Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4907, 13 December 1876, Page 2

It is really very difficult - to ascertain what Mr, Barton thinks is the exact ground of his anger "against the New Zealand Times. In the only communication we have had from . him he alleged it to be a. persistent'misrepresentation and an attempt to injure his professional character. Now we find that it 'is 1 our alleged comments on; 1 a'case mb' judice and ourl suppression . of evidence so as to prejudice the cause of his client. Again we have 1 much pleasure in setting Mr. Barton right. ‘ In the case in which ho is now engaged we have refrained from publishing the evidence on either side, except by way of tho;raerest mention, for the simple reaspn that somehow or another the evidence; is full of filthy and disgusting details, which are not fit for publication. . Wo have never written a word concerning the case per se, and have absolutely not the smallest opinion on its merits. 1 But what we have done, and what we contend we have a right' to do, is to report fairly and in full what seemed to us certain exceptional features connected with its’ whole conduct in Court, and to comment .upon those features, in a way which it would seem has caused Mr. Barton displeasure. Our report yesterday morning was most accurate, Mr. Barton to the contrary notwithstanding, and of .this evidence was

afforded by the 'utterances of the Bench when appealed toby him. We Jiave no wish to bandy, vituperation with Mr. Barton, nor do his utterlji groundless! charges' of misreporting and®» attempt to prejudice a' case sub judice\ affect us. ' They are simply untrue' frooo. beginning to - end. Our comments on yhatwe deem,abnormal and objectionably ! proceedings in our Resident; Magistipe’s Court have no relevancy whatever to the truth or falsehood of a chargefagainst" Aldridge, and are totally, unconnected therewith, except ini sdimuch as ther' subject arose during the hearing of th< case against him; but this is quite remote and extraneous from the question whetier ho should be committed for trial tor not. The New Zealand Times never has published and never will publishja single word of comment on a case during its progress from initiation until tije disposal of its final issue. For this rason we are content to leave the work of jnaking remarks on the progress of an acton which Mr. Barton informs us he purposes urging against this paper to himself, ft the same time giving a flat contradictioz to the motives he imputed to us yesteiday, when he asserted that our article of [yesterday was as if we had, said : “ Nor*, this gentleman has made up his mini not to carry out his threat, and we wif let him know that he may be attacked, jnd that this case shall” (as Dr. Bolder stated) ‘‘ be sent to the Supreme Court [for trial.” Now in answer-to this wq‘may point to the fact that in writing «f Mr. Barton’s letter of some weeks ajb, threatening us with legal .proceedings/ we distinctly said that we were confident we had done what was right, and were‘‘prepared to do the same-tp-morrow.” In other words, we shall not be intimidated by pending actions at law from an endeavor, in the interests of the public, to prevent unseemly proceedings in our. Courts of Justice ; and whilst we refrain from further comment on the exact: circumstances out of which has now arisen a libel case, we hold ourselves perfectly free to comment on fresh circumstances of a similar nature should they arise from day to day. It would be curious indeed if, 1 because Mr. Barton chooses to take out a writ against the New Zealand Times, that paper should be dumb upon. instances of legal license which might arise after the taking out of the writ. Were we inclined to argue from the tu quoque standpoint, we might, go on to show that it is riot the New Zealand Times which is endeavoring to prejudice judgment; but as we write calmly, from no personal motive, and merely from indisputable facts, we are content to let mere wild, detraction pass by unheeded, and again state plainly that as we have never been guilty of the suppression of evidence ’ for one side in the case of Aldridge; so we; have never written one word of comment that could be taken in the remotest degree to bear upon the facts of that case. Mr. Barton is, in fact, beating the air in this respect, and, apparently, so involves Ms personality with the case he is conducting as to consider criticism of himself criticism of circumstances, with which he has no further connection, than that of a paid advocate. A few’words and we have done. As Mr. Barton confined his oratory yesterday principally to abuse of the New, Zealand Times, we are willing to let such pass without ’ comment. -i But we may say in anticipation that we have given a-full and accurate report of what, he did say, and as our reporter, was the only representative of the Press in Court at the time Mr. Barton was speaking, it is needless to state that a report - which has been published ■ elsewhere contains much that he-did hot say. However, from literary; banditti, whose weapons are at the service of lucre and revenge, it is impossible to bo free.