Another Libel Challenge.

Patea Mail, 21 November 1881, Page 3

Another Libel Challenge.

The following letter Has been received Patea, Nov, 16.

Mr E. Houghton, Patea. Sir, —The following note having been published by you to the decision given in the R.M. Court in the case Dale v. Houghton, “ The Magistrates did not require to hear the witness for the defence, who was in Court ready to swear to the substantial accuracy of the conversation he had with the prosecutor, as reported in the so-called libel.” I hereby challenge you to obtain an affidavit from Mr Keys, and publish it in your paper, leaving it to the public to judge if your statement was correct, or else consider the public will not believe your statement. I remain yours &c., W. Dale. The answer is this. Mr Houghton first received a demand from Mr Dale for an apology’, and then went straight ;to Mr Keys for his verson of the alleged libellous conversation. Mr Keys at once made the following statement, which Mr Houghton took in shorthand ; and finding it was substantially the same as the conversation reported in the Mail, Mr Houghton believed Mr Keys to be telling a plain, unvarnished tale, and therefore was unable to apologise to Mr Dale, or comply with his several unjust demands. The case went into Court, and was dismissed ; the Magistrates believing that Mr Houghton had acted in good faith and not maliciously, in publishing the conversation on a public matter. Mr Dale now makes a further demand in the above challenge. It is equivalent to saying that although the witness was in Court, he was not there to prove that the alleged libel was true. On receiving this impudent challenge, Mr Houghton wrote out his shorthand note of what Mr Keys had previously stated to him, and; haying read it over on Saturday, Mr Keys endorsed it as being correct in every word, so far as be believed, and signed it. Mr

Houghton explained that he would not (hrow doubt on Mr Keys’s truthfulness by asking him to swear to this statement before a Justice. It would be enough if he signed it declaring it to be true ; and if Mr Dale could not believe a signed statement, that would be Mr Dale’s affair. The statement is as follows :

I asked him what this paper was that Beamish was taking round. He said it was a requisition for some candidates to stand for the Council. I asked who they were. He said Milroy, Dixon, Alexander Black, and Barker. I asked why he did not ask the other members of the old Board to stand. He said that would be for the other side to do—those who were in favor of them standing. I said I considered it an insult to the other members not to nominate the lot, as well as the one or two of the old Board, He said they were more likely to be favorable to him, and if other persons wanted to nominate the other members of the Board, let them get up a requisition. I am sure this is the sense of what was said. lam sure they are the very words, as nearly as I can remember.

John E. Keys

That is a complete answer to Mr Dale’s challenge. The damaging part of the socalled libel was this :

“ W.D. replied that he wanted to form his own party in the new Council, and he selected the men he thought would vote with him.”

Mr Keys supports that statement in these words:—

“He (W. D.) said they were more likely to be favorable to him, and if other persons wanted to nominate the other members of the Board, let them get up a requisition.” The main fact or idea in both versions is that the nominated members were selected by Mr Dale because he thought them more likely to vote with him, or more likely to be favorable to him as Mayor. If Mr Keys bad not supported this allegation when applied to, Mr Houghton would have admitted there had been an error, and would have apologised completely’. The allegation being supported entirely by Mr Keys, how could MiHoughton call him a liar, or how could he apologise to Mr Dale for publishing what Mr Keys said was true ? Clearly there was no course but to defend the action, and stand by the man whose tale bore the impress of simple truth. If Mr Dale wishes to discredit Mr Keys as a fair witness, he will find it hard to persuade the impartial public to disbelieve a witness who had no interest to serve) and who had no party feeling in the matter. Indeed Mr Keys had tried to get Mr Milroy to stand in preference to both candidates for the Mayoralty. Mr Keys has been anxious to keep out of the libel case, chiefly because he was and is friendly with Mr Dale, and is doing business with him continually. Mr Keys did not give the information to Mr Houghton in the first instance, and is therefore free from collusion. Mr Houghton heard the story from two other persons at different times ; and having confidence in their assurance that Mr Keys had said this, and having confidence In Mr Keys’s simple honesty, he published the conversation iu good faith as throwing light on Mr Dale’s attempt to get a party into the Council. And it did throw a strong light on that. Mr Dale’s position is a pitiful one. He keeps denying and challenging ; and yet every point goes against him. He makes traps, and walks into them. He has sworn in the witness-box that he never had such a conversation with any person. He is clearly'interested iu denying or concealing an unfortunate confession ; one which let the cat out of the bag before he perceived what color it was. The public are asked to disbelieve a witness whose honesty and truthfulness could be vouched for by fifty of the oldest settlers in the place ; a witness who has clearly no interest in the matter one way or the other. The public are asked, on the other hand, to believe the interested disclaimer of a politician who Is continually making mistakes ; who gets defeated in contests of various kinds, and yet is always declaring that he has gained bis point. No ; the public are not such fools as that.