THE HUTT TARRING CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1396, 24 September 1885, Page 3

THE HUTT TARRING CASE.

The Hutt tarring case was again called on at Wellington on Tuesday morning, when James Walden appeared on remand, charged with assaulting Sidney Mnnro Muir.

The Hon. P. A. Buckley deposed that he knew the accused, who entered Government service as messenger on 12di June, and remained as such until 31st July. Ho had known accused for 19 or 20 years. He did not see accused at the Hutt in August. To his knowledge accused was not at the Hutt after he left the Government. Ho left the service on thj 31st July. Witness did not see the accused at the Hutt. Accused sometimes went to wait at witness’ table on the occasion of dinner parties, f Witness was about to refer to the reason why accused had left the Government service, when Mr T avers said he did not wish to hear anything on that point.] Witness, after saying that he was anxious that he should be allowed to explain, asserted that there was no member of the legal profession in the colony who had so degraded himself as Mr Travers had done. Mr Buckley then explained that accused had left the Government service because he considered that he was put upon by other messengers in (he Government buildings. On the night of the 19th August, when the assault was alleged to have been committed, accused was at a room in Parliament building. That was about 10 p.m., and there was no tar about accused then. William Alfred Fitzherbert deposed that he lived at the Lower Hutt, next to Mr Buckley’s. He recollected accused obtaining permission from him to go through his grounds. He did not know whether accused availed himself of the permission. The day after the tarring took place he met accused in Wellington. Accused asked him whether he had heard about the affair. Accused said that a man named Muir had been tarred at the Hutt. Accused further said that he had been told about the affair by a man named Wyles, a surveyor. Charles Miilvvard, messenger in the Legislative Council, deposed that in August he saw accused with a pair of handcuffs in his possession. He did not ask accused what the handcuffs were for; he did not suppose accused intended to use them on members of the Legislature. He believed he saw the handcuffs in accused’s possession before the Hutt tarring took place. James Capper, also a messenger in the Legislative Council, gave evidence that two or three weeks ago he saw a pair of handcuffs in Walden’s possession. Being an old sailor be was reminded of old times —(laughter)—and ho said to accused “ Halloa, old friends there !” Accused informed him that he intended to dispose of the handcuffs to a large steamer in port which had had a lot of trouble with the men, and which required several pairs. The handcuffs in accused’s possession were a very rusty old pair. Henry Argyle, in the employ of Mr Buckley as servant, deposed to finding a tar pot and brush behind the summer house on Mr Buckley’s piemises on the 21at August. Constable Harknett, stationed at the Hutt, gave evidence that he had received the tar pot and brush produced from Mrs Buckley and Mr H. S. Fitzherbert, On the night of the 19th August he was at the Hutt, He did not see accused at the Hutt on that day. He had made searching enquiries in reference to the cab, but. he had been unable to find out anything. He did not know very much about Muir, He understood Muir was not possessed of very much means. Tar pots were very common at tha Lower Hutt.

Edward Mclntosh, plumber, living at Lower Hutt, deposed that he recollected seeing a cab standing at the Lower Hutt iibout nine o’clock on the evening of the 19th August. Each of the horses had a cover over it. As he passed the carriage he said to the driver “Good night!” The carriage looked like a landau. When he passed the carriage the driver was standing at the horses’ heads. He was not able to recognise the horses or the carriage again. By Mr Stafford : Last night Mr Robert Orr, Mr Travers’ clerk, offered to give him £2O if he could recognise the cab. Mr Orr said, “ If you can give me any information that will convict the cabman, we will give you £20.” The Station Master at the Lower Hutt was present, Mr Travers here excitedly asked the protection of the Court, remarking that a person behind him (pointing to the lion. P, A, Buckley), was using his name to other members of the profession in connection with the bribe.

Mr Buckley, rising excitedly, replied ; This person has as much rigid to be Imre as you have. Mr Travels : You have no right to speak in so insolent a manner. Mr Buckley : The insolence is all; on your part. How dare you address me as

“this person.’ Your insolence is beyond measire.^ His Worship : I cannot allow this. Mr Travers : Your Worship, this person who is sitting behind mo spoke out hi the hearing of members of the profession in this Court, associating my name with this supposed offer by Mr Orr. Mr Buckley ; I did. Mr Travers : Whether Mr Orr made the offer or not I know no more than the man in the moon, but this person (with an emphasis on “person”) has no right to associate my name with anything of the kind. I am’not in the habit suborning witnesses at Ml, and I never had a suspicion cast upon me as is cast on me by this man. Mr Stafford : What is this to be turned into ?

Mr Travers : Your client should go out of the room. Tet him leave the Court.

Mr Stafford (to Mr Travers) : You have taken any amount "f liberty you ought not to have taken.

Mr Buckley roie, amid uproar. His Worship : Take your seat, sir. M r Buckley (still standing, and in great wmth) ; This fellow says what is— — His Worship: Be good enough to take your seat. Mr Buckley (still standing): Had it not been for the respect in which I hold this Court, 1 should have had something to say in a manner not pleasant to this fellow. Mr Travers: Hang me; state what you like, you vagabond • my character is above suspicion. (Laughter and uproar.) Mr Buckley: You ruffian; repeat those words out of Court.

His Worship : I am very sorry that men who ought to know better, and who happen to have business in this Court, should consider this a matter of laughter. It is a very, very serious matter indeed, and one I look upon with very grave regret. To see gentlemen in the position these gentlemen occupy, making imputations of dishonorable conduct one to the other, is to m# very disgraceful. I know there is some excitability of temper, but they ought to endeavor to restrain it. For my part I must say that lam entirely at a loss to understand why the counsel for the defence in this matter has persistently imputed to the counsel for the prosecution personal motives in his action. I was very much surprised when Mr Buckley went into the box and imputed to Mr Travers animosity and personal feeling. Mr Travers is only acting as counsel for the prosecution, and should be treated with proper courtesy. At the same time I must ask Mr Travers to avoid using on his part angry words, which only call forth a reply, Mr Travers : I wish to state, and I call upon you to support: what I have said, that throughout the whole of this case I have not asked a single question calculated to justify the language and conduct of Mr Stafford. I have been here performing a duty, and I have acted within the strict rules of my duty, and I have not asked a single question of a single witness beyond what was necessary, and if counsel is to be bullied by gentlemen in Ibis position there is very little hope of any person coming within their reach achieving justice. Mr Stafford : I must say, in my own defence, that I have persistently pursued an entirely different coarse from the other side, that of keeping behind the scenes and from the public gaze one thing more important than this —something which is more important to the parties interested. I say my friend has brought a person here knowing the degrading sphere surrounding him, and he ought not to have done so. One can pardon the feeling of Mr Buckley. If my friend was degraded by his client in the manner in which he has been degraded, I say he ought to have been ashamed of himself for bringing him here.

His Worship : I hope this Court will not lower its dignity by counsel at its table making it an arena for personalities and conduct which amongst gentlemen is to be regretted. Ido hope our proceedings will be characterised by something like ordinary rules of courtesy and gentlemanly intercourse. I do not want to say any more, because I feel very strongly there has been a certain want of “ tone.” Mr Travers ; By me sir ? His Worship : I do not say that. Mr Stafford : By me, sir ?

His Worship : I would rather not say. The next witness called was E. T. Gillon, Editor of the Evening Post, Mr Gully appeared for Mr Gillon, and said : Mr Gillon, your Worship, has an objection to his evidence being taken, and I would ask permission to state the reasons of his objection. I do not know whether Mr Travers has any objection. The matter to some extent involves a question of law. Mr Wardell, R.M.; Have you any objection to giving evidence ? Mr Gillon: I have absolutely, I wish Mr Gully to state the grounds of my objection.

Mr Gully then stated the reasons for Mr Gillon’s objection to give evidence. His contention was that communications which pass through the hands of newspaper editors are confidential, as are the results of enquiries which gentlemen of the Press make, and if information is given to newspapers under the tacit understanding that it shall not be divulged by them, it is very important that they should not be obliged to repeat it in a court of law again.

His Worship, however, decided against, Mr Gully, stating that the only just cause for refusing to give evidence is that the persons so refusing is privileged at law, and Mr Gill on was not so privileged. Mr Gillon, however, still refused to give evidence. He admitted that the paragraph in the Evening Post of 21st August referring to the case was written by him, but declined to state from whom begot the information. Mr Travers said he would not ask his Worship to commit Mr Gillon for contempt, and he was allowed to leave the box. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution and the case was then adjourned.