RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1332, 21 July 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

TjiVßSnxr, July 19. [Before J, Booth, Esq., R.M.] Austin' v. Jones. The defendant was charged on the information of R. Austin that he did on the 7th of July, at Waerenga-a-hika, use foul and abusive language, calculated to cause R breach of the peace. Mr Brassey for the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded not guilty, but during the evidence admitted that he had used similar words to those stated in the summons. His Worship inflicted a fine of 10s and costs £1 10s, or in default of payment two days imprisonment. W. L. Rees v. Kenneth Kerb. This was an application made by plaintiff that the defendant should be bound over to keep the peace by ceasing to write articles in the newspaper - “ Facts,” which were likely to provoke a breach of the peace. Mr Kenny, for the defendant, submitted that the proceedings were wrongly taken, that His Worship could not proceed with the case as it now stood, the summons being headed information or complaint, which was incorrect Mr Rees said that the summons could be amended »nd re-sworn. He was much obliged to his learned friend for pointing out anything which he (Mr Kenny) considered to be wrong ; but he should say it was not wrong. Mr Kenny agreed that the summons should be amended and re-sworn, which was accordingly done, the word “ information ” being struck out.

Mr Rees stated that this application could have been made at the lime of the trial for libel, but on account of his absence it was not done. He would show that there was a libel, which was likely to cause a breach of the peace, as persons did not like their names used in the way in which his had been used in the article in " Facts.” If his friend, Mr Kenny, had any cause to show why defendant should not be bound over, he would have to be sworn on oalh. The plaintiff was then sworn, deposed : lam a solicitor, practising at Gisborne. I am the plaintiff in this case. I request that the defendant may be ordered to find recognizances I produce a newspaper “ Facts,” of Friday, July 13th, 1883. The same issue of which tho defendant was committed on a charge of libel.. Not only the part referred to is calculated to cause a breach of the peace, but other parts. Mr Kenny objected to the other parts of the paper being noticed. The part alleges against myself fraud and perjury. I have not laid this complaint, nor do I ask for sureties of the peace, through any feeling of ill-will against the defendant, but because T believe that unless sureties be granted that defendant will continue to write and publish matter of the same nature. I tender the whole paper in evidence. Mr Kenny again objected to this, because they should have set out the whole of it in the summons instead of only the portions already so done. His Worship thought that after hearing the cases quoted by Mr Rees he would allow the whole paper to be put in. To-Mr Kenny: I take this proceeding for my own part, not for the Land Company. That is my writing in the following letter—

Eldon Chambers, Gisborne, Julv 17th, 1883. Mr. C. H. C. Wkbb, Printer and Publisher, Gisborne. Sir,— Owing to my having mistaken the time at which the Court was to sit this morning, the information laid by me against yourself for libel was dismissed. As I have no wish to press tho matter against you I am willing to stay my proceedings against youreelf on receiving your assurance that you will in future abstain from printing or publishing any libellous matter against myself and the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company, Limited, and any person connected therewith. I am, yours faithfully, W. L. Rees. I mentioned the Native Land Company in it merely to stop scandalous articles being written against it as well as myself. If the defendant went on writing as he has done about myself, I might be tempted to commit, a breach of the peace. The defendant is most insulting. I am not aware that the defendant admires me. I don’t want to be entrapped into an unseemly controversy or breach of the peace. The defendant is always libelling me. I know these papers “ Facts ” are sent all over the country. Other things have been said about other people, which are thoroughly scandalous. I believe this paper is supported for the purpose of libelling me. This was the plaintiff’s case. Mr. Kenny said he would produce evidence to show that tjie defendant has no malice or illfeeling against the plaintiff. He would also draw his Worship’s attention to the fact that the plaintiff should found his case on present transactions, and not only on the past. The great question that all this libel was founded on was about a certain Bill now before Parliament, and which is a matter of wide public interest, and, he said, Englishmen have a right of free criticism on all public matters, and this is, as a rule generally allowed them. If His Worship found against the defendant then they would have to comment on these

matters in a roseivater style. The public feeling was that if this Bill became law, then the Government might at once be abolished, and that the future prospects of the Colony would be of a detrimental character. They are trying to gag the press which would be a very serious thing, as the public opinion is so strongely opposed to this Bill. The plaintiff has not shown that his case comes under the Justice of the Peace Act. If he oould show that the defendant had personal malice against him, then that would alter the case, but he submitted they could not. Kenneth Kerr, deposed. —My name is Kenneth Kerr. When I published the article in question I did it on public ground, without any feeling of public malice whatever. I don’t entertain auy ill will or hatred to the plaintiff. I have never written privately about his transactions. I have never had any quarrel with plaintiff, I said to him this morning, “ 1 congratulate you on the progress of the Bill." I had no intention then to insult or annoy him. The caraeatures 1 was drawing this morning were of cats, dogs, &o In regard to the future I have no intention to comment on him in private matters. I have no connection with any party or any person with the paper. I wrote the article in question in the publio interest. To Mr. Rees. —I recognise the paper produced,—it is “ Facts.” I state there, that you are an agent for the Company. I sell all the issues of Facts 1 recognise Mr. Rees as two people. I state I shall substantiate the truth of the articles. I shall continue to criticise your actions as I have done, which I consider truthful. I again state that I have never received any money for publishing “ Facts.” His Worship said that the defendant had already been committed for trial, and he did not think he would continue writing libellous articles, for if he did it would only tend to aggravate tho case pending trial. If he were sensible he would not do so. It would bo extremely foolish if he does continue to do so. He (his Worship) would not be a party to any attempt to gag the Press. He would therefore dismiss the case without costs.

Fbiday, July 20. Quinlan v Maddeb. Mr. Kenny appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Rees for the defendant. Mr. Kenny addressed the Court, and pointed out that there were two claims, the first was for damages, for the impounding of a certain horse, which amounted to £L The second was for £6 18s, for the wrongful taking of the horse. W. H. Quinlan deposed.—l am plaintiff in this case. In the early part of this month I had in my possession, a horse branded RD. Having received permission from Mr. Connor, I sent it to his paddock. It was to remain there till the next morning. The next morning the mare was out of the paddock, and I learned she was in the pound. I went to the poundkeeper and asked him for the mare, and he said there was £1 damages on it, By payment of that fee 1 could get the mare. I offered him the pound fees in silver, and objected to pay the damages. He refused to give up the mare till I did pay, I then went to see Mr. Madder. After several hours had elapsed I saw him. I told him that it would be a great loss to me, and asked him to give instructions for me to get it out. He refused decidedly. After this Mrs. Quinlan went to him, Then I got it out on the payment of £2. It was about 5 o'clock. I got the horse. A long and very weary argument here ensued as to the point raised by the counsel for the defence as to the remoteness of the damages, His Worship supported Mr. Rees' point. R. M. Skeet deposed—Mr. Quinlan pointed out to me a paddock owned by Connor and Madder, and asked tne to inspect it. There are no dividing fences in it. On the north side there is a line fence. On the side by the Waikanae there is no fence at all. On the other side the fence is anything but a substantial one. Thomas Connor deposed.—l am a gardner. I have an allotment at the Waikanae. It is an open piece of ground so far as the interior is concerned. The exterior fence is not a good one. I told Mr. Quinlan’s daughter that she could tie the horse at the back of the house. H. Cannon deposed.—l am the Gisborne pound-keeper. I produce my pound book. I can find where the mare branded RD was impounded. About II o’clock on the Monday, after it had been impounded, Mr. Quinlan came and asked for the horse. I refused to give it up. To Mr. Rees. —When plaintiff came to me I explained to him how he could get the horse out. G. L. Greenwood deposed.—l remember the case Quinlan v. Cannon. This was a summons issued under the 30th Clause of the Impounding Act. The issue of fhiscase was the nonsuit of the plaintiff. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Rees addressed the Court, urging that the plaintiff should be nonsuited. Mr. Kenny replied at length. The witnesses for ths defence were called, and after giving their evidence ? his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for tho amount paid into court, £1 Is GJ.