RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, DUNEDIN.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 162, 16 March 1871, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, 0 DUNEDIN.

( Condensed from the ' ' Daily Times. ") Friday, 10th March. (Before A, Chetham Strode, Esq., R.M.)

* ■ •' . LIBEL. Regina v, Dick. — John Dick, printer, appeared to answer an information laid • against him by Henry Driver, charging him with having, on or about the 4th February, falsely and maliciously printed and published a placard containing the ■ following words : — " The following letter is published for general information and instruction : — Punedin, 6th December, 1867. My Dear Treweek — T wrote you last week, aud am very disappointed to hear that you have been again to the office and had an interview with the old " Major. He will only put eveiy obstacle in your way, but Macandrew and I will soon settle him. Rest assured his time is . shorter than ever he thinks for. We are fully determined to do for him at once, and get him out of the road. We must - have a man at Lawrence who will do our bidding, and a townie of Maclean's will Tie sent there. Pray do take my advice, and all will go well. Say nothing to any***&nsis. You know lam all powerful with Macandrew, for reasons best known to himself. I saved him on a former occasion, and have lined his pockets too well this time for him to break faith with me. —I am, &c. ("Signed) Henry Driver." " " Mr. Smith, with Mr, Macassey, conducted the prosecution ; the defendant ■was unrepresented. The following witnesses were called for the prosecutionJames Campbell, who stated that he is a general dealer residing in D'medin. He formerly kept the Crown Hotel in Rat-tray-street. He has been acquainted with Mr. John Treweek for about two years ; but has not seen Mr. Treweek write, nor does ho know his handwriting. Mr. Treweek used occasionally to stop at witness's hotel when he came to Dunedin. Witness's subpoena ordered him to produce all letters in his possession purporting to be written by Mr. Driver to Mr. Treweek, at the end of ISG7 or beginning -of 1868. He has no such letters. One

night, some eighteen months ago, about eight o'clock, Mr. Treweek gave witness a bundle of letters to take charge of until the following morning, They were placed on a shelf in the bar, and the next morning Mr. Treweek asked for them, and witness returned them to him. When Treweek came in about eight o'clock in the evening, there were several people sitting in the bar parlour, Mr. Alexander M'Leod being amongst the number. He had never seen the original manuscript of the letter of which the placard purports to be a copy. He did not tell Mr. Oliver Cooper that he had the original manuscript, and that he could show it to him He did say on one occasion, in reply to a question by Cooper, that he had !t plenty of letters ; *' but it was said in a joke, and he was making a fool of Cooper. On the night of the 25th February, M'Leod showed Avitness a written copy of the letter supposed to be reproduced on the placard, and asked if he remembered hearing such a letter read ; but witness said ' ' No, I cannot recollect." Alex. M'Leod, sworn ; J am a commission agent residing in Dunedin. My subpoena requires me to produce all letters in my possession purporting to be written by Henry Driver to Johu Treweek at the end of 1867, or the beginning of 1868. I have no such documents in my possession. I have had a letter from Mr, Driver to Mr. Trewtek in my hand, and read it. It was the original of that copied on the placard before me. I baw the letter about 18 mouths ago in the Crown Hotel in the possession of Mr. John Treweek, I have not seen the letter since. I did not make a. copy of it at the time, A copy of the letter came into my possession not six months ago ; it might be a month ago. It was sent to mo by Mrs. Croker, I received it from the hands of Mr, Low, manager for Mr. Mercer, the grocer. It was forwarded in consequence of an application made by me to Mrs, Croker, I think I spoke to her personally on the subject, 1 know Mi', Driver's handwriting. I have never Been him write, but have seen his hand--writing. 1 do not think E have ever received a letter from him. The copy of the .letter which I received from Mrs." .Croker is now in the possession of Mr. G^.-E- Barton, solicitor, I took a copy of that; copy letter, and read it to Campbell, ftljd asked him if he recollected having seen the original or heard it read at the Crown Hotel, Campbell replied that he did recollect my reading a letter to the same purport, and thought he recognised pome of the phraseology. He did not appear to me to bs joking. lam greatly surprised to hear that he has sworn he was joking. He did not speak veiy positively about the letter. I have had several conversations with Mr. Booth, collector to Mills, Dick and Co, I never told him that i had the original letter of which this paper is a copy in my possession. 1 I am told that the original letter is in the possession of Mr. Henry Howorth. I Eaw Mr. Oliver Cooper this morning, I do not think I said a word to him. I may have told him at some other time that 1 knew where the original letter was. As a fact, I have not seen it during the last eighteen months. Mr. Smith here asked for an adjournment until Saturday ; but it was ultimately agreed that the defendant should be remanded until Monday, at 3 o'clock.

ANOTHER LIBEL CASE. The Court then proceeded to hear the ca^e of Regina v. M'Leod, which arises out of the publicat'on of the placard which furnished the foundation for the proceedings in the case of Regina v. Dick. Mr. Alexander M'Leod, at whose instance the placard was printed, is charged on the information of Mr. Henry Driver, with falsely and maliciously causing and proOaring the placard to be published. Mr. Smith, with Mr. Macassey, conducted the prosecution ; and Mr. G. E. Barton appeared for the defendant. J a lengthy argument as to whether '■'ii' was, 'within the jurisdiction of the ■Cso'u"H to hear the, case, in which Mr. 'j^Strod© decided in the affirmative, the following witnesses were called for the pro.jje&jtion— ;. . .v. v . ;(i -_ John Booth, collector for Messr3. Mills, ' Dick, and Co., printers, stated that on the v Sir 3 j ebr'uary Tasf " he "Saw defendant in Mr, Reid's Committee Rooms'; Defendant Vrote the manuscript produced in wit-

ness's presence, and gave it to him. Witness asked the defendant — who had on former occasions told him that he was Secretary to Mr. Reid's Committee — whether he had got any orders for printing. Witness had previously taken orders from defendant, as Secretary to Mr. Reid'a Committee, for printing. Defendant replied, " Yes, if you will wait for a few minutes 1 will give you something," and proceeded to write out the manuscript now produced in pencil. Defendant seemed to be copying this document from another which was lying by him. He then asked witness, " What would you charge for printing 250 copies ?" stating that he wanted to know the price, as lie might have to pay for them himself . Witness replied that he would have to go and see what the charge would be ; and shortly afterwards returned and told M'Leod that tho charge would £3 for 250 posters. Defendant then ordered the posters, and that they should be done in red ink, also initialling a memorandum of the order in a corner of the manuscript. He told witness to get 50 of the placards posted in the town by the following morning. Witness took the manuscript to Mr. Reid, manager and clerk for Mills, Dick, and Co. Mr. Dick was not present After this prosecution had commenced. M'Leod said to witness, in substance — " I suppose these posters are charged to me and not to the Committee 1" Witness replied that he thought they had been charged to the Committee, M'Leod then said that he had told witness, when givir.g the order for the posters, that they were to be charged to him personally. Witness replied that lie did not hear him say that. so reference was made at that or any later time to the original letter.

Cross-examined : Witness knows now that instructions had been given to Mills, Dick, and Co., that wv printing was to be done for Mr. Reid's Committee without the written order of Mr. SievAvright, Chairman of the Commit lee. lie did not know this before the publication of these posters. Witness received no such order for these particular posters ; nor, so far as he was aware, was airy member of Mr. Reid's Committee present when the order for the posters was given.

Ite-exainijifcd : He attended Mr. Reid's Committee Koums to receive orders for printing, and, with one exception, received them all from defendant.

John Dick, member of the firm of Mills, Dick, and Co., printers, stated that he had seen the manuscript produced in his oilice. Its contents were set up in type and printed in the form of a placard about the 4th of Februaiy. He saw some of the placards posted in various parts of the city. Witness saw the manuscript in the hands of the printer, but did not, read or take any particular notice of it before it was print ß«l. He understood the name "Treweek" to mean Mr. Troweek, late holder of Bellamy Station ; " Henry Driver" to mean Mr. Driver, of the late firm of Driver, Maclean, and Co. ; the expression "Old Major" to refer to Major Croker, who" was at the date of the supposed letter a warden on the goldfields ; " "Macandrew " to mean tho present Superintendent of the province ; and " Maclean " to meau Mr. Maclean, the late partner of Mr. Driver.

Cross-examined : There is a prosecution by Mr. Driver pending against witness for this libel. He was given to understand that that prosecution will not be proceeded with after a certain date.

Mr. Smith offered to produce the paper containing the terms of the arrangement.

Mr. Barton : I will have the real thing from tile witness hi ni3elf. We know that things may ba written very differently from what is intended.

Cross-examineation continued : It is to be terminated on Monday, the I2thinstant, ■which is the same day as that on which the polling in tho Provincial Council elections for Dunedin takes place. That arrangement was made with Mr Macassey, Mr Driver's solictor, immediately after the close of the other case to-day. Witness wrote a letter to Mr G. F. Barton, stating that he did not need his services any longer. Ucfore doing sr>, he had received a strong hint from Mr Mac:issey, in his office, that he should not require Mr liar-ion's services. From that time-he felt a little nervous about it, but did not think that he should be prosecuted eventually. No conditions were annexed to the intimation he had just received that he should not be prosecuted after Monday. When the proposition was orignally made in Mr Macassey's office, he had no solicitor with him . Up to that time he had been defending the case under the advice of a solictor. It was not suggested to him to send to that solicitor and make arrangements through him. Witness came to the conclusion" in his own mind that it would better for him to give up the name of the party who had ordered the placard, and let him become the defendant iv place of himself (witness). Witness went to Mr Macassey and gave him the name of the person ; Mr Macassey cons »nt'ng to withdraw the case. Mr Macassey gave no written document shewing the terms of the understanding, After the arrangement had been made, Mr Driver's solicitor asked whether he had done with his own solicitor. Wittie33 replied that he had not. He did not afterwards employ another solictor to defend the case or act on his behalf. The charge laid by Mr. Macandrew against witness is to be heard next Thursday. lie has received an assurance that procedings will n>t be continued. That understanding was made with Mr Haggitt. There is nothing in writing. He does not, however, think the prosecution is a sham.

Re-examined : It was first proposed when the charge laid by Mr. Driver against witness was before the Magistrate, that the remand should ba until Saturday, but it was finally agreed that it should bs until Monday, at 3 o'clock. The exact understanding between Mr, Driver's solicitor and himself was that witness should give up the name of the person who really caused the libellous publication, and give all assistance in his^prosecution. That arrangement was made in Mr. Macassey's office, and was embodied in a letter signed by witness, in the presence of his brother, Mr. Thomas Dick, J.P. A day or two before going'to Mr. Macaßßey's office, he was urgei by his brother and. Mr. Beal to apologise to Mr. Driver, and give up the name of the party who had furnished the copy of the libellous letter to the printer. Witness went to Mr. Macassey for the purpose of doing so. He did not exactly recollect what Mr, Macassey said upon his announcing

The yield of gold on Bendigo for the month of January was 160060zs Sdwts 7grs, or a weekly average of 4001ozs lldwts 19fgrs. The Maryborough escort of 21st February conveyed 75,0000zs of gold from the two local banks to Castlemaine, en route for Melbourne.

the object of his visit, but believed it was something to the effect that seeing witness was in the hands of a solicitor, he could not deal whh him except through that solicitor. Witness believed he asked Mr. Macassey how he ought to proceed. It is possible he may have said, " 1 have done with Mr. Barton." He used words conveying the meaning that he did not desire Mr. Barton to act any longer for him in the matter.

Mr. Macassey then stepped into the witness box, and asked permission to make a personal explanation relating to the evidence given by Mr. Dick. The learned gentleman stated that he had been prepared for the interview wii.li Mr. John Dick by Mr. Beal and Mr. Thomas Dick, who represented that Mr. John Dick was very desirous of arranging matters, and they urged him (Mr. Macassey) to have an interview with Mr. J. Dick. This he declined, on the ground that Mr. Dick was in the hands of Mr. Barton, and they then gave him to understand that Mr. Dick had determined to take the case out of Mr. Barton's hands, as he was dissatisfied with a speech which Mr. Barton had made on an application for an adjournment. He (Mr. Macassey) gave them to understand that so long as Mr. Barton was acting for Mr. Dick, any communication with Mr. Dick must bo made through that gentleman. On the Saturday morning Mr. Dick presented himseif at the office, and asked if he had seen Mr. Thomas Dick, and intimated that he had come to make an arrangement. Mr. Macassey at once stated that he could only communicate with him through Mr. Carton. Mr. Dick then said, " I have done with Mr. Barton ; I have done with Mr. Barton ; " and some allusion was also make by him to Mr. Barton's address to the Court. Mr. Macassey responded " If that is so I will send for Mr. Driver. Upon his arrival it was arranged that Mr. Dick should disclose the name of the person who ordered the placards, that he should give every assistance towards that person's prosecution ; and on the other hand, Mr. Driver would allow Mr. Dick to go scot free. Mr. Macassey gave Mr. Dick to understand that the pvosection against himself would not be abandoned until he had given evidence against the supposed real offender, and had substituted a real defendant in his own place. When tho terms were finally agreed upon Mr. Driver left. Mr. Macassey wrote out a letter, and presented it to Mr. John Dick in the presence of his brother, saying to tho latter, " Your brother is without an adviser, and I wish you to read the letter over and see if it is a proper one for him to sign." When Mr John Dick was leaving, he paid something about Mr Barton ; wheronpon Mr. Macas^cy said, " The least you might do is to write a letter to him thanking him for his services." This was the only suggestion made by Mr Macassey.

Mr Barton explained that in crossexamining the witness he harl no intention of reflecting upon the personal honour of Mr Macassey.

The defendant was remanded until Thursday next, on the understanding that he should then l;e further remanded till the following Tuesday.