PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY & SATURDAY. WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 962, 20 July 1881, Page 2

PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY & SATURDAY. WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1881.

Although we would fain have done with the recent libel business, and let things sleep in peace, we are impelled by a sense of duty to touch on one or two points in the summing up of Mr. Justice Gillies. That His Honor—whether intentionally or not we cannot say —drew a herring across the scent, by the introduction of the political state of Native affairs, there can be no doubt. And, as we have previously pointed out, he altered the subject matter of the trial altogether. He called upon the jury, not so much to sav that Mr. Wickham should be

found guilty, as that Mr. Rees had 1 most unjustifiably mixed himself up in . transactions with the Natives, which had been a source of trouble from the foundation of the Colony. In fact we may go to the length of saying that His Honor’s address partook less of the judicial than the political element. It may be that His Honor thought this was a proper channel thrpugh which to steer the mind of the jury—guiding them, step by step, to the remote and primary cause that rendered the proceedings necessary. But, it could not be expected to have any other effect, than that such an explanation of the cause, would be a palliation of the offence. In other words it meant that as Mr. Rees had been engaged in a work of which Mr. Justice Gillies disapproved, his denouncer was perfectly justified in calling him all the blackguard names to be found in that kind of nomenclature ; so long as the reservation was not disregarded that such language was “fair and reasonable.”

His Honor said, “If the real and “ only object of the writer was to obtain “ a public trustee, that would be a “good and proper object:” We do not think it required Judge Gillies to tell us that. But was that the writer’s “ real and only object ?” Of course Mr. Wickham was only a tool in the hands of one whom, but for accident, and the political antagonism of those engaged, would have involved him in most serious consequences. But Mr. Wickham may, probably, not know that the writer was all along hand and glove with Mr. Rees until the latter unearthed certain “ deeds that are dark, and tricks that are vain,” which the said writer had been guilty of. Had Mr. Rees assented to certain nefarious transactions, and have lent himself to the accumulation of moral filth, such as his enemies slung at him, he would not have been troubled with their animosity at this juncture. Can the writer of those libellous articles —dare he publicly assert that his object has been the securing of a public trustee in place of Mr. Rees ? Amongst all the fulminations of the past three years, has one word ever been advanced towards that end r The writer, with others, was quite prepared to run, and did run, with Mr. Rees, so long as they thought he could be bent to their will ; but when “ the day of retribution ” came, the masks fell from their faces—the blackness of their heart was discovered, and Mr. Rees turned them adrift. He certainly has been defeated, but not by means that redound to his discredit. He has fallen, but only to rise superior to his conquerors. But there is something fearfully and wonderfully ingenious in his Honor’s distinguishment of, not to say playing upon, the meaning of words. “ Unscrupulous ” is a very naughty word, and ought to be avoided by all public writers ; but “false representations,” “ swindled,” “ conniving at fraud,” “acting dishonestly,” “bribery and threats,” these are only “ a very strong way of putting it ” —so says Mr. Jusfice Gillies.

His Honor is very careful to repeatedly say to the jury that “ it is not “ for me to express an opinion.” “With you it rests as to whether the state- “ ments are malicious or not.” If that were so, why did his Honor say, “ I “ think the words are fair and reason- “ able ? And then came the herring. While the jury were balancing the weight of testimony, and wondering how to escape the condemnation of public opinion, and, at the same time, lay a plaster on their consciences, His Honor thought proper to say—

I had one of these trust deeds before me in a recent trial, and I then expressed my opinion as to what I thought of these transactions; suffice it to say, thnt this mode of dealing with Native lands, deserves that the public attention should be drawn to it in proper language; it deserves the attention of the Legislature, in order to prevent great public evils that may arise from it. The question may arise whether this article may have been written with that view.

That was sufficient to strengthen the weakest, and decide the most wavering—and it did. It was the bonne bouche which his Honor knew would tell—and it did. A discriminating public will talk ; and newspaper men must have the other side of the question. Therefore, according to his Honor’s text, we claim to be “ fair and reasonable not “ malicious,” and anxious, withal, for the public good, we express surprise that Mr Justice Gillies should have allowed his experience in a totally different case, to so outrun his discretion as to leave a coloring on the public mind, that he interpolated matter to influence the jury totally at vari-

ance with the simple fact of libel. What if the Napier Trust Deed were bad, in law ? How does that bring in Mr Wickham guilty or not guilty ? ?If the “ great public evils ” that may have arisen from the existing traffic in Native lands, had been the cause of Mr Wickham maligning Mr Rees, his Honor’s allusion to them, in extenuation of the libel, would have been intelligible ; or if the same words had been used to show fhat, however injudiciously Mr Rees may have been acting, it is no justification for wholesale obliquy, we could have understood the position ; but with the bare facts before us, we can only conclude that, while Mr Rees was unwise in taking criminal proceedings, it is pretty clear that the result would have been different under civil process.