LIBEL ON THE MAYOR OF PATEA.

Patea Mail, 8 February 1882, Page 3

LIBEL ON THE MAYOR OF PATEA.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Patea R.M. Court, Tuesday, before Mr C. A. Wray, R.M. D. H. Parry, editor of the Evening News, was (afterluncheon-time) cross-examined by Mr Hamerton, and said : I have no recollection of being shown any printed matter in Mr Sherwood’s office, except the cover of a pamphlet. I wrote the article complained of in the information. On delivering my tender to Mr Sherwood on Saturday afternoon, he showed me an envelope and said “This is the Mail’s tender : you see the hour it was received is marked on.” I think the time marked was 12.30. He also, I think, marked the time on my envelope. I afterwards met Mr Sherwood, and he said he was going to the Mail office to make some enquiry about their tender ; that he had compared the tenders, and he thought that tho News tender was higher than the other, and would not obtain the contract. It seemed a strange thing that Mr Sherwood should tell me, an hour before the time for closing tenders, that the Mail had put in a lower tender than ourselves. I formed the impression, at the timCithat Mr Sherwood had decided to accept the Mail’s tender. I said “ I suppose it cannot be helped.” Ho had told me that it was necessary that the hye-laws should be published on the Monday evening. He had told me two or three times that he wanted to be very particular with these tenders ; that he wanted to be fair to both papers. He made so many remarks of this kind; that he made me suspicious. There was lime to prepare fresh tenders before four o’clock. What I meant by these words in the article, “The Mayor has also reviled the dignity of his position by disclosing to one tenderer what the only other one had proposed,’’ was that the. Mayor had acted improperly, and abused the public : office he held, by disclosing the contents of the News tender to the proprietor of the MAIL, the only other lendeier, as shown by a paragraph published in the Mail, before the matter of tenders had come before the bye-laws committee or Council. I never intended to convey the idea that tho Mayor had imparted to the other tenderer the contents of the News tender before the Mail’s was sent iri. I was of opinion that the article I had written conveyed my meaning by showing that the Mail had disclosed its knowledge of the tenders. Before writing my article, I saw a member of the byelaws committee, and bis remarks confirmed my opinion that Mr Sherwood had acted in an improper and irregular manner. Mr Hamerton then asked if the witness had “heard” certain things of Mr Sherwood. Mr Barton objected. Magistrate: An}’ reports as to what Mr Sherwood may have done, but not relating to this particular issue, I shall exclude. I don’t think that justification by hearsay is admissible. Mr Hamerton : X shall bring proof absolute. It was the cause of this. That article would not have been written on this one matter alone. Magistrate quoted Slarkie on “ Libel. and Slander ” to the effect.that the matter alleged in justification must relate in every particular to the matter complained of. Mr Hamerton : If we can prove that Mr Sherwood has done certain things during the last five years Magistrate: If you imputed certain immoral or criminal actions, you could not justify them by imputing or proving that he had committed other criminal or immoral actions. Stealing a horse and stealing a cow are on all fours as cases, but if a man had stolen a horse, yon could not justify a libel by proving that he had stolen a cow. Mr Hamerton ; But if they were both cows ? Magistrate: You cannot prove that a particular cow has been stolen by proving that some other cow was stolen by the same person at some other time. Mr Hamerton : I can show it from “Russell on Crimes.” He looked at that book, .but could nut find the passage he relied on. Magistrate: Suppose this particular libel had been published before, and the person who was libelled had not taken notice of it, even that would not be justification for it being published again. Mr Hamerron ; Oh, no. Magistrate : Then that makes it stronger still. The other party would have no opportunity of proving the truth or other-

wise of your evidence on other matters, and you would have an advantage, for hy bringing people into the box to prove all kinds of rumors, you would bo aggravating the libel. Mr Hamerton : I can perhaps got this through another witness. Magistrate : It should be thoroughly understood that there shall be no attempts to drag up charges that are not connected with this matter. It should be understood that this is the rule of the Court. That point should bo settled now one way or the other.

Mr Hamerton : If I have not tho authority I want, I shall not press it again. Witness said : By saying tho Mayor had “ icviled the dignity of his position,” I meant that he had abused his position, I meant that he had reviled or defiled his position. I have good reason to believe that Sunday work was involved, I am now certain that Sunday work was involved. I had previously informed the Mayor that it was quite impracticable for cither paper to do the work within the time stated. Mr Sherwood and myself were on friendly terms before the article was written. Mr Hamerton : Had you walked up to his house ? Mr Barton : So has the baker, hut that does not show that he is a friend of Mr Sherwood’s. Witness : There was nothing written from personal malice. I simply treated him as a public man, and wrote of him as such. Mr Sherwood and Mr Eyton were 30 per cent, wrong in their calculation when they said the two tenders were equal. Re-examined by Mr Barton, witness said : Mr.Black, so for as I am concerned, was totally unaware that the article was going to be published. It is usual for an editor to publish an article such as that without consulting the proprietor. If I considered the article was libellous, I would not have published it, even if it were true. Your article says there has been a deal of comment: who were the persons that made the comment ? Witness : Councillor Milroy commented on the irregularity. Mr Dale and Mr Black spoke about it before the article appeared. Others spoke about it at different times. I spoke to Mr Aitcbison about it. Councillors Dixon and Howitt also mentioned it. 1 can’t recollect whether before or after, Is that what you call public comment ? —Yes. Are most of those people connected with the newspaper ?—Only myself and Mr Black. You say in-a subsequent article on the Town Clerkship that “ Calling for applications was a formal necessity, but except a few in the secret, it was not known that an attempt was going to be made to supersede Mr Harris, who had given every satisfaction.” I ask is it.not a fact that Mr Black, your employer, was himself a candidate who was trying to supersede Mr Harris? Witness gave various answers, but eventually said yes. Then how was Mr Sherwood responsible for Mr Black trying to supersede Mr Harris? No answer. Was it fair in yon to write that article, knowing that Mr Black was also applying to supersede Mr Harris ? Witness ; It was fair under the circumstances. What circumstances ? Witness : There was an impropriety in giving his casting vote against another candidate. Why? Witness: Before giving his casting vote, Mr Sherwood voted against Mr Harris. It would have been very inconsistent for Mr Sherwood to give his casting vote for Mr Harris after giving his first vote against him. It was not an act of propriety to give his casting vote to Mr Eyton, because ho had proposed him. Mr Sherwood was sent to the Council to exercise his vote. Magistrate : If the Council are equally divided, the Mayor must exercise his casting vote or there would be an end to appointments. He seems to mean that it would not have been improper if the Mayor hid given his casting vote for Mr Harris. Witness : I think he should not have used his casting vote at all. Magistrate : I don’t think he can mean that, it is so absurd. Mr Hamerton further cross-examined as to the voting in committee. Witness: I heard (hat Mr Sherwood

and some of the Councillors intended putting Mr Harris out of the Town Clerkship. Case adjourned (ill next Tuesday, as the R.M. will be at Waitotara on Friday.