RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5094, 21 July 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, July 20. (Before His Worship the Mayor, and Charles O’Neil], Esq., J.P.) DRUNKENNESS. A man named Samuel Johnston was brought up on a charge of having been on the day previous drunk and incapable. He pleaded guilty, and stated that he had only recently come from the Wairarapa, and never before had similarly offended, a statement which met with no contradiction from the police. He was dismissed. ALLEGED VIOLENT ASSAULT. Henry Anderson, editor of the Evening Post, was charged on information with having last Saturday violently assaulted James Brown, a reporter on the Evening Argus, who claimed the protection of the Court for the preservation of his life and person from injury. Complainant asked for a postponement of the case, in order that he might have- an opportunity of securing the services of counsel. ■ The Mayor pointed out that there had been ample time to engage a solicitor. Mr. Brown said his solicitor, Mr._ Barton, was unable to attend through indisposition. Mf. Anderson objected to the case being adjourned. He desired to proceed with it at once, as it was a trumpery affair from beginning to end, which the Bench would have an opportunity of seeing for themselves by the evidence. Mr. Brown ; It is very far from being a trumpery case. ■ The Bench decided to proceed with the hearing. James Brown was therefore placed m the witness-box, and having been sworn, deposed that on last Saturday, at about 2 o’clock, he was,in the company of Mr. Black, reporter of the Evening Post, when the defendant came to them and asked witness whether he was the writer of a certain paragraph which had appeared in the New Zealand Sun, a paper published at Christchurch. Witness asked him what business that was of his, and defendant then said he knew witness was the writer from a certain other paragraph which appeared under the same heading in the New Zealand Sun of the same date ; and shaking his fistin witness’s face, said he had a good mind to give him a (bad word! thrashing. He then swore and made a noise for a little, after which he told witness he had a good mind to blacken his (adjective) eyes, and smash his bones up. He was very excited, and his language was very disgraceful the whole time. Witness believed ; ,the defendant would have struck him had’ he not had a stick in his hand at the time. Mr. Anderson : Are you not in the habit of contributing to the New Zealand San ! Witness : I decline to answer the question.

Mr. Anderson : Did yon not -write the paragraph contained in a contribution by “Chili Chutaee” in that paper of the 12th July, 1877 ? The witness declined to enter into that matter at all, and appealed to the Bench, who ruled that the question need not be answered. Mr. Anderson was proceeding with his crossexamination, when the witness noticed that he was being supplied with little slips of paper from the reporter of the Post. As that gentleman was a witness in the case, he objected to the passage of those communications between the parties. ' , Mr. Black explained that he was assisting Mr. Anderson, who could not hear what was being said. The witness complained that Mr. Black had admitted that he was hostile to the proseoution. Mr. Black explained that all he had said to Mr. Brown was that he did not wish to be dragged into the affair, which he regarded as being paltry in the extreme. The cross-examination was continued ; and on the witness being asked whether he had not admitted the- authorship of the paragraph, he bawled 'out with fervor, that should have been convincing if it was not, the words, “ Most emphatically, no !” “ Swear,” said Mr. Anderson solemnly; and Brown lifted himself up and swore. Mr. Anderson then read to the Bench the paragraph in question, which was intended to refer to him, and he explained that the expression “Bubbly Jock ” meant an old Scotch turkey cock, or something equally ridiculous, wherefore be was annoyed. He again asked the witness whether he admitted the authority, and he received a reply in the negative. Mr. Anderson ? Kememher you are on your oath. Witness : I never tell lies in the witnessbox. Mr. Anderson ; Do you tell lies out of the witness-box ? Is it not a fact that you have a strong natural taste for perjury ? Witness (getting angry) : I fancy net. Mr. Anderson : How, were not the words I used these, “If you continue to use those blackguard things about me, I will give you a sound thrashing ? ” Witness : No, that was far too polite for you. Mr. Anderson : Was not my bearing rather that of a man who was thoroughly in earnest than that of a person very much excited. Witness : You were fearfully in earnest. The examination was continued at great length, hut nothing material was elicited. Mr. Anderson read other paragraphs, which he assumed to be written by the same person, and called the attention of the Bench to the fact of there being apparently a system of organised persecution of him. The next witness was Hugh Black, who deposed that he was a reporter on the Evening Post. He remembered the occurrence referred to on Saturday last, which he had throughout looked upon as a mere trifle, and regarded the institution of the present proceedings as absurd in the extreme. The defendant was not violent when he spoke to the complainant on Saturday. It was not 'until after the complainant had impliedly admitted the authorship of the paragraph in question that defendantthreatened him,, and then what he said was more in the nature of a caution than a threat. Witness heard -no bad language from Mr. Anderson, who put several questions to the complainantin a temperate manner, with a view to ascertain who was the author of the objectionable paragraph, and eventually elicited a reply which, without being a direct admission, left on the minds of his hearers the impression that he had actually written the paragraph. The witness added that Brown subsequently confessed to him that ho had written it, saying “You know very well, Black, that I write under the nom deplume of ‘Chili Chutnee.” Mr. , Brown on hearing , this last statement looked unutterable things, and at once took the words Of the witness down on paper. “Do you swear,” ho asked the witness again, “that I made that admission to you!” Witness: Decidedly I do. Mr. Brown: Well, it is luckly for you that there was not a third party present at the time you refer to, for had there been you might bo tried for perjury. The Bench : Have yon any more questions to ask the witness? Mr. Brown: No, sir; Ido not want to examine him after what ho has just said. It would be; useless. Mr. Black indignantly denied that he had spoken other than the truth. He had appeared as a witness reluctantly, but being there he could hot swear falsely to serve the interests of Mr. Brown,

The defendant then addressed the Court, and contended that as the charge was in no , way supported by evidence, the case 'should be . dismissed. He pointed out that such libellous attacks as that which he complained ,of in the New Zealand San were of a_ class, the very atrocity and scurrility of which made them harmless, inasmuch as they were passed by with contempt by men of .common: sense and ' education; but they, defendant said, sting nevertheless. There was no great amount of wit about the paragraph of which the. man Brown was the admitted author. It was a ’ wicked, senseless, aud altogether disgraceful production. That Brown. was the author he : had no doubt whatever; the weight of testimony bore that out. In the first place, he knew nothing of Brown’s antecedents, whereas :he knew Mr. Black to be a gentleman of high, character and good standing in the profession, and his testimony was far more worthy of credence, therefore, than that of: Brown.. He (the defendant) might have punished this miserable libeller by putting him in the dock on a charge of criminal libel; but .he. scarcely thought it worth while to do so. He would point out to the Bench, however, that these attacks not only wounded the man assailed, but struck at his wife aud family; and he begged that the Bench would mark its disapproval of scandalous productions of the kind. He could assure the Bench that there was no danger of a breach of the law, as he (Mr. Anderson) would not meddle with the poor creature Brown. The Bench dismissed the case on the ground that the evidence which the prosecutor had brought, in support of his own statement, had gone completely against hun.