THE WHITAKER AND JONES LIBEL CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5298, 19 March 1878, Page 2

THE WHITAKER AND JONES LIBEL CASE.

Dunedin, Monday. The trial by jury of the case Whitaker v, Jones came on this morning. After the Crown Prosecutor had opened tile case, evidence was taken, but only of a formal character, as no evidence of justification was admissable. The following is the evidence : Colin McKenzie Gordon deposed ; I am Deputy-Registrar of the Supreme Court. I produce an affidavit sworn to by defendant on the oceasiou ol the registration of the Evenin'] Mad. J

Richard Dignen : I am clerk in the Customs at Oamaru, and know the defendant, who is proprietor of the Evening Mail newspaper. I purchased this paper at that office. The title of the paper is the Evening Mail. It purports to be printed by George Jones. . John Edward Deuuiston, barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court, practising in Dunedin deposed : My attention has been directed to an article in the Oamaru Eveiling Mad With reference to that passage in the article, “That hideous thing of which the Attorney-General is the parent,” I should think it meant that Mr. Whitaker introduced and fathered the Bill in the House with regard to the alleged swindle. I would think it meant that Mr. Whitaker had introduced the Bill for the apparent purpose of legitimately selling native lands, but was really intended to enable some Auckland speculators afterwards mentioned as “ Whitaker and his friends ” to obtain lands in an unfair and objectionable manner. I think it would stand stronger phraseology—l should say “dishonest manner.” With regard to otherp,usages regarding the enrichment of the Attorney-General and his colleagues, I would take it to mean that the Attorney-General and his colleagues had previously enriched themselves at the expense of the colony by unfairly dealing in native lauds, and that the Bill was introduced with the intention of still further enabling them todo so. I take the paragraph commencing “The person” to meau that the “Auckland land ring that is, “ Whitaker and friends,” mentioned in the article—had some dirty work, to do connected with land speculations, and that they selected an agent whom they knew was doing such work, as shown in the part commencing “ If the Act were allowed to pass and the swindle we have just exposed were perpetrated. ’ I see that the article alleges that Whitaker did (?) the dirty work to Mr. Rees. I think the whole description of what Brissenden is alleged in this article to have done m re Moon, says that he did dirty work. I think the expression, “Further enrich” means “ further enrich at the expense of the colouy. I think the expression as to how Whitaker enriched himself is to be gathered from the rest of the article : the “swindle” was to have been completed by the passing of the Act. Commencing with the part referring to Brissenden’s relations with Meon, it shows the initiation of the “swindle ” by compelling a man to part with land. I take-that part to mean that Whitaker, as one of the clique, would have prevented Moon from getting a title in the Native Lands Court. The whole article infers a swindle. I am merelygiving my opinion, after reading the article, as a plain citizen. I know nothing of the operations of the Native Lands Court, with regard to lands being detained by lawful means and afterwards termed a swindle. I have not heard of that - here; I should be surprised to hear it. . -

■ In reply to Mr. Haggitt : I have not heard any legal transaction, here termed “ swindle.” It might be so in Auckland with regard to the expressions that Mr. Whitaker would be enabled to obtain one estate 300 miles square, and bis probability of being able, as AttorneyGeneral, to pass the Bill; I think that they allege, the swindle.

Frederick Whitaker deposed: I am a barrister and solicitor practising in Auckland. I held the office of Attorney-General from September, 1876, to I think October, 1877. I have read the article in the Oamaru Mail of the 13th August. It refers to me. X introduced into the Assembly a Bill to amend the law relating to native lands. It is entitled, “A Bill to amend and consolidate the law relating to native lands.” - In reply to Mr. Eees, witness said: : I assisted Mr. Haggitt in working up the‘demurrer points. I gave him my opinion. There were three occasions where pleas were put in. X heard on the last occasion Mr. Haggitt say he would not consent to allow other pleas. I know under the plea of not guilty that Mr. Jones cannot put in evidence as to the truth of the alleged libel. I am sorry for that, because I came down here for the express purpose of giving evidence, and to answer any questions you may put to me. X did not advise Mr. Haggitt on that point. He did not ask my advise when I came down here. I told Mr. Haggitt that' he was acting on the part of the House of Representatives. When I saw the pleas I saw immediately that they were bad. I know Mr. Thomas Russell He is, and has been, my partner for many years. Mr. Russell and I are partners only in law. We are not partners generally. We have entered into land transactions outside the partnership during the past few years. One of these transactions was in relation to the purchase of the Piako Swamp, After I became a member of the House I did not enter into a contract with the Government for the purchase of the Piako Swamp ; I paid the money afterwards. The original transaction was not varied; other land was not put iu, and the area was not varied. I think the money was paid iu July, when the House was sitting. -I-have not made any contract with the Government. Since I was elected a member of the House I asked to exchange some land which I purchased from a European under the Land Claims Settlement Act. I was under treaty with the Government to take other land in exchange, but it was not carried out. That was before I became a member of the House, The whole transaction is in print. I remember a committee sitting on the Waitoa land transaction. I drafted the Native Lands Bill. I was in Wellington when Mr. Jones was committed for trial. X was at the Police Court, but I was not called as a witness. The Native Lands Bill was considered before I went to Auckland, and the principles were laid down. I went to Auckland aud prepared the draft. Altogether the drafting and printing of the Bill extended over two mouths. I took it down to Wellington and went over it word by word, and some of it was altered to suit the views of the other members of the Government. In the purchase of the Piako Swamp I had as partners Mr. Russell, Mr. Chas. Taylor, Mr. Murdoch, and Captain Steele. I was present and voted when the prosecution of Mr. : Jones was determined on by the Assembly. At first I requested the House to allow me to arrange the matter with Mr. Jones. The House would not agree, and I voted. I asked the House to allow the whole of the circumstances to be inquired into. I certainly repudiated making it a party question. It was made a Government question. I said more than once during the discussion that it should not be made a party question. Captain Morris was the Government whip. I remember the case against the Walca Maori. A Bill was introduced into the Upper House to complete an arraugemeut I made with the Government in reference to the Waitoa lands, aud it was thrown out on the third reading.' This was in 1575. I remember a Bill being brought in while I was m the Ministry to indemnify Ministers from any penalties they may have incurred under the Disqualification Act. It was brought in by the Ministers. I was previously acting for Captain Beadan in 1542 or 1543. ij|Mr. Haggitt: Do you wish to offer any explanation with regard to these land transactions ? Witness: Yes. In reference to the transaction with regard to Captain Beaden, I have simply to say, that many years ago I was employed by the Governor, Mr. Sbortlaud, to inquire into the claim of Captain Beaden, and to see if anything could be made of it. As far as Captain Beaden is concerned, I had nothing to do with his claim beyond specifying the land to be given in exchange. Mr. Haggitt: Will the Native Lauds Act have the effect of influencing these transactions? Mr. Eees objected to the question, but his Honor overruled the objection.

Witness: The Native Lands Act could not apply to any of the transactions. With regard to the Waitoa business, the whole subject was inquired into by a committee of the House of Representatives. They reported that the transaction'was a fair one, and that I was entitled to compensation, because the Government did not carry it out. Mr. Hiiggitt put in the affidavit and the newspaper. This closed the case for the Grown. Mr. Bees: I do not propose to call any evidence. Counsel then addressed the Court, Mr. Rees maki 'g a flowing address of three hours. The Judge summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of “ Not guilty.” Mr. Jones was then discharged.