THE KORU MILL CASE—IN REBUTTAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 318, 18 February 1910, Page 7

THE KORU MILL CASE —IN REBUTTAL.

I To the 'Editor. Sir, —Nothing is more easy than for a ciever lawyer, by a series of innuendoes, inferences, and sprinkling of misstatements, to give anything but a trutuful coloring to the actions and even the reputation oi an important witness—a coloring that may perchance carry the sympathy and opinions of not only the reporters of the i'ress ; but even that ot the prc-.vl.ng magistrate. By these means he ;:...y succeed in winning his case, w,.i, of course, is his main object, and to a certain extent a legitimate one; that he may also cause unjust and untruthful aspersions to be cast on the characters of witnesses on the other side, although probably a matter of small import to iiim, is of great importance to his victims. Such is my position in reference to the case of Hill v. the Deputy Oli'ieial Assignee, as l reported in your issue of 26th January, and it is with the view of removing these aspersions and to correct the opinion then expressed that I crave space in your valuable journal. As principal witness for the defence, Mr. Johnstone deftly managed to weave such a web of misrepresentations around me as to not only win his case, but to elicit the sympathy both of the Stipendiary Magistrate and your reporter, and the esprit de corps of the latter caused him to" add to the weight of this misrepresentation florid and exaggerated passages in his report which, if lacking in the element of truthfulness 1 were calculated to make his story more readable and perhaps interesting; as, for instance, when he describes the S.M. as "roaring" at me, or when he writes of the "look" of mild surprise and wonder" which a question of Mr. Johnstone's produced from me. This sort of descriptive writing is more interest-' ing than a baldly accurate report, perhaps, if we do not take the feelings and reputation of the man under the legal harrow into account. Prom Mr. Johnstone's innuendoes your readers would infer that some mythical judge of the Supreme Court had dubbed me "a scoundrel." when, as a matter of fact, I have never been tried in the Supreme Court for any criminal offence. Then he brings E. J. Eovvell forward to swear, without turning a hair, that he would

not believe me on oath. I have lived near this person for fourteen years, and in the whole of that time have carefully avoided once entering into conversation with him. Thus J leave it to you to consider what grounds—other than a deep-rooted animus—he has for making such a statement on oath. In Koru, among our neighbors, where ■' the HillRowell combination is well known, this evidence will create less surprise than among your other readers. I am quite content to leave, the matter of our individual veracity to their judgment. But the case was so conducted as to Wad the S.M. to look upon me as a plotter who had not only "got Hill's billet" from him, but, as 1 he said, ''brought about" the whole action and "put the Deputy Official Assignee up to this." How entirely wrong he was in this opinion I will now proceed to prove. The report of the meeting of creditors in the estate of J. J. Paterson in the Dannevirke Advocate of 7th July, 1909, has the following, bearing on this subject: "Mr. Morgan asked what had been done in the matter of Koru mill, and the Deputy Official Assignee said the mill was being looked after very well at a cost of 10s 'per day, but perhaps' to keep down expenses Mr. Raill, who was present and who was a creditor, would be prepared to look after the mill. Mr Raill said the mill was being looked after very well, by Mr. Hill. . . As the mill was a source of revenue to him he would be glad to look after it, except that Jur. Hill might misunderstand the position and think he had been undermined." Hence I refused to entertain the 'proposal at that time. Three months later the Deputy Official Assignee wrote Mr. Hill accepting his resignation and informing him that "the committee in this estate have decided to engage Mr. P. Rn.iii to take charge of the mill as from October 14th." The following letter which 1 have just received from the Deputy Official Assignee speaks for itself, as showing how cruelly and unjustly I have been misjudged, and needs no further .comment from me:— "DannevirKe, 2nd February, 1910.

•• Memorandum for Mr. P. Raill, Koru. —ln re J. J. Patterson, a BankruptDear Sir,—l notice by the report in the papers of the case Hill v. Deputy Official Assignee that you are credited with having attempted to do Hill out of his position while caretaker of the mill. This is not so. Hill asked to be relieved, and after great pressure bein'g used, you in the interest of the creditors and at my request consented to do this work for the grazing of the paddock which was considerably cheaper. Further, you never suggested that I should take legal proceedings against Hill, this being done by my committee. These, with other matters in the report, have created an impression that is quite misleading. . . .—Yours truly, Nor-

man Gurr, Deputy Official Assignee." By inserting the above you will oblige a much-misrepresented man in yours tru ly, P. F. RAILL.

[We submitted our report of the proceedings' to the presiding magistrate, who. in reply to our inquiry, states that the report was a fair and impartial one. In regard to the alleged misrepresentation of the opposing counsel, we may point out that if }Jr. Raill felt he was beiri<r unfairly treated or misrepresented lie could have easily sought the protection of the Court. We are not concerned about the merits of the case, though we think it a pity that Mr. Raill, in his own interests, did not produce the newspaper excerpt, referred to in his communication above, and relating to the looking after of the mill. This a lid the letter he subsequently obtained from the Official Assignee put a new complexion on his action in this respect, showing that he accepted the position, not to°do Hill out of his job, but to accommodate the creditors of the estate Our usual practice is not to allow our columns' to be used for the ventilation of matters in connection with a Court case, holding that the proper place for such' is in the Court building itself; but we have departed from it on this occasion because we do not wish to do any injury to Mr. Raill or prevent him from removing a misunderstanding or vindicating hi scharaeter Ed.]