AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1809, 20 October 1874, Page 2

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

YESTEEDAY. (Before Sir Gh A. Arney, Chief Justice.) The Fraser Libel Case.

QUEEN V. EEED AND BEETT.

The, following is the continuation of the evidence from the point in our report at which it was left off yesterday :—

John Salmon, examined by Mr. Hesketh, deposed: lam the manager, of the Imperial City mine. I have been on the goldfield since the end of 1870. I know Mr. Fraser, the Eesident Magistrate there. He is the only magistrate we have at the Thames. 1 remember when the articles complained of appeared. I read them. I hare no doubt they refer to the William Fraser examined to day. When the articles were, perused at the Thames there was a general disbelief in the statements (hey contained, and considerable excitement in consequence. The feeling was that with regard to Captain Fraser's remarks it was a question of taste, but that so far as the articles in the Auckland Star were concerned there could be no question they were wrong, and there was nothing to justify them. I have had special opportunity of observing the conduct of Captain Fraser as magistrate. . . The Court ruled that the witness could only bo examined as to Captain Fraser's conduct on the occasion in question. Mr. Gillies.said he had several other witnesses to call who could testify to a similar efiect, but he did not think it necessary to bring them forward,; and would rest the case for the prosecution on the evidence adduced, having proved the libel. ..

. Mr. McCormick and Mr. Bees stated that they had no evidence to adduce. Mr. Gillies raised the question as to whether counsel for defendants each had a right to address the jury. After argument.the Court decided in the affirmative.

The case was then adjourned until this morning at ten o'clock, when Mr. Gillies will commence to;address the jury on behalf of the prosecution. The Court adjourned at four o'clock.

Proceedings This Day.

(feom oub special cobbes?ondent.)

The Chief Justice entered the Court at 10o'clock; and the further hearing of the libel charge against the proprietors of the Auckland Evening Star was proceeded with before the special jury. . MISTAKE IX BEPOBTIKG.

Mr. Gillies drew attention to a mistake in the evidence of Mr. Salmon in last night's Star, in which the word " belief was erroneously printed for " disbelief," as to the allegations in the articles. He also called attention to the letter upon which Captain,Fraser;had been crossexamined, but which had not been admitted in evidence, and yet was printed in last night's Star. He called attention to this because he looked upon it as an attempt: to prejudice the case. '■"'' Mr. Bees explained that he had seen the letter in tke Star shortly after leaving the Court, and had called Mr. Beed's attentibri to it. Messrs. Reed and Brett had been engaged the whole of the day in CoUrt. : .•-.;;,;;: i His Honor thought the publication of the letter must have arisen through a misunderstanding as to whether the letter had been received in evidence or not. The question then was, how did it get into the hands of the reporter. The fact that the defendants were connected with the press might account for it. After some further remarks from Mr. Gillies and-Mr.--Bees,'the matter dropped. MB/GliliiES' ADPBESS. /

..., M». Gillies then addressed the jury. la summing up the case,for the prosesution, He said, if he had merely to sum up the evidence for; the prosecution alone, his task would be a simple .one. The defendants, were shown to be publishers of the articles complained of, and it would be for the jury to say whether they (the articles) were libellous. To sum up what defendants relied on as their case, they had put in no. defence but the general one of " Not Guilty.'' They had pleaded jointly one plea, but wera represented at the trial by separate counsel. He'felt justi-; fied in saying "that defendants would rely upon strong appeals to the feelings and to Srejudic© the jury. The counsel for the tfence could not ask the jury to believe that the articles were, not libellous —the defendants would not'deny that the articles were in themselves libellous. He asked the jjury to remember that they should not be affected by appeals to their feelings—that they should not alldw private feelings to interfere with the proper performance of their duty. Some members might be J.'sP. or shareholders, and perhaps had suffered from specimen stealing, but they should not allow these feelings to influence them, nor allow any feeling of friendship towards the defendants to affect them. Their duty was to judge the case purely and simply upon its own merits; Mr. Gillies then referred to the case, on behalf of the Crown, and set forth the leading points in the case. Mr. MacCormick addressed the! jury for the defence. He entered largely anto the law of libel, quoting authorities; He admitted that the .language .was very strong—■violent, if they liked to call it so; but contended that it did not show malice .-—that no attack was made on 'Captain Ffaser otherwise; :than in connection with comment on that case,that his antagonism to the police and consequent sympathy with crime might be fairly deducted from Fraser's remarks" in Manning's case, and that even if it was only a maudlin sympathy the strictures of the: Star were justified. '-He closed a long address ,at the dinner adjournment. '■ After lunch Mr. Eees rose tq address the jury on the same side. :