or not. I was at that time living with my wife. A decree for a judicial separation has recently been pronounced in the Divorce Court. Ido not hold aDy of my offices now. I was suspended by the General Government, and in consequ'-nce of the emolument of the Provincial offices being so *mull, I resigned them contrary to the wish of the Superintendent and hi 3 Executive. I have been put to considerable expense in consequence of the charges brought against me. Ihe enquiry coat me over £100 ; besides which I had to go to Wellington three times, and to Picton several times. I cannot say exactly what it has cost me iv vindication of my character. Exclusive of the cost of the Commission, I should say it was quite £100. Cross-examined : I don't recollect when I was married. Probably about 1847, but it is so long ago that I have forgotten. I have a large fhinily. I have resided in Marlborough for many years. Was first elected to the House of Representatives in iB6O or 1861. From that time until L'ecember 1871, I was member for the Wairau. During each of those years I was necessarily absent for some months in the year. I first met with Charlotte Johnson in 1867 in Wellington. That was the commencement of my connection with her For four or five sessions we lived together as man and wife. I did not go in and out of the house as if it belonged to me, as was stated by a witness named Bowie at the Court at Picton. On the contrary I was very cautious, and very few people in Wellington knew about it. In connection with provincial matterß I had -after 1871 to go to Wellington twice. I was elected Superintendent of Marlborough in 18ti5, and held office for four and a-half years. The Superintendent was elected by the Provincial Council. Ido not remember Dodson and M'Rae saying in 1869 that they would vote for me if I broke up this connection. They did vote for me, but I do not believe it was in consequence of my making a promise to that effect. Ido not remember faying to Mr Dodson, " If I do not keep faith with you in this matter you may gibbet me in any way you like." I think Mrs Eyes first became aware of this connection about three years ago. I remember her speaking to me on the subject. She said she had seen a letter I had writteu to the woman. It appeared that she had come behind me and looked over my shoulder and seen what I was writing I do not know what 6he said, she was then very intemperate and violent. She might have asked me to give her up. I went to Picton on the same day, being very glad to get out of the house. I wrote a letter to my wife, recommending her to compose herself and do nothing rash. I did this because she is a very violent tempered woman. I went to Wellington afterwards, and might have induced my wife to believe that I had gone to put an end to the connection. I wrote to her from Wellington, stating that she need not fret any more as all her wiahes had been complied with. This was true, as the connection was temporarily put a stop to, and would have remained at an end had it not been that my wife's violent temper drove me to return to it. I did not lead Mrs Eyes to believe during the year 1871 that the connection was at an end. Charlotte Johnson atrived in Picton early in 1872. I visited her on one or two occasions. She was at Clark's hotel. They turned her out when they found out who she was. I sent Humphries through to take some place for her She was to leave by the next steamer. Humphries took a cottage for six months. My instructions to him were to get her some place to put her head under, and to get her away as soon as possible. There would have been no fuss about the affair at all if you. Mr Conolly, and others had not made a disturbance at the effigy .burning affair. (Here followe i a lengthy examination in connection with the enquiry at Blenheim.) I have no doubt that during our family squabbles Mrs Eyes may have so annoyed me that I taunted her with saying I would bring Miss Johnson to the house. I did not tell Mrß Eyes in April that she was coming to Blenheim, for I did not know it. I nfver seriously said that Miss Johnson should come to the house and that she and I would make it com'ortanle to Mrs Eyes. I might have said so ironically. Her conduce was so violent that at times when irritated I may have said a number of foolish things. I don't think I told Mrs Eyes the Sunday before Charlotte Johnson arrived at Blenheim that she was coming in a week. I never told Mrs Eyes that a cottage was taken for the girl, or suggested that she Bflould go and put it in order. Mr Eyes' examination was being proceeded with when we went to press.