RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1330, 17 July 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—GISBORNE.

[Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.I Saturday, July 14. The case of Bromley v. Bromley, which was adjourned till Saturday morning at 10 o’clock, duly came on for hearing. Mr. Kenny, addressing the Court said, I think that Your Worship will be glad to learn that terms of arrangement have been arrived- at, through the strenuous efforts of Mr. Brassey and Mr, Robinson. Mr Bromley now seems desirous of doing all he can as a husband for his wife, whose status as such lie fully recognises, He would ask His Worship, as the arrangements were not yet complete, to have the case adjourned till Monday next, at 10 o’clock. His Worship said he would grant the application, and trusted that all will ba amicably arranged l y that time, and that no more would be heard of the matter.

Mr. Brassey said, this arrangement is wholly due to myself, I feel the case severely. One more matter which I would bring before Your Worship’s notice is the appearance of the letters in this morning’s Standard. I. feel the same accutely. When documents are put in as evidence, they are in the custody of the Court. I feel inclined to comment on it most severely. They had no right to leave the Court. The whole of the letters that appeared in this morning’s Standard were not in evidence, only portions of them After the case is fi lished the counsels can do what they like with them. I hope that Your Worship will express your opinion strongly on this matter, and trust that a stop will be put to it in future. I think it shameful that the Standard of this morning should be enabled to state that they were in<* debted to Mr. Kenny’s courtesy for them. Mr. Kenny replied.—The moment a document i? read in <"ourt it is public property. The Clerk of the Court has only to mark them, and then they are handed back to the counsel, and when the case is concluded the documents are all handed to the Judge to enable him to sum up or give judgment. As a general rule counsels are provided with a brief, and this brief contains all or most of the facts of the case, and the copies of the documents to be produced, and it is usual for them to hand the same to reporters of the press for the sake of publishing the facts more clearly if required. I must say the reports of the proceedings of this Court are most accurately given, but of course they have to apply to the counsels for information, for not being shorthand reporters they consequently loose some of the most important facts . of the case, which they kave to rely on us to receive, When I handed the letters to the Standard reporter 1 informed him that all the portions in evidence were underlined with red ink, I certainly did not expect to see them all published verbatim, and their so doing was a work of their own, possibly ho (reporter) thought it better to print the whole of them, so as to give a fairer view of the case, than to select any garble portion. As regards the portions of the letters read I will hold myself responsible. I decidedly consider that the Press should be fully informed on these matters, for, from the press, do not the public receive their information ? The power of the press is underrated, it is a most powerful and useful engine. I am perfectly open to meet my learned friend before any Judge of the Supreme Court with regard to the uublishing of the portions of the letters which I read to the Court, and perfectly ready to take all the responsibility as regards those portions ’ read in Court, Mr. Brassey replied that he hoped to have the opportunity of meeting Mr. Kenny before a Judge of the Supreme Court His Worship said that he agreed with Mr. Kenny that the public only received their information through the Press, and that he saw no harm in publicity being given to those portions of the letters which had been read, but he considered that the whole of them should not have appeared, but it was evidently a mistake on the part of the reporter, and that possibly as it so happened, it might tend for the best. I'hat this was a Court of Justice, and every thing that was transacted therein, should be made public as far as possible. Adjourned till Monday.

Monday, July 10. Bromley v. Bromley,—Mr Kenny was glad to say that the case had been satisfactorily settled.—Peace with honor had been obtained, and he would now ask permission of His Worship to withdraw the plaints. His Worship agreed to this, and the case was this settled. LIBEL ACTION. This was an information laid by Mr. W. L. Rees against the printer and proprietor of the newspaper called “ Facts,” setting forth that the issue of the 13th instant contained a false and scandalous libel on him, the said W. L. Rees. After stating the case, Mr Rees called Mr G. L. Greenwood, Registrar, who proved the registration of “Facts,” setting forth that Kenneth Kerr was the printer and publisher of the same. He could not swear that the Kerr in Court was the same mentioned in the affidavit. Ry Mr Rees : He had no doubt in his own mind but what the Kerr in Court was the proprietor mentioned in the affidavit. M. J. Gannon : by Mr Rees : I am a licensed interpreter at Gisborne. I know

K. Kerr in Court at present. 1 have copies | of a newspaper called ‘‘ Facts.” I under* stand that ths Korr in Court is the alleged proprietor of the newspaper called Facts. All I know is what the public generally know—that the paper is printed at one place, I know of no other paper called Facts, I know nothing of the internal management. To Mr. Kenny.—l believe Mr. Kerr in Court is the same that appears in the imprint. I infer that it is the same man because I know of no other person of that name, I will swear there is not another K. Kerr in Gisborne. I cannot swear that he is the proprietor. Mr. Kenny produced the summons, and asked the witness to read the article and see if he could find any libel contained therein against Kerr, Mr. Rees objected to this, stating that that was no business of the witnesses, but only for the Court to decide, His Worship thought it was an unfair question, and Mr, Kenny withdrew it. To Mr. Rees.—l have known Mr. Kerr very intimately, I know no other Mr. Kerr in connection with a newspaper. I have had conversations with him about the “ Facts ” newspaper. I have always understood that Kerr is the proprietor. I have seen his signature and believe that is it on the affidavit.

J, G. Henderson deposed : I know Kenneth Kerr. I have been in the habit of selling the Facts newspaper for Kenneth Kerr. I have no doubt as to the identity of the defendant Kerr. I know of no other Kenneth Kerr in connection with the Facts newspaper. W. L. Recj deposed : I am a solicitor practising at Gisborne. I produce r copy of the Facts newspaper, dated Friday, 13th July, 1883, bearing the imprint as follows : “ Printed by Charles Henry Webb, at his Registered Printing-office, Peel-street, for the proprietor, Kenneth Kerr, of Peel-street, Gisborne, and published by the said Kenneth Kerr, at the aforesaid registered printing office.—Friday, 13th July.” There is an article in this paper, as set out in the information, commencing “Consequently on the numerous telegrams,” &c. In that article I am the Rees mentioned. The statements contained in this article are nearly all absolutely untrue. The statement “That the Pouawa block was obtained bv fraud and perjury,” is absolutely untrue The statement “That Judge Heale would refuse to issue any order for the vestment of the freehold tenure in them until certain mortgages he’d by Read’s Trustees, the Bank of New South Wales and the Loan and Mercantile Company were cancelled, and all documents in connection with the land were produced to him.” That is untrue. Judge Heale refused to make an order because the Native Lunds Act did not empower the Native Lanas Court to make a trust. The statement “ That the fatal eloquence of W. L. Rees and his colleagues induced the Natives to sign what they believed to be conveyances of leases, but what in reality wore conveyancas in freehold,” was untrue so far as the statement of the Natives believing them to be conveyances of leases. Every Native knew them to be conveyances of freehold. The statement of the arrangement made in Mr De Lautour’s office that a cheque for £12,000 upon the Bank of New Zealand initialled by the manager and signed by Messrs Dargaville and De Latour, on beh ilf of the Company, and on to the end o Che alleged libel is absolutely untrue, no such arrangement was ever made. Messrs D. and R. on behalf of the Company, never gave such a cheque. They never handed back such a cheque to De Latour. They never received any scrip for such a cheque. Nor was such scrip deposited in the Bank of New Zealand. That land was conveyed to me personally, and an order for freehold tenure in my favor made in the Lands Court, for the purpose of my being able to convey such land to a party of special settlers who had come mostly from Belfast with Mr. G, M. Reid. There was neither fraud nor perjury committed by any party in the transaction. It was a matter which was entirely public, and of which everybody in the place knew the history. So far as I know, I was and am solicitor to the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company, limited. The statement made that through the fraud and perjury before alluded to that Judges Brookfield and Puckey were induced to make an order vesting the freehold tenure of Pouawa and Kaitiin the Company is Untrue. In the Block of Kaiti, no order has been made of freehold tenure, and in the Pouawa Block only a small portion, and that at some subsequent periods, has been vested by freehold tenure by the Court to the Company. The whole of the allegations of Facts are in the main untrue. Evety allegation of unfair dealing, of fraud and perjury, is absolutely untrue, To Mr Kenny : The whole article holds me up to public hate, contempt, and ridicule, because it says that these lands were obtained by fraud and perjury, and that we appeared negotiating with the owners as agents for the Company. I assume that the article accuses me of fraud and perjury. There is a distinct charge of fraud against me by the statement in the article that the Natives were induced to sign away the freehold when tfiey thought they were signing the only leasehold. I say that in the whole article Wi Pore and myself are held up. No such cheque for £12,000 was ever made. Captain Tucker was a director of the Company, only Wi Pere and I were agents. At that time there was no managing director. I don’t think De Latour did not carry out the functions of managing director. He attended the meetings of the directors. There is a Bill pending in the House to give powers to the Company. 1 said that copies of this paper had been sent to the members of Parliament, and wanted the case to go on to let them see that the Company was taking steps. I am not an authority to say that there are large powers affecting the Colony, or only this district, in the Bill now before Parliament. I can show you a copy of the Bill, and you can judge that for yourself. t The copy of the bill was produced, and put in as evidence. Mr Kenny now addressed the Court as follows :—I submit that the plaintiff has proved nothing. The witnesses cannot identify the defendant as the same man as the proprietor of “Facts.” Mr Greenwood only said that he understood defendant in court was the proprietor of “ Facts.” He could not swear to it. Mr Gannon’s evidence was stronger He believed he was the Kerr that owned the newspaper, andinferred that he was the same in court. Then comes Mr Henderson. His evidence looks a littls stronger, but he does not prove as to the real identity of Mr Kerr in Court and Mr Kerr of “Facts.” Now most of this ; in fact, all of it is mere hearsay, and, of course, is not receivable. The evidence must be direct and positive. That is the first point which plaintiff has failed to prove. The next point is the publishing of defamatory libel. In this he must produce written documents, which expose him to public contempt, hate and ridicule. Now I ask can your Worship see anything in the article defamatory to Mr Rees ? It is not levelled at any one person, I say the parties vituperated in this article are the Bank of New Zealand, the Loan and Mercantile Co. and the New Zealand Land Settlement Company, and not Mr Rees personally. The only allegation against Mr Rees was as follows : “The fatal eloquence of Mr Rees and his colleagues induced the

Natives to sign what they believed to be conveyances of the leases, but what in reality were conveyances of the freehold, thia being done under the 17th section of the Land Act, 1807.” It dees not say that he fraudulently induced the Natives to sign the deeds. Unless you are satisfied that there is a libel against Mr Rees you must dismiss the case. If there is any libel at all, it is against the Bank of New Zealand, the Loan and Mercantile Company, and the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company, and it b they who should have brought the action. It is a matter of Colonial importance, and as such the Press have the power to comment on it. Defamatory comment on public matters is not libel if those comments are fair and reasonable. This action is an attempt to gag the Press of the Colony. Mr Rees thinks to make an example of the defendant, and thus others will be afraid to follow up the matter. Mr. Rees is not appearing for any personal injury to himself, but to assist in shambling the Bill, at present before Parliament, through the House. Now, such being the case, I ask Your Worship, if there is any libel against Rees. We are perfectly prepared to prove every allegations against the right parties when the time comes. Again I mention that this is only an unfair attempt to stifle discussion, and these are facts for the people and the members of Parliament to know before the Bill can go through the House, and become law. His Worship said he would reserve his decision till this morning, at 10 o’clock.