THE HUTT TARRING CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2101, 22 September 1885, Page 2

THE HUTT TARRING CASE.

(press association.) Wellington, this day. The tarring case came on again to-day. The Hon. P. A. Buckley deposed that lie knew the accused, who had been in the employ of the Government as messenger from June 12th to July 31st. He had known him 20 years. He was discharged by witness himself. He did not see accused at the Hutt after ho had left the Government service. Mr Buckley said there was no member of the profession who would have degraded him (Mr Buckley), so much as Mr Travel's had dono, He remembered seeing accused at his (Mr Buckley's) room on the night of the 19th August, about 10 o'clock; he came for wages. Witness knew nothing of the assault until he saw it in the papers. Ho knew accused well, and was on good terms with him,

W. A. FMerbert said he lived at the Hutt, near Mr Buckley, He knew accused. Some time in August accused asked permission to go through his ground, which was granted, but he could not say whether advantage was taken of it. Heheaidofthe assault on Muir on the morning after. He saw accused in town, who asked witness if he had heard of the assault, Witness had not, although the assault had taken place in his ground. He asked what had taken place, and Walden said a man named Muir had been tarred.

Charles Millward, messenger in the Legislative Council, knew accused who some time during August last showed witness a pair of handcuffs, That was before the assault on Muir,

Henry Argyle, servant in the employ of Mr Buckley deposed to finding a tar pot and brush at the rear or the summer house on Mr Buckley's premises, and handed the articles to the yolice. Constable Hartnett, on duty at the Hutt, said he saw a conveyance in the road on the night of the assart about 7 o'clock. He knew nothing of the assault until the day following. Muir was staying at the Hutt. Tar pots were, he believed, very numerous at the Hutt. Edward Mcintosh deposed that lie lived at the Hutt, and on the 19th of August he saw a cab standing alongside the Hutt road near the Courthouse. It was nine o'clock at night. He could not tell the coior of the horses as they had clothing on. He did not 'know the driver, although he bid him goodnight as he passed. Mr Travel's' managing clerk offered a bribe to witness of £2O if he would give such evidence as would convict tho cabdrivcr. Mr Payne, station master at the Hutt, was present, Mr Buckley here made a sotto wee remark regarding the offer of Mr Travel's' clerk, at which Mr Travel's jumped up and asked the protwtion of the Court from remarks niade% "a person" as he called him. After a sharp passage Mr Travel's called Mr Buddy ■' a vagabond," to which Mr Buckley replied that if it was not for tho respect of the Court he would have spoken to Mr Travers, whom he called n fellah," in a manner which that " fellah" would not like. Mr Buckley concluded by asking Mr Travers to repeat the words outside the Court,

Mr Wardell much regretted the personal ill-feeling dragged in, and asked Mi Travel's not to make angry remarks, which brought forth replies. Mr Travers said he was simply doing his duty, and was not to be bullied by an opposing counsel or witnesses.

E, T. Gillon was called, and objected to give evidence.

Mr Gully, for Mr Gillon, said witness had no knowledge of the assault beyond what he had obtained in a professional position, and tho reason for refusing evidence was one of principle. The principle was that any information given to journalists was absolutely confidential, and it was an extraordinary course to call these gentlemen to give evidence as to what they learnt in the capacity of editor of a paper. If Magistrates ruled against them, it would be utterly impossible for newspaper editors and managers to carry on papers in the manner they should. The opinion hold by Mr Gillon was shared by all leading journalists of the colony. Mr Gillon was then sworn, and deposed that he knew accused, but declined to say whether ho had any conversation with him re the assault. He certainly had none before. He declined to give any evidence as to the conversation with accused or any one else, as lie would be betraying his own personal honor, if he gave evidence of what was given him in confidence. He know of no precedent where an editor had been placed in a box to give evidence in this manner. The paragraph written in the Post was written from ordinary town gossip.

The case was remanded until Wednei day week.