RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5135, 7 September 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, September 6. (Before G. Crawford, J. Moore, and 0. O. Graham, Esqs., Justices.) LIBEL. ' George Jones was charged with having on the 13th August last unlawfully and maliciously printed and published in the Oamaru Evening Mail a certain false, scandalous, and defamatory libel of and concerning Frederick Whitaker, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, and being an indictable offence. Mr. Izard appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Rees and Mr. Hislop for the defence. The magistrates said they should prefer the case, which was an important one, being adjourned until next day, when the acting Resi•dent Magistrate would he present to hear it. Mr. Rees said this would inflict great hardship on his client, who wanted to get back to his business at Oamaru by steamer to-day.

The. Bench said'.under the _circumstances , they would hear, the: case, to-day, j I,: Mr. Izard then,.opened the case, explaining • that the charge against the defendant was that of publishing a ■ defamatory. libel, hut he was not charged with publishing it knowing it to . be false. Of the truth or falsehood of the libel it would not he for the magistrates to decide ; that would .rest with a jury. It would be for the Bench to say whether aprima facie .case of publishing a defamatory libel had been . made, out. . He would, proceed.now to prove ; publication. , The Bench, after hearing the evidence, could either commit the defendant for, trial at the Supreme Court,; or if they thought the , evidence, insufficient, could remand him to be brought before the. Bench at Oamaru. He read from the article complained of the following extract :—“ That hideous thing, of which the Attorney-General is the parent, honored with the title of ‘ The Native Lands Bill,’ will Be brought forward for consideration in the House to-morrow. It has ostensibly for its object the facilitating of the legitimate settlement of the native lands, but is actually intended as an instrument to enable a , few Auckland speculators to work another swindle. The measure has not a friend, with the exception of those whom it would specially benefit, throughout the length and breadth of the colony ; and this is not surprising. Its correct designation should he ‘A Bill to further enrich, at the expense of the colony, the Attorney-General and his, colleagues in laud speculations.’ . . ~ . . The only man in the House who cares ahoyt having anything to do with the Bill is the Attorney-General. All respectable men have repudiated connection therewith, and the only inducement Mr. Whitaker has for fighting for so unpopular a measure —the only consolation he has—is the hope that he may be successful in making it law, aud acquiring by its aid one estate 300 miles square, and how many more goodness only knows.” Mr. Izard then called Charles Netterville Barron, who deposed : I reside in Wellington, and am the head of the Hansard parliamentary reporting staff. I was in the House of Representatives on Tuesday week last. ' I know by sight the person who appeared at the bar of the House ou that day. The defendant now present in Court is the same person. He was addressed by the Speaker as “ Mr. George Jones, junr., printer and proprietor of the Oamaru Evening Mail.” He was called upon to address the House in reply, and he then read a written address. Mr. Izard put in a certified copy of an affidavit of George Jones, that he was the proprietor of the Oamaru Evening Mail, and also proved that the paper had been duly registered. He then put in a copy of the issue of August 13, contaiuihg the libel. The imprint read thus :—“ Printed and published by the Proprietor, Geo. Jones, at the office of the Mail, Tyne-street, Oamaru. ‘ Provincial District of Otago, N.Z.- —August 13, 1877.” Mr. Rees, for the defendant, submitted that there must be some evidence offered to show that what was complained of was libel, before the defendant' could be committed for trial. Thera was nothing in what had been read to defame Mr. Whitaker, or to injure him in his public or private capacity. If this article were held to be libel they might as well put a stop to the freedom of the Press at once. He should ask that the information be dismissed, on the ground that the matter was hot libellous. If the Bench held that view, it would not prevent Mr. Whitaker from proceeding against Mr. Jones, either before the Bench at Oamaru, or by preferring an indictment in the Supreme Court. If the Bench were of opinion that the words complained of were libellous, he would then decide whether or not he should call evidence. Mr. Izard submitted that the article was libellous ; it imputed corrupt motives to Mr. Whitaker, and was a grossly defamatory statement ; moreover, if there was any doubt in the matter, it was for the jury at the trial in the; Supreme Court to decide. He submitted that aprima facie case had been made out against the defendant, and that it was the duty of the Bench to commit him for trial. ' ;

The Bench were of opinion that aprima facie case had been made out, Mr. Rees said he proposed to call Mr. Whitaker. Mr. Izard objected, and said that the Bench could not go into the question of the truth or falsehood of the libel, and that the counsel on the other side was precluded from calling' evidence of justification at this stage of the proceedings. Mr. Bees submitted that Mr. • Whitaker ought to be called, and that: it was a wretched attempt that was made to keep Mr. Whitaker in hiding. This was a matter of great public interest, and Mr.'Whitaker ought to be put into the box. Mr. Izard submitted that it would be illegal at this stage of the proceedings. At the trial Mr. Whitaker could be called, and every document and paper that could be called for should be produced, Mr. Bees said these promises were all very fine, but he should prefer to have Mr. Whitaker in the box. Mr. Hislop expressed the opinion that Mr. Izard’s objection was made too soon. It had , not yet been stated for what purpose Mr. Whitaker was to be called. It was decided not to, call Mr. Whitaker. _ The magistrates said !they were of opinion that there was sufficient evidence to warrant them in sending the case for trial before a higher Court. Defendant, being asked if he desired to make any statement, replied “ I have nothing more to say, except that I reserve my defence.” Defendant was then committed for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court at Dunedin; bail being taken for his appearance, himself in £IOO and one_ surety in £IOO. The required recognisances were entered into immediately, and the defendant left the Court with bis friends. LABOENY. Two young men, named respectively Francis Mason and Charles West, were charged with stealing from the till in the shop of Messrs. Blake and Moreton, Lambton-quay, a sovereign, and also with purloining a few fapples and oranges from the premises. They were remanded until next morning.