LIBEL ON THE MAYOR OF PATEA.

Patea Mail, 31 January 1882, Page 3

LIBEL ON THE MAYOR OF PATEA.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Patea K.M. Court, Tin's Day, before Mr C. A. Wray, R.M. Mr John Black, registered proprietor of the Evening News, appeared on remand to answer a charge of publishing a false, malicious, and defamatory libel of and concerning George Francis Sherwood, Mayor of Patea. The case had been twice adjourned on the defendant’s application for time to produce important witnesses—one said to be coming from Auckland, one from New Plymouth, and one (MrMilroy) from Canterbury. The Court was thronged with spectators, including many subpoened as witnesses. Mr Barton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hamerton for the defendant. The alleged libellous article, which was set forth in full in the information, was read in Court. The defamatory charge was that the Mayor had improperly conveyed particulars from one tender to another tenderer, having thereby “ reviled” hispffice of Mayor, defeated the object of tendering*, &c. The general tenor of the article was cited to show malice.

Mr Barton said the prosecutor, Mr Sherwood, has been identified with public affairs in Patea since 1865, and was recently elected first Mayor of the newlyformed borough. It became necessary to pass bye-laws ; and a special meeting of the Council having been fixed for a certain day, it was legally necessary to get the proposed bjm-laws advertised seven daj's before such meeting. A committee was appointed to “ revise bye-laws ” before such publication ; and a resolution was carried for inviting tenders from the proprietors of the local papers for advertising the bye-laws within the time required, and for afterwards printing them in pamphlet form. The Mayor as Chairman drafted a letter to the proprietors, which most of the committee remained to look over. Tenders were invited accordingly. The first tender that came in on the Saturday was that of the Mail ; and Mr T. Eyton being then present in .the Mayor’s business office, the Mayor got from him the time, marked it on the Mail envelope, 12T8 noon, without opening the tender. The second tender, that of the Evening News, came in at 1.48; and Mr Eyton being again in the office when that tender was delivered, he again gave the time to the Mayor who marked it on the envelope. Both tenders were opened in Mr Eyton’s presence ; and as each paper tendered on a different basis, some lengthy calculations were made by the Mayor and Mr Eyton, who both arrived at the conclusion that the Mail’s tender was the lower of the two. The News also required four days to do the work, whereas the Mail offered to publish the bye-laws on the Monday, as the specification required. When these calculations had been worked out, Councillor Milroy entered the office, and was shown the tenders. He looked over them ; and over the calculations. The Mayor then said : “ You see the Mail’s tender is the lowest: I suppose it must be accepted.’’ Councillor Milroy said, “ Oh, yes, I suppose so,” and went away. The Mayor sent a letter of acceptance to the Mail, and the bye-laws were duly published. On the Wednesday following, the News published a defamatory article, accusing the Mayor of “ reviling the dignity of bis position ” by “ imparting to one tenderer what the only other one bad proposed,” thereby defeating the object of tendering. It would be shown that the only two tenders received were those on which Mr Eyton made the calculations ; and as the Mail tender was received first, in presence of a witness, it was impossible that any information could have been conveyed and used in that tender from the other tender which came in an hour and a half later. This article, like the scorpion, had its sting in the tail) for the last paragraph alleged that Mr Sherwood had “ reviled ” his office—probably meaning defiled—by imparting to one tenderer what the only other one proposed. If a writer used words in an ungrammatical manner, or if he could not write good English, his ignorance was no protection against a charge of libel. Subsequent issues of the same paper contained intemperate accusations and comments respecting the Mayor, showing a malicious intention to seize on every pretext for defaming him in his office. One such article said there would be “ other interesting revelations ” to be brought out when Mr Sherwood got into

he box in Court. Mr JSarton spoke in strong denunciation of a enures of attack which the defendant was pursuing ; namely, insinuating dishonorable actions, without daring to make such charges openly. The object appeared to be this : get Mr. Sherwood into the box, and then in cross-examination put to him all manner of degrading questions, It means (continued Mr Barton) that the other counsel would be absolutely privileged in putting degrading questions to Mr Sherwood about all manner of things that have nothing to do with this case ; and although Mr Sherwood might deny all the base things insinuated by those questions, yet the insinuations could not be disproved, for I should be legally debarred as his counsel from calling witnesses to disprove the insuations made. Your Worship knows as a matter of law I could not do it, because those matters are no part of the charge now before the Court. I will not allow that to be done. I have advised Mr Sherwood that, as his counsel, I will not bo a party to it—l will not enable the other side to prostitute the forms of this Court for the purpose of insinuating private slander and gratifying petty malice. Mr Sherwood informs me lie is willing to get in the box and meet a ny chavgo or any insinuation they can bring against him. But I say No. lam your adviser, and I will be no party to help the other side in prejudicing the mind of, the Court and the public, by raising the suspicion that where there is much smoke there must be some fire. If they want to launch against him every accusation from the murder of Cain down to the last crime in the district, we should be trying 50 libel cases instead of one. I said to Mr Sherwood ; If they wish to accuse you of doing improper things at some past time, let them step forward bravely and state in their paper each or any charge against you, and then you can prosecute. Mr Sherwood engages now that if they will make any of these improper charges through their paper in such a way that he can prosecute for libel, he will prosecute and fight each case to the last. That is a fair and proper challenge to make. If there is an attempt to hunt Mr Sherwood out of this town, he will fight them openly, to the last charge they can bring. Mr Barton quoted from another article about the election of a Town Clerk, and said the article states that “it was not known, except to the initiated, that an attempt was going to be made to supersede Mr Harris although (said Mr Barton) the proprietor of that paper and defendant in this action was himself a candidate for the town-clerkship! Clearly he must have known that he was himself attempting to upset Mr Harris. This shows that any accusation against the Mayor was good enough to gratify private malice. The defendant is local agent of the Press Association, and in that capacity he had sent a telegram all over the colony, containing this state* ment : “ The case is exciting considerable interest, as startling revelations concerning Mr Sherwood are expected.” That was a cowardly manner of taking advantage of his position to circulate a defamatory telegram, to gratify his own malice. The counsel for the other side had represented that certain witnesses at Auckland, New Plymouth, and| Canterbury were indispensable to the issue before the Court. Two adjournments were obtained on that plea. Now it was found that no subpoena had been issued to any witness outside of Patea. A misrepresentation had been made for which the other counsel ought to apologise. Mr Hamerton : I applied to the Court to issue sub-poenas. Mr Wray : I refused to grant a subpoena for a person at New Plymouth, as I did not think he was necessary to this case, I left it to the counsel, if he wished to bring him. Mr Hamerton ; I don’t apologise to anybody. I have nothing to apologise for. Mr Barton then called the following

EVIDENCE. D. M. Harris proved the Mayor’s election. E. D. Norris was asked if he is printer and publisher of the Evening Neivs. He said No. On being pressed, he still said No. Mr Barton handed to him an affidavit, and witness then said lie had signed that paper, and that he is printer and publisher. Ho said his first answer was a mistake. Did not remember Mr Sherwood leaving a letter at the office. D. M. Parry, editor, spoke to meeting Mr Sherwood on the Saturday, about 3 p.tn., and Mr Sherwood said he was going to the Mail office, that he had compared the tenders, and was afraid that theirs

i (.Yews) was too high, and that the Mail j would obtain the contract. Presumed j ::.e matter was settled. Thomas Eyton said : I am Clerk of the Boi'oug'i Council. The book I produce is the minute book. On Saturday, the 10th December, I was in Mr Sherwood’s office, and Mr Houghton handed in an envelope to Mr Sherwood, who asked me the time and noted it on the envelope. It was about 12-30. I then left, and returned about 1-30. Shortly after that, Mr Parry (Nevis) handed in a letter which Mr Sherwood noted as before. He then said as botli tenders were in he would open them, and did so. They are those produced in Court. We noticed that they did not tender in similar terms, one being by the inch, and the other by the line ; and Mr Sherwood asked me to assist him in calculating which would be the cheapest. My calculations are on paper produced. Mr Sherwood also calculated,and the results agreed exactly. They are on the papers produced. We found that the tenders were almost the same for advertising the bye-laws, but for printing in pamphlet form there was a difference of iil 17s in favor of the Mail. The News stipulated for four days to the work ; the Mail undertook to publish on the following- Monday (that being We concluded without any doubt that the tender of the Mail was the lowest. Soon after that Mr Milroy entered. Up to this time, Mr Sherwood had not left the room since the tenders were opened. Mr Sherwood handed him the tenders, and I then left. I have read the leading article published in the Evening News of the 14th December. The portion I now read aloud (“The Mayor has also reviled,” &c). “Reviled,” I suppose, means “defiled.” At any rate it conveyed that meaning to me. The end of the article read by the light of the rest I took to mean that Mr Sherwood was guilty of corruption, by making improper use of the powers of his office—that he had shown to one tenderer the tender of the other, in order to induce him to tender lower. Where the writer says it “ effects all persons in the borough,” I understood him to mean that people would no longer have confidence in Mr Sherwood as Mayor. A discussion followed as to adjourning the case. Mr Hamerton said the total length of hearing would be six full days. The case was then adjourned till Fridaj r .