LIBEL CASE OF M'KELLAR V. BROWN.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 150, 22 December 1870, Page 6

LIBEL CASE OF M'KELLAR V. BROWN.

(Communicated.)

The case of M'Kellar v. Brown, recently heard in the Supreme Court, affords a very clear insight into the manner in which the great pastoral party carefully manipulate the interests of the public, so as to render them subservient to their own ; the damaging revelations which came out in the evidence are of course carefully excised from the report in the " Daily Times," which is simply a squatter's organ, and does its work— we were almost going to say " dirty work" — with great precision, and in strict principle. The history of the case, which is likely to be one of the causes celebres of New Zealand, may be epitomised as follows :—: — Some time ago, land being required for settlement, a numerously sigaed petition was presented to the Provincial Council praying that a Hundred might be declared, which would have included a considerable portion of Mr. M'Kellar's run. This petition was especially shepherded by one MClennan, a settler in the neighborhood. The Council favorably entertained the petition and recommended that the Hundred should be declared. This was in May, 18G9. M'Kellar, upon this, petitioned the General Assembly in the same year, stating that the land was not required, and that the petition to the Council was not in fact a genuine document. He also forwarded a petition from certain settlers in the neighborhood against the declaration of the proposed Hundred. To this document were appended several names which appeared on the petition to the Council above referred to, and amongst others that of M'Clennau. The consequence, we may briefly say was, that the Waste Lands Committee of the General Assembly declined to recommend that the expressed wbh of the Council should be carried out in this particular. This constituted, we may say, the first act of the drama. The scene now shifts to the Provincial Council Hall, in December, 1869, during the debate upon the Hundreds Act. it would appear, and now we proceed to take our facts from the evidence given on the trial, that Mr. J. 0. Brown wa3 during an interval in the debate at about 2 in the morning, discussing the matter over with some half-dozen members, and stated inter alia that the Assembly had been led away by the petition presented, and that one of those whose names were appended had told him that M'Kellar had induced him to sign by the promise of letting him have a team of bullocks on long credit.

Mr. Reynolds, who was standing withiii ear shot in all the glory of his gown and bands, upon this, interfered, and insisted on Brown stating his authority. No objection was made to this, Avhen Mr. Reynolds suddenly struck with a bright idea, added, " would you have any objection to put your name to this statement that I may send it to M'Kellar for explanation. Brown not only assented, but allowed the wily Speaker to write it down himself and put his name to it without perusal, not being aware that the introductory words were left out and that the statement appeared to be simply upon his (Drowns ) authority. Meddlesome and mischief as a monkey, Reynolds posts off the document to MiKellar, with what advice it did not transpire, but soon a threatening letter from Mr. Macassey peaches the unhappy Brown, who soon is installed in office as a full blown defendant in an action for

libel, damages LIOOO ! The third act is 1 entirely laid in the Supreme Court, when Mr. Macassey, in his usual rather overlearned manner, endeavoured to persuade the jury to take a very severe view of the heinous conduct of Brown, who, actuated by the most bitter malice, had endeavoured to take away the character of the virtuous M'Kellar, and through him, to strike a blow at that eminent class of territorial magnates of which he was so worthy a representative. The learned counsel, even on his own showing, made a very lame case of it, and his witnesses came to signal grief under the playing hands of Mr. Barton. The unhappy Reynolds was, as Avas most meet, the first and most signal victim — obliged to own in the Avitness box his propensities for mischief making and tale bearing — displaying a remarkably short memory when a recollection of details was not convenient. The court was convulsed with laughter when Mr. Barton asked him whether he had not upon a certain occasion been a party to obtaining from one Patcrson, a coloured barber, a statutory declaration as to a statement made by Mr. Bradshaw, M.G.A., during the progress of a professional shave. Reynolds to this again pleaded non mi ricordo, leaving it to be inferred that the taking statutory declaration from black barbers was rather a common occurrence than otherwise. Taking it altogether the Speaker of the Provincial Council cut rather a sorry figure in the box. Not to recapitulate the evidence, we may say that Barton made a brilliant speech for the defence, pointing out clearly that this was an attempt to crush out freedom of speech and independence in the parts opposed to the pastoral occupancy of the best lands of the province, aud urged that Brown was doubly privileged in the communication ho had made — first, as having made it in the Council to his brother members ; and next, having signed the statement at Reynolds' request for the information of M'Kellar. The jury took this view of it, and found for the defendant ; so the plaintiff has to thank his busybody brother-in-law for being saddled with some hundreds of pounds for costs in the case. It came out in the evidence for the defence that not only did M 'Clennan as3ert more than once and to different persons that he had been induced by tho promise of a team of bullocks at long credit to sign petition No 2, but that other settlers had been threatened with pains and penalties by M'Kellar, in the way of pounding their cattle, &g. Notably, the schoolmaster at Tapanui was thus attempted to be worked upon, and a shrewd, fellow called M'fCenzie, -niio gave very amusing evidence on this particular point. It must be admitted therefore that the pastoral tenants are very anxious to prevent settlement upon their runs and not over scrupulous a? to the me.vis they employ to effect their object. The people had better therefore keep their eyes open and watch those gentlemen pretty closely, giving due honor to the men who stand in the front of tho battle on behalf of settlement upon the lands and even subject themselves to legal prosecution in defence of their principles.