LIBEL ACTION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3547, 27 June 1890, Page 2

LIBEL ACTION.

*' B^toWv/Saytpai'

; In' our/fissue of . yesterday f Vtbe statement of claim and statement of defence in tliip case were published. After addressing the jury at . some i length, Mr Jellicoe called Mr A, W. Hogg, Sworn, Mr Hogg stated ;he was a member of the firm of Smith' aud Hogg, üblisliera and proprietors of the tftar;. newspaper.; ber last Mr E. A: Biitolier - was iii their employ, Could riot state exactly how Jong lie had been iii their employ, several months at any rate,; .Mr Butcher bad' been ein ; ployed first iii the Lower Valley, and subsequently at, Eketahuna as their representative, canvasser, collector, and correspondent, About the end of October he had, after conferring with hii partner, dismissed Butolier in consequence of a paragraph which appeared in the Dally oii the 29th 1 of October., A hiter, was sent from the Star office by Mr ,T. J. Smith with his. knowledge, giving Butcher a week's notice, as' Bet out iii the agreement. Mr Smith' was in Wellington- when be (Mr Hogg) first .observed the paragraph. Had iio.otlier reason for dismissing plaintiff. As far as he knew Butolier was energetic and trustworthy, and bore a very fair oharacteras regards temperance, He (llr Hogg) had been a journalist the greater part of his life, and in his opinion the paragrapli waa prejudioltil, and would go a lonjs.wiay.to prevent Mr Batcher obtaining employ mnn t. v ' Cross-examined by Mr Gully: Mr Hogg, do you believe everything which appears in the Daily ? 'Mr Hogg: Certainly not. ■ Mr Gully: And yet you summarily dismiss your employee on the' 81st of October on aocount of a paragraph which appeared, in tlio Daily on the 29th without any enquiry. Mr Hogg; Yes. I did not give Butcher a chance to- make:any exlanation.

Mr Gully : If you considered it no serious, why did you dismiss your mau without any enquiry ? Mr Hogg: I considered so serious a matter required immediate steps to be taken. Will swear that was the sole reason for dismissal. Butcher had never disappointed lum in work through drink, but ho could not say a word as to accounts. His partner looked after the books, • Argument here ensued as to whether or not the books should .be produced. .V

' Mr Gully, to Mr HoggDoes t. cash book contain a statement > accounts over the whole tim Butcher was in your employ ? Mr Hogg: Mr Gully: Tlion why'did you sa; you knew nothing of the, accounts. Mr Hogg; I know nothing of .th settlement of acoounts'* Could not Si whether or not the accounts bad beei gone into since Butcher's dismissa' He belieVed Botcher had collects accounts before, his dismissal, bu could .not say whether they ha received their monies after. The book would show whether accounts wer debited against him after'dismissal Mr Gully:; You say chat you- sa\ this paragraph' on the 29th/ Will yo swear that when you Baw it in th Daily, it was the first intimation yo had" of Butcher starting anothe paper? "Mr Hogg: Yes, was quite satisfiei as to that.' He lroew the Wairarapi Standard. If published on the 28tl it would get to Masterton on the 29th Was confident he saw the paragrapl in the Daily first. Becolleoted.beoaus his memory was tolerably retentive He \ had seen' the article in the Standard before the notice was sen! Buioher was not bringing this aolioi by his consent, in faot he disapprove! of it, It was immediately on Smith' return from Wellington that the notic was sent, on the 31st of October Nothing in connection thi accounts had anything to do witl Butcher's dismissal. If it had no been for the Daily's paragraph shoul have retained him in their employ. Joseph Janjea Smith, the nex wifnp oalled, statefl that 1)0 wa a member of the firm' of Smith am Hogg. He remembered jibia 29 tl October, oi> which date he was ii Wellington. He saw the paragraph in Daily, and his attention wascalle to it by his partner. Wrote a letter c dismissal about half an hour after h returned from Wellington on the 81b October. Knew J. E. Wilton,of Mas terton ,and Fahiatua. On th 81st Wilton ■ was at ■ fahiatua, ■ i letter produced ,was the on lie; had' written to Wilton The , only, reason for dismissal Butcher was the reason set. forth ii liie letter to him. .■ Ho recollecte having hpei} a defendant in a libe action brought by'Ohambqiiain Bros He deoiined to produce any letter written to him by. Mr Paytoa.darinj the months of October and November alibi .some delay letters: were pro dfiged &s follow^!—The first unde date 24th jfits from J Pay ton, to J. Smith,' and as follows:-Dear Smith, haye yoi py objectioi) tp .telling ine' ifyoi dismissed Mr Butcher on account o the paragraph, or 'had you otlje reason (signed) J. Payton.' A privat merao'wasfsteo enclosed saying " Please send a formal l'6ply bo tlia I can settle that hungry., mosquiti Butpjier. - If I can do anything ti smooth ypur ffjnkle I will.' l _Th next was a letter, to I J, JSiuith ti J. PaytonDear Sir. In reply ti yours of the above date, I beg t intimate that the paragraph ji Daily was. the oause, signed J.' J Smith.'; Mr Payton then wrote t Smith stating he would not hav troubled, him about this Butcbe affair, if he had not said his evident would bfl flgaiust Butcher, and no\ boen humbugging, hini; <3n th 27th of December, Smith wrote letter to Mr Pa.yton, and'on the 28t Mr Payton again wrote to Sojith a follows :-It isrumoured tlia Bntoher ivhilb in your empfo was untrustworthy. ! Kindly inforn ijjß if there is a good foundation fo; this. Mr Spiith in reply said thej had no reason. to (jejieye Butohei nritrustworthy; "After this Mr Payton wrote jregrettiii'g having again troubled Mr Snjlth, oq|y to get an evasive reply, adding that h.e vplj} gee Mr Hogg and talk '{.that ..and otjier matters over with liim." A letter svas then produced from (ho defendant a Mr Butcher, similar to one of the paragi,ip|s/complained of iii : Jie lUeged 'libel. - This correspondence ras'dealt Avith at some length by Mr Jellied©, who commented ou Mr Payton's offer to act as mediator in i ( bo . action -pendinjg at the time igainst ftoiit)} ppd Hegg.. > ' Cross-,exihimod "by Mr Gully I .Vould you consider, jt ahaliliy, Mr JjnithVfor one 'gentleman :tii apt as aejjiftiof:; VJp, ..a ljbel otion? • »" Mr Smith: .No; I was-' rathe; ile&sed at Mr Payton's offer, Had aet Mr Payton in the street, and

said to him" our evidence will settl that for you/,' meaning the;'threat ened,notion by. Butolieiv. Wished t doMrPayton a friendly tiinii bu as the firm bad committed ttanisßlve to: writing they could not go. baci from what they lmd said.- Migh have bad a conversation the da' following. Did not recollect sayinj that be could produce his book ti show that Butcher bad not accounts for certain monies. Believed lie du say sometlimg about Beckett in whosi employ. Butoher had been. . , ■ Mr Gully: After December 80tl do you recollect pointing .uut to M Payton that in writing to you;ln should have;said did ; you;fini Butcher untrustworthy after lie lef your employ ?" v : w : r; . Mr Smith: I raiglit have said bo I recollect going, to Wellington ou th 28th of October. Saw Hornblow ii the train, but do not remember seeini Wickerson.' V." r: ■ Mr Gully;: Did you discuss But clier with Hornblow on that occasion 1 Mr Smith: 1 was very careful wha I said to an opposition. newspape canvasser. - . ■ Mr Gully: Did you tell Wilton hud been sent to lookaft o . the accounts? Mr Smith: I might have said he could'! keep an eye on : .Butoher. Thought he saw a paragraph in th' Wairarapa Standard :first, Hadcu it out and showed it to his partne on his return,' -About a* • dozei accounts,- some contras and. som cash were debited against Butche before and after his .dismissal Declined to produce tlwlirm's agree ment with Butcher as it lacked th requisite stamp.- (Mr Gully pointer out that the document was exeiiip and' the agreement was produced. Notice of dismissal was written-1 Butcher on the morning.of the Blsl Do not know whether it caught th mail that day. (To hr Jellico'e, Butoher was to get one third of th gross cash receipts, which wouli average about £8 5s per week. • Hat no settling up until April last. Couli riot say how the accounts stoodwher Butoher was dismissed, The onl; reason they had for dismissing But cher was tlie reason given in hi letter; to Payton. The "Mail " wa: competing with the Daily at Eketa buna; and he thought had. injurei the Daily. R.; A. Bulolier, called, stated hi was the . plaintiff in the presen action, arid had entered into the bom (produced) with Smith , and Hogg The Mail " appeared about iou months before heweiit to Eketahuna It. was then in very- low water. Hi had to work it up. .Prior to his con nection with the" Mail" the Daui bad a large circulation in Eketahuna He had taken an interest in politica matters ever since he camo to tin Wairarapa, Was' strongly opposei to Mr Payton iri politics,'' Hat doubled the circulation of the" Mail' and simply got all the advertisement! in the place during his connection This would make a considerabli difference to the Daily. Was ii Masterton on the afternoon of thi day on which the tirsb para'grxpl complained of was published in tbi Daily Had cousulted Mr, Beard ii reference to . his'dismissal, and givei hiui a note authorising him to perus the .agreement at Mr Pownall' office. , Saw all the subsequent para graphs, : and wrote a letter to th Editor oi the - Daily requesting hiu to publish the real reasons of hi dismissal, A copy of the letter wa published in the " Star.'" Afterward received a letter from Mr Pay ton, an on the" 21st ot November saw a cop, of it published in the Daily, blank being substituted for the word ' intemperate ' and' untrustworthy. Was not, while in Eketahuna, ! correspondent of any other paper ii the Wairarapa. Since his diamisaa had'only earned about £5 by contri buting to the" Observer," To Mr Gully: Was professional! a journalist, Could not say lw many other employments^- hs/lia' followed during the four years be ha been in the Colony. Had been a insurance agent. Had a|so dug pos holes, and hid been a billiard marke at two hotels. • Previously to hi promotiou to theEketahuwi, Jfail ha been employed on the South, Waira rapt), Advocate about seven months Smith '& Hogg were the sole owner of the" Mail," He had no interns as a partner in the concern. Mr Gully: Did. you not on th 22nd of January swear an affidavi that you were the proprietor? Mr Butcher: Yes, i was th nominal proprietor. '' . . 'Mr Gully: The affidavit state! apecifically that yon are the-pro prietor and publisher. . You swori that did you not Mr Butcher ? "I did t was supposed to be the proprietor,' yMr Gully: And yet in the agree lieiit you signed, Smith and Hogg ire-slated \o' be 'the splf) propriefdrs, ts it not so, that you were pretending o be the proprietor 1 ■ . Mr. Butcher: I was the registered iroprietor, I had a third of the eceipts, It was printed by.Smith ind Hog? at Masterton and forwarded opj. it'jiad my imprliit ou it, '' ■Mi:' Gully':' 1 ji' tljji} jjatheir ayijterious. as a jourligt .Qould Bu have found anything bcttej: lutoher" combination to express the ase ? ' V':

.Mr Butcher That was written when Smith and Hogg's name was on the imprint of the " Mail." I believfl the causo win some bother! ajjput tho Advociid. Mr jtyijllyj Do you uuderslanu that by placing" your - prno oji the i imprint you .'stand before iuo yorjd as the proprietor? . .■; '. Mr Butcher: Ido not understand the newspaper law: oii this point. Deferring to the second paragraph Butcher admitted, having been before the Eketahulia K.M. Court for ■abusive language used towards Mr Hqdges, the charge being, sustained. Hadeto tea t&ibn : tbe' f? particulars" printed jn the I)aily na,q gauß'eS his''.dismissal: because: lie thought the ft ai, - vould take into consideration the provocation hg had received,. Was not surprised Mr Paytoii. objected to the. word " sourrilous." ;He (Butcher) would not jjave' written such; paragraphs. Galled a iwysiiaper sourrilous for publishing sucu. : '■/;'* ■■■ Mr Gully : You wrote to Mr ?.W'tpn asking him to publish the not paragi'dplj .|ut)l'isbe.d ftfai' yon had pressed Mr mtoi} to do s,o. Mrßutoher.| i-WM kt' the paragraph go unnotified.- • Mr" Gully rW : '; did you not attempt to punish Mr Psytop instep of pressing him; on to/go- tether. Did you contemplate taking prooeedinga at.this tiffiO ?. . . • Mr Butcher: Not altogether. ; V>.i : Mr ljullv: Did you ever previous to this'contenjplate startiug a journal in in opposition;to thp " Mail." tylt pitcher: No, ne ( vor. _ Mr Jellicoe raised objections to evidence on thjs point, and Mr Gully

gave way to him.', ■' '•' Mr'putober continued— received : notice'on tbo 81st by tljejnormug mail. : ;I' think it was on~|riday or Saturday. iWas-, liablo to&iweek's I notice: ■ whether• I\. broke Agreement or not. • .Hod never had anjf ditliculty with Smith and, Hogg Jover the accounta. Left a 'list of accounts with Wilton oil liis arrival at Eketaliuim.. : r ' .

Mr Gully: Did you l'eosivQ certain sums of money;and not account for them at your dismissal ? - Mr Butcher :-I did not hop any books, but-had to trust to memory. Did not Lave a settlement with Smith; & - Hogg - ands received -no account. : The amounts wero simply debited against him. : Had collected one account of £3 from a man of tho name of-.Stewart.-. Came down to llastorton to pay in," and found a verypressing; claim awaiting ,me. Had settled it' with the money, and informed Smith and Hogg next morning. They told me I bad done quite right. Mr Gully V Did-you ever have any trouble with .Mr Beckett oyer ? aocounts. (ilr'Jellicoe again objected, but his Honor overruled.) Were you ever in Beckett's employ ? Mr Butcher: Ic3, as reporter, canvasser, and collector. about 18 months; - Mr Gully: Did you at any time have "any difficulty with Mr Beckett aboutaccoiints?'■ . Mr Butcher; I don't know what you mean, I wag with Beckatt three different times.. Mr Gully repeated the question, asking if there had been any difficulty about a Government olitque. Mr Butcher: There was a dispute about an account of £2103 towards the end of his second engagement. Beckett had made it an excuse for discharging him without his wages. ; Mr Gully: Had you repaid the money ? 4 Mr Butoher: Not at that time. Mr Gully: Through iuadvertence. Mr Butoher: Yes, through inadvertence. Recollected having* conversation 'With Mr J, Maoara on- the let November, but would not swear he did not say the notice of .dismissal expired on the 4th, . Would swear lie had not received a previous notice. Mr Gully: Is it not a fact that the Eketahuna Mail and Wairarapa Star, with the exception of the heading and imprint are substantially the same.. Mr Butoher; No, they are totally different. . Mr Gully: Suppose I produce two copies alike. Ci Mr Butcher said he might get an odd one similarj but. the Mail .generally contained special Eketahuna' news, and some different, advertisements. This "was not 'the first newspaper action, he had; been in. Had brought an action against the Standard whilst correspondent of the Evening Post. Mr Gully: Then "I-.suppose you think the time is about up for another. Mr Butoher: -If.people let me alone 1 should not trouble them. ; • Mr Gully : Did you ever.give any orders for money ou the strength of this case? M r Butoher: Yps, to Mr MoKenzie and Mr Cundy. to raise money for costs. (Mr Gully here produced a document asking Mr Jellicoe to pay the sum of £7 out of monies lie (Butolier), might receive as damages for the alleged, libels to Mr MoKenzie) Mr Gully: Did you borrow money from Mr Maoara to pay Beckett.... Mr Butcher: I did borrow, but not for that purpose. It is three years ago, Ido not recollect what > I" borrowed the money To Mr Jellicoe: I wrote the order on you before Mr MoKenzie would lend me the money. The conversation with Mr Maoara in November came about in this way : Mr Maoara'came ,to him at. Eketahuna and said " these people have no right to disoliarge you, you may snap your fingors at them." -Mr Macara also advised him to {consult Mr Beard. He (Butoher) asked Macara to lend him some money to pay the lawyer. Hr Macara said "Go to Payton.' Had been in Beckett's employ since the £2 10s affair. Nq person in the Wairarapa baa ever laid any charge of dishonesty against him. Smith and Hogg knew • about Beckett's affair and .sympathised'svitl) . : liim. l v The paragraph in the "Standard" was not identical with the one in the .Daily; He had good "reason to believe' that the Eketahuna correspondent - of tl^e" Standard" and, the Daily were one & the same.' Wiitoii had received a rough statement of accounts when .he came to Eketahuna.' .; . '-.'.Mr J. J; Smith, ■ re-called, said that before sending the dismissal to Butte he had ; consulted hit solicitor, Mr Pownall, and later at his request that gentleman' had refused to'take up -Butcher's case. Thisioncludatlie' csts&.' for' the prosecution." ; - : After a .very brief-address to. the jury Mr Gully called Mr J. Pajton. Witness stated lie ; was the proprietor of the Daily. ' The first paragraphs .complained of were not Written by Him. biit by'; his Eketa-. buna porre'sjjondents. The latter paiftgrdpiis' were' mitten by him. Had read report of'MetahunaE.M, Court, and'theti TOtten the: local re " scurrilous : paragraphs.'!,. It' was a direot reference to Mr Butoher's statement at Eketahuna. Butoher had, written asking him. to publish a , letter. Hephed telling Mr Butoher if he wanted ..the reasons "'nWuhed- he. would do so. Had reItjotance in publishing; ariu7iiai . "b perfpnaj ill-feeling (i( aj}" against Butcher. Subsequently saw a" copy of Butoher's letter to him jn ' the "Star." Had not refused to pub-' lisli Butoher's letter,'- but wrote to bim immediately on receipt of it. Butoher. did not ruply, and two days after the'letter was published in the " Star." On the 24th'December 1 wrote Mr Smith asking him .to give thq'reaj feasjong, of Batcher's "dismissal.' PreviOjis 't*Q ims Mt Smith had stopped roe in the., street #l)d spoto' CButcher's Ithreaten'ed.' 'jfltlop, : I .-was - surprised at; this■ as JlrPffiitli and myself were not on friendly, terms. Smith told me; then ;his j evidence would settle tlie oase against Butcher. Nothing' more wassaidpn thematter at this timo, fot writing to Smith evidenca be offered", ' After his reply; saying the paragraph' was (lio only reason, I wrote telling jiim he wis simply humbugging me 1 , The: £ajr following, Smith stopped nie and i complained of the expression n hip; buggipg," saying,!! pirsirgng point is. thaii Butcher embezzled .Beckett's < money." A cp'ofession jyas signei'bv Butcher in Pownall'B pfflce. Pownall | bad wwned them (Smith and Hogg) againsi S«BSS Ma'ngerous man. ll Smith alsi eaid that i stuck to tlieir monies,' and he could bring his books -intq Couft to prove it. Healso expressed hjs willingness to answor ■ 'any questions I might write about ButoherpuMwij ihij

m put in a certain fom. I rather oolishly omitted to put any qso3. iious .in that partioular form. The etter commencing :" I hear it ' •nmonred" was writtea- in ; conse- - juenoe of the suggestion made in theitieet. Do not recollect: again dislussing the matter with Smith. Had > loard of J.:E.\Vilton, and know him to be absent from. Masterton, by„-. ewers' I received, and from" what members ot my staff had told me. In reply: to Mr Gully.fHr. Paytbftk said that -Monday's ."Star'Uwas rnesday's " Mail," with the heading iltered. To the Star, jf Monday, thei2lst,October became f? the" Mail 1 ' of Tuesday, the 22nd, by Dhanging the heading and altering' a" oouple of columns of advertisements. v< , To Mr Jellicoe: -My first: meeting v with Smiljh reUtivejto Butoher,\was;; i about' the 20th"-December.'' ? 'First^'' heard a ruinor of Butcher's on the Ist November; later; that" be heard- : B'utcher Tvas dismissed oa the'2i|th Hacl no actual knowledge of,,Butclier's i-. dismissal on the, Bth November when,; r j lie published a paragraph>;.in' the Daily. Meant by remark " How can a proprietor - bo Ihia/own journal !l thatlie wasanxious to get-at the bottom of . Mr Mucara had not, spoken iqißutoher at •* hia requeat, : tut had brbiight him a ' message from Butoher. who .wanted to obtain flmploymenVon'ilifl Daily, ■; Mr Jellicoe: You Eay in: the paragraph that Mr Butcher to proceed against Were you, Mr to ... withdraw one word of your article on the 29th, when you wrote !the para- - graph on the Bth November ? ....'■ MrPayton: I was never asked. I should havo .withdrawn • anything which I had'reason to believe was. untrue. I like the truth, whereas : the whole thing seemed : to be in an - atmosphere of lies. I believed what my correspondents had-stated to be the truth, and was prepared to suppSrk what I had published, Mr Jellicoe; How did you propo'ajy to show your readers the J' other ™ reasons for Butoher's'dismissal ?l"i' Mr Payton; 1 meant that if called : to Court I should bring forward what ■ Mr Smith and members of my staff bad siid. In writing' to Butcher, I gave; what I .consideredthe real reasons of his dismissal. I wrote to Mr Smith at.his own instigatioa, and was of the opinion that the letter written, to me by Butcher was a trap, The last paragraph was written in »~ moment .of ctunoyance and on Butcher stating I. had refused Top publish his letter. .The inference from the blanks in the last paragraph was' that the reasons were discreditable. Heard Butcher was employed iu an I hotel, after he left Smith and Hogg, Did not know ho was, out 1 of toork;; Had:not received 'any' letters 'from Smith about Butoher prior to the 24th December. at that time Messrs Chamberlain. Bros, contemplated suing Smith and.Hogg for libel, Was friendly with the, Messrs Chamberlain in the same maflner that I was on friendly terms with nine out o ten persons in Masterton., Knew Mr Chamberlain's mind, and thought I might possibly be able, to mediate between him and Smith. Had made this offer because I felt stytf little gratitude to .Smith for .offering) voluntary 'assistance in my : oak' Used the expression "smooth out a wrinkle" because I was aware that both parties were reluctant to bring the action into Court," Had' called Butcher "a , hungry mosquitßi because I thought Butcher wm endeavoring to draw a. little blood from me. that; Staitb and' Hogg, had had a difference, the " other matters" alluded to in the letter, related only to the case. I kaew of Smith's part-; nership disputes with Mr Hogg, tut Smith would :hot r (;likemeto mention them in this . Court,l wrote that partioular letter because I was, annoyed at Smith's evasion and considered that Mr Hogg would be more straightforward. 1 usually see all the matter.that goes into, my paper. The first paragraphs were written by Messrs Copping and Hodges. Hodges had been , an occasional correspondent for a long time, Did hot look on Butoher as (be proprietor of the'' Mail" but thought lie was running tbe paper for Smith .and Hogg under false colors. As au honest journalist was anxjous to do away witb.boguspapers, Jbuthadnj no anxky to undermin&ttc'.ButcfiM personally. If an apolgy were'wantM it should have' been asked beforf Did not recollect ever being.asked to apologise.' Would swear Smith; said " Butoher : embezzled' Beckett's money.". '' " ' . ' In repjy to Mr Gully Mr -Payton said lie .moat decidedly would Lava dismissed a manager of his who had tried to start an opposition paper,, but 'made ! letter eon tai ning, Butohec'e oompiaini j appearing id the.btar, ho would not have pUbhshed the last paragraph, . • The Court at this. stage adjourned until teno'olook on Thursday morning On resuming Mi James Macara, thi next witness Reposed ; I am : a..coacjli proprietor,', and , ' to defendant* 'KnOw Butcher."' Saw him bii'theT November.. Had a conversation witti me, Butoher had asked me to speal to Mr Payton and get him putontlii Daily, he told me, he (Butcher) m discharged, j then said howoan thej discharge you.if the : paper is *youfl Butoher..then told me that uxdS another agreement he waß liable to a weeks notice.: I; tqW hjnj'ibiß and s'aijl if: I pfaqj I should consult a. lawyer," ' After some 'further conversation Butcfiei said " I have got my diioiiargoi the week will be : up on 1 That ;.is." all : which" ocourrejL My time was limited, and I had. tq get away. Had no previo lis'cpnveraation with Butoher about the'pap jr, Took no interest in either Butcher or the pipr, Did got. know BntohWs actual'poßition on'the' 1 ! Mail,'" ? To Mr Jellicoe:'Aljrayj ynderstood, by genera} rampuri. that it wag being run in Butbhgr-a, name. '/Had not,heard- that Hgrnblow' soarohpd the register to find affidavit .until iftei the action 1 against'• Mr Payton was' threatened. ! Told Butoher at Eketahuna, ho could defy, anyone i] ha was the registered proprietor. My suggestion atoit a jawyec iyas'to get rid of him, I 'was anxioUs &way. Mentioned Mrßeard, wi)aie my lawyer 1 add • Mr J Pay ton's, but bade no appointment Butter, I did not gq to Mr Beard's office with him, He followed me.up thb etreet, me, something: aboptbein! ahort of .funds, " Did not ]pw fop what purppee wanted the money, Did not.suggest ,ha should ;o to Mr Payton,. Told him I had ipthin'g to do vith Payton or bie paper. • Anyhow Butcher got nono ol M ; y ;moi)eyjto go >fot Smith & - Hogg. Kqew I Mrs v Wage's .hotel, 'and fra. juently went m there,' Djd

remember any . booasibn ;on Awhioh liimself, Mr Parsons, Mr McOardle ■ and 1 MrO'Connor, wore at Mts Wagg'a. 'Could iiot'icmomberseeing or conversing with O'Connor on any particular . date, O'Connor . and Butcher might be friends. Ha had certainly seen them together, Would swear ho did notsay,on any occasion, tliat he" wouldsee Butcher through," in an ftction againafc Smith & Hogg. 'Mr Jelliccio asked if witnoss knew Mr lieethara, knd whether Mr Boetham aridhimself had not been " lobbying" the jury outside the Court. Mr Maoara swore that lis was not in conversation »yith any of the jury other than to say good morning outside'tho • Court. Did not believe it occupied more than two seconds, c Would also swear that lie; had no reColleotion of seeing Mr Beethaui conversing with the jurymen. Mr Gully: W hat my learned friend means is, did you hear Hr Boetham endeavoring to subjrn tho jury,, Mr Macara: No. Mr Gully: Mr Jollicoo suggests that you do not recollect a conversation in Mrs Wasg's hotel because you-were hazy through drink. Is that true ? Mr Majara: Most utterly untrue. I do not take shorthand notes of all the conversations I hold. Mr Gully: It is suggested that you were the wire puller against Smith and Hogg, yet you refused to lend Butcher the money. Why ? Mr Maoara: Because I lent him , money on a previous occassion and 1 never got it back. • i Mr J. J. Smith.again called, said in answer to Mr Gully, tlmt he did | not recollect using the word "om- 1 bezzled,' 1 although Beckett's affair was mentioned, Butoher had told him 1 all about it, and they had employed 1 him afterwards. " I ilr Jellicoe: Did you Bay that your accounts would show that

Butcher had stuck to monios, Mr Smith: Them was Borne difficulty with accounts after Butcher left. Mr Payton had endeavored to get other reasous for Butoher's dismissal from him. He had stuck to it all along that the paragraph was the reason, and he did not alter this or he might have laid himself open to a libel action. Had written to Wilton on the 81st and the letter produced was the one. Both were posted at the same time. It was customary to send exchanges to jll the principal papers in the colony, ■Mr Smith's evidence closed the case. '

Mr Gully,in his address to the jury, said the law of libel was useful when a man made a wanton attack upon another man's private character. This was not a case of that sort, but quite the reverse, every item being provoked,' and invited with the exception of the first, paragraphs, Tvhioh were simply either stupid or witty. He showed that the way in which the " Mail" had been carried on was a direct fraud on the public, because by the law of the land, and us a'matter of publio policy, it was provided that tho real proprietor of a paper should be registered, so that a man of straw should not appear as the bogus proprietor. In the face of this the affidavit states that K. A. Butpher .was the proprietor and owner. Therefore the plaintift who Btood before them was a perjurer; he had tried to shuffle out of this by saying he was to get a third of the profits, but he asked could they believe that 'Butoher really- thought this entitled him to be proprietor. Mr Butcher had, perhaps thoughtlessly, sworn a false oath, Further, the " Mail" had been held out to the world as the property of R. A. Butcher, Some time before October 81st the.imprint had been altered, When an alteration of proprietorship took place a fresh affidavit had to be filed. Therefore the jury, could Bee that it was a bogus arrangement and that the paragraph " Smith-Hogg-cum-Butcher combination" was about aV reasonable a statement as could have been made. 'The suggestion in the paragraph that Butcher was about to set up a journal against himself as theproprietor was where the humour cjme in, if there was any in it. Mr Butcher says: "You have damqed my charaoter by. saying I am about to start a paper against myself," This was the story they were asked to believe. Messrs Smith and Hogg appsared iu a somewhat peculiar position, Smith, especially, as the iriend of both sides, who was running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, Smith had admitted he had committed himself to writing, ahd dared not go back. If Smith and Hogg dismissed Butcher without a word of enquiry on the strength of two " rubbishy" paragraphs which appeared in a rival paper, they committed an : injustice. According to the agreement between Messrs Smith and Hogg and Butcher the latter fW .to' "?emjt .air monies, arii make. no deduction for commission. Butcher had no authority to run contras, yet contra accounts were debited against him, Tbi3 showed he had used money when he wanted it, and, to us?' plain English', had played 'i fast apd loose'," The last paragraph? pf Butcher, anjl it appeared that Butoher wanted to bo 'libelled, and sought it. He submitted that none of the paragraphs were libellous, and and tuat the plaintiff.had sustained no damages whatever. Mr Jellicoe had endesTonred to show malice on the part of Mr Payton, but he submitted it waa all the other way, Butcher's interest; but tlje paragraphs Vero o! public interost, as they disclosed an attempt to defraud thp publio.

' After an able Mjdress, lasting over >n hour aiifl a half, Gaily conciuije'd by remarking that Mr Pay ton had called Mr Butcber a "■ hungry mos. Quito," but lie thought ha might better be termed a If hie learned friend, woiildpardon the femnrk, lie would further say that he (Mr Jellicoe) was the proboscis by T?biob My Butcjigf gropaspcjtt) extract, ' Wood, "Hut something' wbioh npvertbeleea had a circulation, viz., money. . ■Mr Jellicoe contended that the oase waa ahaolutely undefended, and that Mr Gully had only been throw; ing dust iti the eyes of the jury and revealing; "mare's nests," He characterised the charges, of perjury against Butcher, Smith, and Hogg, 08 Pimßy pretences, Nobody was deceived' by the fact that Butiher's name was on the imprint of the Mail, Asking if Mr Butcher had not been employed as 8 billed mark was pother instance ofdust, Many ofthem in Court had humped their swags and driven coaches, and this .'was something, to be ■ prond. of, The charge ofHodges against. Butcher of creating a breach of the' peace was quite in touch with tliecorrespondent of such a "wretohed paper" as the Daily. The money trouble with Beckett was another marc's nest. Payton should have brought evidenoo to substantiate t|iis charge, if if was

in Lis power to do-so,; ; He contended that the Mail and-Star wore totally differont papers,' and read' some, of tho.. advertisements i to prove this contention, „ The giving of the order for £1 on the proceeds of the action was no different to tho M.P. who borrowed from his bauker, If there was a difference thero. was no. distinction. (At this stage tho Court _ adjourned for lunoli.) On resuming Sir Jellicoe used excessively strong language, stating that. Mr Payton had ployed the " rolfof Ananias" and was afraid to produce his Eketahuna correspondent. Further on lie maintained that Mr payton was interested in " saving his : neolt or his hide," whilst Mr Smith was " interested in telling the truth," He also said that Mr Hogg : was an "honestman," whilst Mt Payton played the part of "a serpent.". Plaintiff, ho held, was entitled to recover full damages if it was found he had lost his situation through the action of defendant, He made a strong point of the fact that newspapers exchanged, and said that unless Butoher could vindicate his character there was very little likelihood of his obtaining employment, In'a final appeal to - tho jury he asked if Butoher, tho " hungry mosquito," was to be ruined—ruined to satisfy tho Waikarapa Daily, '

Mr Jellicoe again insinuated that Messrs Beethanv and Macara had endeavored to suborn the jury.. Mr Gully objected strongly to such charges being > made without the support of any evidence whatever. His Honor, after a very briof summing up, submitted the following issues to the jury: Is the article of the 29th October defamatory of tho plaintiff? If bo, what damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover ?

The Jury: No. • Ih theartioleof the 10th Novemboi defamatory of the plaintiff ? If so what damages is the plaintiff entitlet to recover 1

The Jury; No. Is the paragraph of the 21st November defamatory of the plaintiff ? II so, ivbat damages ? •*' The Jury; Yes. Damages, one farthing, . The above verdiot was accepted from eleven out of the twelve jurors. The Chief Justice reserved leave to the plaintiff to move for a new trial in Banco, at the expiration of four days.