Tuesday, July 17th. SHEEP STEALING.

Colonist, Volume III, Issue 287, 20 July 1860, Page 2

Tuesday, July 17th. SHEEP STEALING.

John Kerr, jun., was placed at the bar charged with stealing, at Waimea West, on the Bth FebruaryJlast, 6 sheep and 6 skins the property of Mr. C. Elliott. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and was defended by Mr. Travers. The following jurymen were then called :—- Wm Eyes, H. C. Jenkins, W. R. Jones, Thos. Jones, H. D. Jackson, C. H. Jennings, C. Jennings, J. Jerard, Wm. Jenkins, (foreman), J. S. M. Jacobsen, H. Jasper, W. Jessop., On being sworn, prisoner challenged Messrs. H. D. Jackson, W. R. Jones, and Jessop, and they were replaced by Messrs., E. F. Jones, E. Jermingham and S. B. Johnstone. The, Crown Prosecutor in opening the case said —the prisoner at the bar is charged with having stolen six sheep and six skins the property of Mr. Elliott,-and one skin' was found in his possession. Prisoner occupies Grove Farm, and Prosecutor the land adjoining, known as Thompson's run. Prosecutor carries on the business of a butcher, and has sheep running on his land. Prisoner'has sheep at.Grovp.Farm, and it appears ,., the sheep were constantly "mixed. Prosecutor has often got sheep of his from prisoner, and he should show that prisoner knew w the prosecutor's brand.—He then called— Charles Elliott sworn : Am a printer residing in Nelson. Also carry on.the business of a butcher. Occupy land known as Thompson's run. Keep sheep there—-generally; about 200 at a time. Have continually lost sheep from there for 11 months previous to Kerr's apprehension. Altogether have lost about 100. The land adjoining mine known as Grove .Farm was'occupied by Kerr! at that time he ran sheep there—our sheep occasionally mixed. About January last went to Grove Farm and drafted about 16 of my sheep from Kerr's flock. Kerr was there. Know my sheep by ear mark and brand. ..Kerr's brand was on some of my sheep as well as mine. Kerr did not object to my taking the sheep with my brand on—he objected to my taking those with the ear mark.. Claimed those with the ear mark;, but Kerr, said they were his. Went to, Bettany's after the dispute about the sheep. Saw six sheep skins with my brand on. Some of the 16 I drafted from Kerr's had the red H on; but I think .only one —the six skins T. saw at Bettany's; had the red H on. While drafting prisoner referred to a suit in the District Court and said " He had paid heavily for; sheep he had of mine, and he would be d—r— —d but he would, have it back. On another occasion previous he said something similar to me, this was in Nelson. I recognise the skins produced as, mine. . My sheep running on Thompson's run are branded with the brand produced^ at least the major part of them. They, are branded with red paint. Never .sold prisoner any sheep, nor has any one else on my behalf, with my: consent or knowledge. Think no one else brands with red paint. Went with the constable to apprehend the prisoner at his residence. Saw some of my sheep branded red H there at the time, but prisoner had. previously mr formed me they were there. This was after witness had seen the skins at Bettany's. Saw some other sheep with ear mark on. Cross-examined by Mr. Travers.—Have a large number of sheep in charge belonging to other persons. They are variously marked. Do riot know Canning's ear mark; It was by the ear mark I claimed the sheep from Kerr. Never myself took stock of my sheep. Trusted entirely to the report of my servants. Went to Grove Farm at Kerr's request to separate the sheep; he has often .requested me to keep my sheepfrom his: ; "■* Re-examined: It was partly in consequence of Kerr's asking me to go, that I went to separate the sheep. . By his Honor: Hargreaves. had charge of my sheep at that time. He has since left Nelson. Saw him here about two months since. Heconductea ihy butchering business for me. He had rio right to sell sheep without my knowledge. Never gave him any authority to sell my iheep branded H,; rior do I know of his having sold any; he was in my employ up to the time of his leaving Nelson; he discharged himself. Hargreaves was the original possessor of the brand produced. He was possessed of it: when he came into my employ. Previously he came in business as a butcher on his own account. Wm. Bettany sworn: Am the servant of a dealer in skins. Mr. W. L. Hurst, of Wellington, is my master. Purchase skins on his;account. Went to prisoner's residence iabout February last. Purchased 98 skins from him and took them away. Kerr's'man assisted me'to load them. Kerr was not there until they were loaded. Previous to my going, Kerr asked me to notice, the brands. Did so, and the brands were—a star; a dot, Sin square, and red H.° There was only one with the red H. Could not say. there were any more." Paid £10 9s. for the skiiis. Got eight skins from Matthews on ray-way down. Do not know how they were branded. The akins marked red H could not say whether recently killed or not: Six of the skins brought from Kerr's were afterwards claimed by Hargreaves as Elliott's property, they were branded red 11. Was in the habit" of going to Kerr's once a month for skins. Cross-examined by Sir. Travers: Saw Hargreaves near Coleman's public house the day witness got the skins from Kerr's,'Was coming from Kerr's when witness saw him. Hargreaves asked witness whose skins they were, he told him Kerr's. Hargreaves said nothing about brands at that time. John -Sherwood sworn: said, am a constable ; went with Mr. Elliott and Hargreaves to Bettariy|s. Six skins were picked out and claimed as Elliott's, property, theyvrere branded red H. John Soloman s#orn: Was in Kerr's employ ifvom June 20th, 1859, till after,Kerr was arrested. Was carrying on business as a butcher. The sheep and cattle were killed at his residence, Waimea West. Killed on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Sheep were sometimes killed on other days. Cariie to town on the days witness did not kill so cannot say: who killed on those days. Kerr was -generally there when witaesa, killed*, J^rjsowjr

has assisted witness in killing... Found some skins in the flax about 50'yai'dsfrdm- Kerr's residence; he blew the boy up for leaving them about; and made him put them on the fence. -This was on the Sunday previous to his apprehension. On the day of Kerr's apprehension witness was returning from Nelson. Ingham-told mo at Richmond that Elliott had a warrant for Kerr for sheep stealing; and that I had better, hurry home and tell him. Elliott got to Kerr'sas soon as witness did. Kerr was in custody; he said tb;me." lam apprehended for sheep stealing, arid if you had let those skins alone it would have been all right, as it was a trap laid to catch me." The skins that.were taken out of the flax were of different brands, arid I would almost, sweay, two. were branded .red H. , KTever saw a sheep killed on Kerr s premises branded red H. Prisoner at a future time ssid he would give ,£SO to be revenged on Elliott, and if witness would take some skins from his (prisoner's) premises and put them on Mr. Elliott's, he would give him that money: he said this on his own premises and subquently when he came to see rae at the gaojk. Prisoner told witness if he got bail he should havfe to '-" leap the fence." Witness understood prisoner to mean he should have to take some skins and put them on Elliott's property. Kerr said to wifr ness in gaol that there was no case against him. Showed Bettany: some skins about, February,- it Kerr's residence. Did not,look at the brands. Believe Bettany took some of the skins that ";were found in the flax. Could not say the skins found iv the flax were skins of animals killed by witness. Cannot swear to the skins' pfpduced as belonging to animals killed by me. " Some of the skins taken by Bettany were of animals witness did hot kill. George Potter said to witness that HargreaVeshad told him that "Jack" (meaning-prisoner) might have left the sheep alone, for that ne (Hargreaves) wanted a score forhimself. Kerr pays the ex;,penses'of his (witness) defence. Potter was riot present at the conversation with Kerr'in relation to the £5.0. On another occasion in the presence of Potter, prisoner said he would give £500 to be revenged on Elliott. Prisoner used to buy all the sheep and cattle. They were delivered by the parties he bougnt them of, or their servants; Once drove some sheep from Grove Farm to Kerr's house. Witness thinks this was after Kerr's committal. . •■■.■■',: Charles Elliott re-called: Remember Soloman pointing out some sheep to him that he was driving, they were branded red H. Desired him to deliver them to Hargreaves; he left them at Tasker's in Richmond. This was three weeks beforfe Kerr's apprehension. Henry Barnett being sworn, saut: Am a butcher residing at Stoke. Was seryarit to Hargreaves in .February last.: Had been with him for eleven months previously. Went with Hargreaves to draft some sheep, from Grove Farm in the month of February; this was about a week before Kerr was appprehended. Some of Elliott's sheep were there. Picked out 22 or 23 from Kerr's sheep. Some were branded red R, arid others Mr. Elliott's ear mark. Witness tied them. Kerr cut them loose and branded them with his brand. Witness told him they were Elliott's sheep; he denied it. He let witness take those marked H, but not those with' the ear;.ihark. Elliott's sheep in , Hargreaves Jcharge were usually branded red Hon rump.. Do riot know that Hargreaves and Kerr exchanged sheep. .,. Delivered some sheep to Matthews, .cannot say how they were marked. These six skins are noneof thoge witness took to Matthews. Never knew Hargreaves sell sheep to any one but Matthews and Tasker, , Those iheep were .delivered; at different times. Could not say that.any of the sheep J sold to Matthews were branded red H. .'''■'■■? Thomas Thompson Bworn: Was in the employ of Hargreaves from March to November, 1859 ; whiU.irwhis employ Matthews.had 23sheep from him; they were woolled sheop. John Soloman re-called: While in Kerr'sservice never knew him to buy skins; do not knoVv of his ever, buying sheep from Matthews or Tasker. Do not know who Kerr dealt with. iy'. William Matthews sworn, said : Bought^some sheep from Hargreaves about October last, they were delivered at different times. Have hot bought any from Hargreaves since, Killed them directly witness got them. Could not say whether any of them were branded red H; sold the skins. Kerr never bought sheep or skins from witness. Sold some of the skins to Bettany. ■-■■:■■ -■<■■-~ Cross-examined by Mr. Travers: The sheep witness gotjfrom Hargreaves were short woolled. Do not notibe the brands of sheep witness buys.', Henry Barnett re-called: Hargreaves was iq possession of the brand produced when he entered his service. The skins produced witness believes are branded with that brand. Witness believes he branded them, himself. Thomas Tasker sworn: Have bought sheep from Hargreaves, the first about December last; have bought about forty from him. Never sold any skins to Kerr, sold them to Bettany. Cross-examined by Mr. Travers: A'great many of tb« sheep bought from Hargreaves. were branded red H.; Some of them witness bought previous.l to Kerr's apprehension were marked red H. ' '"; This closed the case for the prosecution. ; Mr. Travers then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, but did not call any witnesses. His Honor summed up, and the jury having retired about an hour and a quarter, returned a verdict of " Not Guilty." The Judge addressing the prisorier said—You. have had a very narrow escape, aud I hope it will be a warning to you. You are discharged. The Court was then adjourned till 10 o'clock on Wednesday. ; . . -; CIVIL SIDE. ■ .-:•"• v Wednesday, July 18. ■■) '"-X LIBEE.. William Thomas Locke Travers, plaintiff, and William-Nation, defendant. : . ; The following special jury were then sworn :rJames Mackay, foreman, Andrew Richmond, John Beit, W. Wells, J. W. Barriicoat,; J-.'-M* Pierson, Charies Muntz, W. Wilson, J. E. A. Kelling, N-. Edwards, N. G. Morse, "W. H.Turntr. -Messrs. Gbrinell and Kingdon appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Adams for defendant. . Mr. Kingdon read the declaration and the paragraph alleged to be libellous:— .'•'■■■> The fifth day of April, One Thousand Eight Huh. dred and Sixty. The Plaintiff saith,—Thafc on or about the twenty-fifth day of April, dne thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine, he was duly appointed to be and from tlieticeforth hath continued io be and now, is,' Judge ofthe District Court for the-districf of Nelson in New Zealand. . Thatf previously:to such appointment, as judge as (aforesaid, he was *:member/of the House of Representatives in the General Assembly of New Zealand, duly elected to represent the'Waimea Districts in the Province of Nelson, being within the district for which he was appointed judge as aforesaid. That in his capacity as such member as aforesaid, he had previously to such appointment as judge, as aforesaid, taken his seat in the said House of Representatives, and "taken parkin the proceedings -of|the saidHouse.. :-V . •• •••"'■": .'■ ' ' .-■-■■ Ay _ _ That previously- to such appointment- as judge "as aforesaid, he was also a Solicitor of the -Supreme Court of New Zealand and Conveyancer, and carried on,business as such Solicitor and Conveyancer in the City of Nelson j being within: the district for,which(\he was appointed judge as aforesaid.. V, .'..:■, That the defendant isthe printer and publisher of a certain newspaper current within the said Province of Nelson called TM Colonist.. "-YO-. That on or about the third, day of April,;one thousand ..eight hundred and sixty, the. Defendant falsely and-mdicibus'y printed and published'o/"-. the Plaintiff in the said newspaper; called The Col Mist, the words following, that is to say, " In this small place we have first • Bench of Magistrates, then a Resident Magistrate whose duties embrace small debts under twenty pounds, and, although there is a judge of the Supreme Court of Wellington and Nelson who sits every six months, the Geperal Government to feed its hangers-on must create;these District Courts, in which the population have no: confidence, and are determined to use every means to get abolished. The appointments too" of local lawyers as a price for political profligacy to these judgeships .are; considered very injudicious and calculated to bring the decision of such Courts: into contempt; and. thus loosen the stronghold of our social institutions^ W engeudqrinK a hostile' spirit to the hw\ . 00 *

Mr. Connell, ih opening the case, said: It is my duty to place before you the case of the plaintiff, and I think it is 1 so very clear that I shall have very little trouble in doing so. The issues you have to try, gentlemen, are as follows—lst, Did the defendant publish the alleged libel ? Did the defendant publish the alleged libel ia the sense imputed in the inuendo? 3rd, Are the words complained of libellous in themselves ? (This issue was subsequently withdrawn.) 4th, Was the alleged libel a fair and bona fide comment without actual malice on the conduct of the plaintiff in a public capacity? sth, To what damages is the plaintiff entitled? In April 3rd, 1860, a publication of the Colonist took place, containing the paragraph said to be libellous. The meaning of that paragraph I shall show applies to Mr. Travers. 1 shall call witnesses who will say that they understood it to refer to him. If you find on any of the issues you will have to assess what damage Mr. Travers has sustained by the publication referred to, but not to give excessive damages. The Judge said that.Mr. Connell had no right to say anything .about excessive damages, as that was purely a question for the jury. Mr. Connell, after putting in the Colonist of April 3rd, containing the libel, and another of April 24th, in evidence of malice of intention on the part of defendant, proceeded to call the following witnesses— Oswald Curtis sworn : Am a merchant residing in. Nelson. _ Know bot ( h plaintiff and^ defendant in this action.' .Am in the habit of reading the Colonist., Remember .the^san^pjary published in the Colonist, April 3rd. "Thfeis a copy of that paper. Read the article complained of, and thought it referred to Mr. Travers, the District Judge. Mr. Connell asked, in what sense he understood it to refer to Mr. Travers, which question was objected to by Mr. Adams. flis Honor: On what authority ? Mr. Adams had no, authority. His Honor: Gentlemen should take a little more trouble to think of what questions are likely- to be asked before coming into court. He should not allow the question. Examination continued: Am not aware of anything to make me put other but the ordinary construction on the paragraph. Understand it refers to Mr. Travers. Cross-examined by Mr. Adams: Consider the words apply to Mr. Travers in his capacity of District Judge, also as an honest and well-meaning man. Do not think they do as a solicitor, think they do as a Member of the House of Representatives. Consider they refer more to his appointment as District Judge than to his conduct since that appointment. My grounds for that opinion are because the paragraph refers to this particular district, because the latter part of the article refers to My. Travers as Registration Officer, and there is only one District Judge and one Registration Officer in this district—-it also refers to squabbles having taken place in Court, aud I am not aware that they have occurredin any- but M.r. Travers' Court. Consider they apply to him as a politician, as a Judge, and generally as a number of society. Think this from all the circumstances I have stated. Know that other District Judges have been local lawyers; think in Canterbury and Otago the District Judges were lawyers. The District Judge at Wellington is a Member of. the House of' Representatives. The Judge at Otago is a Member of the Legislative Council. Re-examined by Mr. Connell: The squabble referred to by me led to an action in this court, j refer to Mr. Saunders'case. Robert Burn, who declined to be sworn from conscientious motives, affirmed: Am a tin-smith resident in Nelson, read the Colonist, read the article the subject of this action; consider it refers to Mr. Travers, thought so at the time I read it. Cross-examined by Mr: Adams: Consider it refers to Mr. Travers as District Judge, but not in any other capacity. Re-examined by Mr. Connell: Am not prepared to say it referred to him exclusively as District Judge. It did not strike me as referring to him in any other capacity. . George, Jackson sworn: Am.Librarian of the Literary Institution, and (reside in Nelson. The ■Colonist is taken at the Institute; read the Colonist, read the article referred to in the Colonist, April 3rd. Consider it refers to Mr. Travers. The Institution is a place of resort for persons to ice the papers. Cross-examined by Mr. Adams: It applied to Mr. Travers as District Judge in my opinion, but not in any other way: Ido not think it reflects oh his moral character at all. . .William Nation was next called by the counsel for plaintiff, but was objected to by Mr. Adams. After some discussion, His Honor ruled that the witness could be put in the box. William Nation sworn: Am defendant in this action. Mr. Connell, placing the Colonist of April 3rd before witness, asked If he was the publisher of that paper. : His Honor here informed the witness that ho could object to answer the question if he thought it would tend to criminate him. ' On the question, however, being put, the witness acknowledged the publication. Mr. Adams: Perhaps I may as well admit that defendant is publisher of the papers referredto. His Honor: You cannot do so, and for aught I know it may be my duty to commit Mr. Nation to the custody of the sheriff immediately. Examination continued: Am also printer ofthe paper produced,'marked G, date April 24th. W. T.L. Travers sworn:. Am the plaintiff in this action, am the District Judge. . Read the ' article published in the Colonist of April 3rd, and the subject of this action, read it on the day it was published; consider it applies to me. Mr. Connell then proceeded to put in as evidence the Colonist, of April 24th, which w;as objected to by Mr. Adams, as it had not been shown that it was in any way connected with the paragraph containing the alleged libel. His Honor, however, over-ruled the objection, and the paper was put in, and the article read at length by the Clerk of the Court. .We have often read,' and perhaps we have too often reprinted for the edification of our readers, a list of the numerous difficulties which beset the path of a publisher of a newspaper; but in addition to the ordinary ills that belong to our vocation, we have, during the last three months, been subjected to an annoyance of rather a special character. ' Ever since the day that the general apathy of-our fellow-settlers was for a short time disturbed and fchehvconfi(ience in British Justice received-* severe shock by the trial of Mr. Saunders, we have received a regular stream of communications from correspondents on that subject. Many of these, we have declined, and have thereby given great offence to our correspondents and subscribers. A few of the mildest of them we have published; but even with these, we have been, either, threatened or furnished with lega; proceedings by Mr. Travers. .... . Afc-first ;we treated ;Mr. Travers' applications as "Lord Chesterfield is said to have treated the clowii ?who stood in his pjith, and roared out, "Inever gives the wall to scoundrels!''! W« were indeed so exces;- . sively polite, thafcwe apologised to .him for the publication of ..letters in which his name was never m^n- : .tlpned,. ,and upon which he .had chosen to put a ■ construction different to that put upbn them by the writer,'' by ourselves, or by any of our readers except : Mr; Travers. But, like the Maories,' Mr. Traters could not appreciate our politeness, and •no doubt, attributed ifc to that terror of the, law with which he . fancies that his late success ha1* stricken all the inhabitants of this province; and our readers will at least-be interested to know thafc Mr. Travers. is again 'to figure as a prosecutor; and we suppose ts an Amicus Curia, at the next sitting of the Supreme Court. ~ '"""■ In the reign of Q«orge the Third an application was made to the Court of King's Bench for a criminal^nformation against, the printer of a newspaper, who had •'- published*-the• following sentences—"The printer's are much perplexed about; the likeness of the devil. To obviate this difficulty concerning his infernal; majesty, Peter Pindar has- recommended to his friend Opie the countenance of Lord Lonsdale." Erskine appeared for the defence, and said:—" My Lords, with9jifc,any,digresp.ecfc to.,the noble prosecutor, : ,I/mu.st. be allowed to say that the paragraph is not a libel on him,'but on the davill" Andwebannot help thinking tiwtourlearaedpimecutorhas^iahiYpre^ht choice

of a subject' for action against us, fallen into a similar mistake. .-..■','.'• ~ • ..."■-■• ■.■o.o\ One of oui v correspondents (AB C)! speaks about Mr. Saundws telling the truth about "the great men of Nelson;" and Mr. Travers, with characteristic modesty, professes to think that ho must be- included' in that list. We do not for a moment believe' that our correspondent had the least intention of setting Mr: Travers up as one of " the, great men fof. Nelson;" but if ho had, surely "the great' men," and not.; Mr. Travers, ought to have complained of a libel, and ought to have,,commenced an, action against us for publishing the letter. .'. Even Mr. Travers himself does j not always appear to have the samo confidence.in his own position; as when, in our last summary for the Europsan mail, we spoke of. appointments being given as the price bf " political. pirofligacy," we ; are again served with a writ,.not from the, General government, whose sonduct we were criticising, but from Mr. Travers, who appears to think that we can have meant no ono but himself. . . .'.;.' Under these circumstances, we must request our correspondents, if they wish their letters to be published, to change their tack,; and to write ih;such a. manner as will be quite agreeable to Mr. Travers's highly sensitive feeling's. They must, in fact, sitig his: praise and glory; let iis hear a little about his consistency, his maguanimity and forbearance, his equity, his; punctuality, !'his ■ veracity, or any other .of his numerous virtues; but we must not have, a single word about little dirty pieces of paper, or horsewhips, about land which he has not found out, or reports, about tjie Maories, which were not told him by: a gentleman from Hoke Poke. We shall.be happy to publish any criticisms upon the public conduct of any other public officer, and still more happy to publish any justification of their conduct which may be furnished by themselves or their friends. B.ut Mr. .Travers must be an exception to the general rule of all British public .officers in..the .nineteenth century; we mast'treat him as we used to treat a great meanspirited schoolfellow, who, whenever he got a thrashing from a smaller boy than himself, used to go whining to the schoolmaster for revenge. For, although, as'Sam.Weller told Mr. Pickwick, battledore and shuttlecock is a very good game, it is uther too expensive when two lawyers play on one side, and a humble individual who is not a lawyer on the other. Each of th& offences we have mentioned is estimated to have damaged his character to the extent of One Thousand Pounds; and by the same scale of calculation, this article, damages it at least two thousand more, making fom: thousand pounds altogether. Now, instead of paying for Mr. Travers's character piecemeal, in this way, we should prefer to compromise the matter. Let his character be valued as a whole by two or three impartial appraisers; and then we feel confident we should have no difficulty in paying him for its total value. This closed the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Adams having intimated that he did not intend calling any witnesses for the defence, Mr. Connell proceeded to address the jury as follows:— Gentlemen of the Jury—The evidence is now closed,-my learned friend having intimated that he does not intend calling any witnesses, and you have to find a verdict upon the testimony of the different gentlemen who have been before you. You have heard the article alleged to be libellous read, the publication of which is admitted on the part of defendant. The application of the words to Mr. Travers is proved by the evidence of Mr. 0. Curtis, and the other witnesses. You will have to judge whether the words, bear the construction put upon them by the plaintiff. The article imputes that Mr. Travers got his appointment of District Judge as the price bf political profligacy. It says that from dishonest motives he had accepted the office for his unscrupulous support of the General. Government. It is admitted that Mr. Travers was a Member of the House of Re{iresentatives, and practising solicitor, therefore ocal lawyer. If you think that the interpretation we have put upon the words is the ordinary one you will find for the plaintiff. The next question is the one of express malice, which it is necessary to prove in all cases of libel. Gentlemen, the Colonist, which is put in as evidence of April 24th, will, I think, satisfy you on this point. It will show you that after defendant had received notice! of action, he still persisted in attacking Mr. Travers.; Then, gentlemen, comes the question is the libel a fair comment ? I shall not trouble you at any length on this subject. If it is an r imputation of corrupt conduct on the part of' Mr. Travers, I do not think you can say, gentlemen, that it is a fair and bona fide comment. This brings us to the question of damages. If you think the plaintiff is entitled to damages, it is for you to fix the amount. In the eyes of persons who do not know Mr. Travers personally, I submit this article must damage him very considerably. .His Honor: If vindication of character was Mr. Travers' object, I think it would have been better to have brought a criminal action. Mr. Connel continued: Gentlemen, I shall now leave the case in your hands, feeling confident of the result. Mr. Adams then addressed the jury for the defence: — Gentlemen pf the Jury—l submit that the plaintiff mustbe either non-suited, or you must find a verdict for defendant, no capacity having been shown. Defendant says he is. Judge, was Member of tha House of Representatives, and practising solicitor, but there is nothing in the declaration as to his capacity. His Honor here asked Mr. Adams if he was able to show that the declaration had not been sustained. . Mr. Adams not being able to show this, the I declaration was read, and, Mr. Adams continued. , The plaintiff must not only satisfy you that the libel was published by the defendant, but also that lit was published by him in the sense set out in the | declaration, and in the inuendo; he must satisfy j you that it applies to him as District Judge. It does not appear that plaintiff was at the House of Representatives at the. time the district Court Act I was passed, therefore, ther* is no evidence that he supported that.act at all.' There is nothing to j *how that the paragraph applied to him any more than to another Member of the House of Representatives, or District Jiidge. The libel was not published in the sense put upon it by the plaintiff. Do,you suppose defendant would publish that Mr. Travers supported the General Government for the sake of the appointment. Defendant was not at the General Assembly at the time, and he would not publish it, nine tenths of his readers would not believe it. If he would not do uo in direct words, would he do so in indirect terms ?. The question you have to try is not whether the interpretation put upon it by the plaintiff is the ordinary one, but whether it was published by the defendant in^the sense of that interpretation. You are aware how many meanings my be applied to the same words. I contend that in this article defendant has done no more-than he has a right to do; and if there isa libel in it at ali it is on the General Government,; and not on Mr. Travers. He then proceeded to argue that the words 'political- profligacy:' meant 'political inconsistency.' After which he continued. I think when you read the article you will say that it is « fair criticism on the acts of public servants, and that the defendant did not publish it as anything else. I deiiy that it applies to RCr. Travers at all, «o will leave it to you, gentlemen, to say if it is a fair and bona fide comment or not. After a long discussion between his Honor and Mr. Adams as to the question of fair comment,' his Honor expressed his .rejret at having to interrupt counsel so often, but. felt he should not be doing his duty did he not do so. \ .Mr. Adams continued: I submit that the plaintiff has hot hroved that the paragraph' applies to him in the way set out in ihe declaration and tlie inuendo. There is nothing to show that the construction put upon it by the plaintiff i 3 the ordinary one. . Now;, gentlemen, with regard to damages, I think you will say that there has been no ; damage sustained.-. Mr. Travers being appointed by the General Government is not likely to lose his appointment by the publication of the article the subject of this action, nor will it injure him politically or socially. There is nothing, to show that it affects him ia the slightest degree.' It ha 3 been shown by Mr.;Curti9 that otlwr law-

yers are District Judges, and it is not shown that it does not apply to them as well as to Mr. Travers. Gentlemen, ifyou read; the ; article, I feel confident you will come to the. conclusion that it does not apply to the plaintiff individually. He must show that it was published with the interpretation spoken of, which he has not attempted to do. In reply to his Honor, Mr. Connell said he wished no point put to the jury except in the sense set out in the inuendo. * The inuendo Was then read, which is as follows -:-r-' -'■' a .;.,..- -■ , ; Meaning thereby that the plaintiff was • a lawyer, practising. in; ■ the District of Nelson, - and that the plaintiff in his capacity, of .Member of the House of Representatives as aforesa'd, became, and was for corrupt and evil- political purposes—a hano-er-on of the General Government of New Zealand, and that the plaintiff.in his. capacity, ns'such Representative aforesaid, being instigated and invited thereto, became and was corruptly and designedly guilty of wicked, abandoned, shameless, and indecent political conduct, to the damage and' injury of the interests of the public, in order to obtain the appointment of Judge of the District Court, for the said District of Nelson; and that such appointment was conferred upon the plaintfff, as tho price for such wicked, abandoned, shameless, and indecent political' conduct, to the damage | and injury of the plaintiff. Wherefore, the plaintiff, claims tp recover the.sum.of.One Thousand Pounds. ' His Honor then proceeded to sum up to the jury: Gentlemen of the jury—-1 am sure I need not impress upon you the importance of a case of this kind; you have now to settle an issue between two of your fellow-citizens, and I am sure yotf will do your duty honestly and faithfully. Gentlemen, libel is in my opinion more keenly felt than any other offence, but let me impress upon you to take into consideration nothing apart from the real merits of the case. Ifyou think defendant has been guilty of repeated offences against Mr. Travers, you will"not let that be a reason for giving him heavy damages on this occasion. While I would always deprecate, slanderous expressions, I would not advise juries to criticise too strictly individuals commenting on the acts of public men. But if in the course of the discussion of such acts and facts are assumed for comment, implying defamation of any kind, it ceases to be legitimate. You are not at liberty to slander a man because he is a public man, any more than a private individual. Tlie question, of fair comment is a difficult one to deal with. I apprehend that if the matter'•'commented upon is not brought before you as a jury, you have no foundation foi the questions of comment. In this ease it would appear, certain facts are established. It is proved that the plaintiff in this case was a practising-soli-citor, was M.H.R., and is at the present time District Judge; these are facts "on which any individual has a right to comment. I think this will dispose of tho question of fair comment. Now gentlemen, unless you are prepared to say that the article complained of is not applicable to Mr. Travers, you will come to the conclusion that the witnesses who have been before you to-day have been talking nonsense.. If it applies to Mr. Travers is it libellous in the sense imputed in the inuendo (His Honor read the inuendo). It says Mr. Travers is charged with being corrupt, and unless you are satisfied that that is imputed to him you cannot support the declaration. If that article imputes to Mr. Travers political profligacy, then, gentlemen, I should say it is. not fair comment of an individual. If you think it imputes to him that he supported the Government for his own ends you will give a verdict for the plaintiff. If you think the contrary, then you will say that it is not a libel in the sense implied in the inuendo. That, gentlemen, is the case you have to try. Where is there any evidence to show that tho plaintiff was guilty of; political profligacy; that he was a hanger on ofthe Government; that he gave a corrupt vote in favor of the Government. Gentlemen, I can see no evidence of the kind. Then .how can it be said that this is a fair and bona fide comment. The existence of express malice is always important in cases of libel. Now, gentlemen, as regards the question of damages—which is—to what extent, and how has Mr. Travers been injured by the publication of that article ? There is no technical rule to measure damages. It is a question entirely for the consideration of the jury. If the object of Mr. Travers is vindication of character, I don't know that a civil -action is the best course; in ordinary cases a criminal prosecution, is Don't suppose for a moment that you have anything to do with the. atrocity of the libel. You cannot measure compensation to a man's character. There is no evidence before you of any reason for mitigation of damages, and you must not take into consideration the relative position of the parties to this action. As Mr. Adams argued, it is quite possible for things to slip into a newspaper without the publisher's knowledge, but, i gentlemen, that circumstance does not lighten th« I offence in any way. (The judge here made a long j dissertation on what he; considered the functions J of the press). But, gentlemen, I shall show that the defendant persisted in attacking Mr. Travers. after he had received notice of .this action. (His Honor here read and commented upon the article j which appeared in our issue of the 24th April, the concluding part of which he characterized as "vulgar impudence"). I think the plaintiff has a right to use that article for .the sake of aggravating damages. The article, shows the existence of actual malice, and also good grounds for aggravating damages. I cannot omit, gentlemen, to state one fact to. you—it is-rThat the defendant when put in the witness box hai the option of refusing to answer the question puts to him if he thought that by answering, he should criminate himself; he, however, did n<& do so, though acknowledging the publication of the article I have read, tended ia my opinion very much to criminate him; and this is, I think, another cause for" aggravating damages. There is oneother fact—l can form no idea of how the public estimate the effusions of a paper like this. I have known papers whose abuse of an individual would tend to do that individual good; ifyou think that the Colonist is a paper of that class, ifc is a cause for not giving heavy damages ; but if you consider it tp be' of one weight and respectability, you will find heavy damages accordingly. I think, gentlemen, I have now done, all that I can to assist you in ! coming to a conclusion upon the different issues, and will leave the matter in your hands. The jury -after an absence of about an hour returned, when the Clerk of the Court having put the issues to them in the following manner, they gave the answers annexed. . Ist. Did the defendant publish the alleged libel? Answer. Yes 2nd. Did the defendant publish the alleged libel in the sense imputed in the inuendo ? Answer. Yes 3rd Issue. Withdrawn. ;...', 4th. Was the alleged libel a fair and bona fide comment without actual malice oh the conduct of the plaintiff in a public capacity ? Answer. Not a fair comment. ; sth. To what damages is the plaintiff entitled? , r , . Answer. i£Bo.. ; This concluded the business of the Court.

The Town Clock.—-Although an old friend has been somewhat irregular in his announcements lately^ we have not complained, as we knew his keeper was away in Old England. We trust that these irregularitieswill be now remedied, as Mr. Coates's Locum Tenens, solong expected,;has now arrived; and we I trust that he will be able to remedy so great an inconvenience. ■-■'■■ Wairau Gorge.—We learn, that the rbad through the Wairau Gorge is progressing, bu* owing to the rain' and show in that high' region^ the work has been delayed. . One part of the road cannot be;completed.until finer weather. The men employed there are expected to return in JlbOUt ,tJjl^W^fl*. ." "Z.y^^yZyZ <}\, .