LIBEL ON THE MAYOR OF PATEA.

Patea Mail, 7 February 1882, Page 3

LIBEL ON THE MAYOR OF PATEA.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Patea B.M. Court, This Day, before Mr C. A. Wray, R.M. This criminal prosecution for alleged malicious and defamatory libel on the Mayor of Patea, published by John Black, had occupied two days, besides two previous adjournments. Evidence for the prosecution was continued. D. H. Parry, editor of the Evening News, in which the libellous article was published, was now recalled for the prosecution, and Mr Barton, in putting questions, claimed to treat him as a hostile • witness. This was objected to by Mr Ilamerton for the defence, he contending that the witness had not shown himself - hostile. Witness said :—When I met Mr Sherwood on the Saturday returning from lunch, be asked if I had the News tender written out, and I said I had. He did not allude to the Mail tender. In the morning (before this) when I called at his office I saw no specification. I asked what kind of a pamphlet he would like, and ho showed me the hack of one—l believe only the cover—and said “ something similar to that.” He said he could not give me a pamphlet as a specimen of what he wanted. Nothing was said about type. What he showed me was simply a cover with no sheets inside. I tendered at per page, meaning to use brevier type. I thought this size would make a convenient pamphlet. The bye-laws now produced I never saw before. I never took down notes in my book about them. Although Mr Sherwood’s letter said 1 could see the draft of the byo-laws, I never asked to see them ; but I know that their length would affect the price. When I said it would take four days to print them I had an idea how long they would be. Mr Sherwood showed me a manuscript copy of the bye-laws—l think it was manuscript. As to the bye-laws just produced (which witness had previously denied ever seeing) I will not say positively they were never shown me, but I do not recollect. Magistrate : Can you not say definitely what yon know or what you did ? Your whole evidence to-day is that you don’t think you did this, and you don’t recollect that. Why cannot you say yes or no ? Witness was then asked about a certain telegram sent through the Press Association concerning this case. The point was approached gradually. Mr Barton : Did you send a telegram relating to this case ? Witness: I must ask your Worship to protect me in this answer, because 1 shall have to disclose the secrets of the Association, as its agent. Magistrate : You have not been asked to do so yet, Mr Barton : In what capacity do you act for the Press Association ? Witness : I am agent for the New Zealand press Association —sub-agent I mean. That is an unpaid employment under the defendant. . Did you send a telegram concerning the case now pending ? Magistrate : The witness is not bound to answer any question which might render him liable to a criminal prosecution. Mr Barton : Does the witness decline to answer that ? Witness ; I do. Have you noticed any telegram in other newspapers under the head of “ Press Association,” relating to this case? Witness : I don’t remember, but I did see a telegram mentioned in a Patea paper, after the 17 ; th January'. Did you receive any letter from the manager of the Press Association complaining of a telegram sent from Patea ? Witness : 1 decline to answer that. Mr Barton : If it is relevant, you have to disclose it. Witness : I have received a letter complaining of a telegram which had passed. Magistrate : This is getting rather warm. It might connect him with a particular telegram. If the question is relevant, and does not tend to criminate the witness, it can be asked, but it seems to me Mr Barton is working round to the same point—that his answer may tend to criminate the witness. Mr Barton : I wish to get the telegram before the Court, without asking whether the witness was the person who sent itThe telegram is important to my case, and it may have been sent by the defendant, in whose service the witness is. After receiving that letter of complaint from Wellington, did you then look in

your exchanges for a particular telegram? The Court declined to compel witness to answer. Court ad.onrm-d fcr lunch.