RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5147, 21 September 1877, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday,, September 6.

(Before G. Crawford, J. Moore, and C. C. 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 m such case made and provided, and being an indictable offence. • . . ' Mr. Izard appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bees and Mr. Hidop for the defence. The magistrates said they should prefer the case, which was an important one, being adjourned until next day, when the acting Resident Magistrate would be present to hear it. Mr. Rees said this would inflict great hardship on bis 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. . . Mr. Izard then opened the case, explammg that the charge against the defendant was that of publishing a defamatory libel, but he was not charged with publishing it knowing it to be false. Of the truth or falsehood of the libel it would not be for the magistrates to decide : that would rest with a jury. It would be for the Bench to say whether a prima fame 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 Hie Hative 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 be ‘ A Bill to further enrich, at the expense of the colony, the Attorney-General and his colleagues in land speculations.’ The only man in the House who cares about 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, and acquiring by its aid one. estate;3oo miles square, and how many more goodness only knows.” Mr. Izard then called Charles Netterville Barron, who deposed,:, " X reside in Wellington,; and am thehead of the ■ ilanmrd 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 on 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 ofthe Oamaru i'Jeeuiuy' Ma2t t aTi(lawc> • proved that the paperhad been duly registered. He then put' in, a.copy of the issue.of. August. "18," containing the libel The imprint read;, thus “ Printed and published by the Proprietor, Geo. Johes,i’at: the office, ofthe Mail, Tyne-street, Oamaru. Provincial District; ot. TOtagoJ N;Z.vr-August 13,M877.” ! ' i- 1 ; Mr. Eees, for the defendant, submitted that there must ibe/some> evidence offered to show that what was complained of was libel, befpre the’ defendant 'could- be' oommitted '.for trjal. There was nothing in what had been read to defame Mr.!Whitaker,i orito injure him infhjs 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 not libellous.. If the Bench held that view, it wouldinot 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 ' v*' /' ■ Mr. Izard submitted that the article libellous ; it imputed corrupt motives to Mr. Whitaker, and: was' a 1 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 a prima facie case had been! made'out against the defendant, and that it was the duty of the Bench to commit him for trial. _ 1 , , The Bench were of opinion that aprima facie case had been made out. Mr. Rees said he proposed to call MrWhitaker. : . 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. ’ hi’ Mr. Bees submitted that Mr. Whitaker ought to bo called, aud 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 balled 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 1 was to: be called.. i \ It was decided not to call Mr. The, magistrates ,said they, were ,of opinion that there was sufficient’evidence to warrant them, in sending the case for r trial before, a higher Court. : i Defendant, being asked if he’desired to make any statement, replied, “I have nothing.mqre ; 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'foe his appearance, himself in s£lQo,and;one surety in ;£;100i; I The Required- recognisances were , entered into immediately, and the ejefehdant left, the Court with his friends. j