THE HUTT TARRING CASE.

ObBSS ASSOCIATION TBUWRAM.j WELLINGTON, September 22. At the Resident Magistrate's Court this morning the Hott tarring case was again called on, when James Walden appeared on remand, charged with assaulting Sidney Nimmo Muir. The Hon. P. A. Buckley deposed that he knew the accused, who entered the Government service as Messenger on Jrne 12th, and so remained __tU July 31st. Witness had known the accused for nineteen or twenty years. He did not see accused at the Hutt in August. The accused was not, to his knowledge, at the Hutt after he had left the Government service. The aooussd sometimes went to the Hutt to wait at witness' table on the occasion of dinner parties. Witness was about to refer to the reason why the accused had left the Government service, when Mr Travers said he did not wish to hear anything on that point. Witness, alter saying that he was anxious that he should be allowed to explain, asserted that there was no member of the legal profession in the colony who had. so. degraded it as Mr Travers had , done. The acsufeed had left the Government/ service because he considered that he .was put upon by the other messengers in the Government Buildings. Ou the night of August lOih, when the assault was alleged to have been committed, accused was at a room in Parliament Buildings, about 10 p.m., and there was no tar about j RO-snsed then. William Alfred Fi_ch*rjeri deposed that he lived at Lower Hutt, next to Mr Buckley. He recollected'the accused obtaining permission from him to go through bis grounds; he did not know whether the accused availed himself of the permission. The day after the tarring took place he met in We'Ur gton the accused, who asked him whether he had heard that a man named Muir had been tarred at the Hutt. Accused said that he had been told of the affair by a man named Wyles, a surveyor. Charles Mill ward, messenger to the Legislative Council, deposed that in August. hut- he saw the accused with a pair of handcuffs in his possession. " He did not ask what thef handcuffs were - fori' Be not suppose the accused intended to use them on members of the Legislature. Lbbelieved he saw the handcuffs in the accused's possession before the tarring took place. , ■ Jaws Capper, a messenger to the Legislative Conned, gave evidence that two or three weeks ago he saw a rusty old pair of handcuffs in Warden's possession. Being am old sailor, he was reminded of old times,'and he said to the accused, "Hullo, old friend." The accused informed him that he intended to dispose of the handcuffs to the captain of a large steamer in port, who had had a lot of trouble with his men, and who required several pairs. Henry Argyle, in the employment of Mr Buckley »3 servant, deposed to finding, on August 21st, a tar-pot said a brush behind -fhe ,summer house on Mr Buckley's prej raises. -. Constable HartneU, stationed at the Hutt, gave evidence that he had received the tar-pot aad brush produced from Mrs Buckley and Mr H. S. Fitzherberb. On the night of August 19th witness was at the'Hutt. He did not see a cab at the Hutton that night, but next day he saw the marks of a cab. He had made searching enquiries in reference to the cab, but he had not been able to find out anything. He did not: know very much about Muirj he understood that he was not possessed of very much means. Tar pots were -very common at the Lower Hutt. Edward Mcintosh, plumber, living at Lower Hutt, deposed that he recollected seeing the cab standing at about nineo'clock on the evening of August 19th. The horses had covers on. As he passed the carriage he said to the driver «• Good night.'' The carriage looked like a landau. When he passed, the carriage-driver was standing at the horses* heads. He would not be able to-recognise the horses or carriage again. 7. ! 7 To Mr Stafford—Last night Mr" Ifebert i Orr and Mr Travers had offered to give I him JE2O if he could recognise the cab. Mr Orr said, "If you can give mc any information that wiU convict the cabman, we ; wiU give you J820.-" The statiohmaster at Lower Butt was present. . Mr Travers here excitedly asked the protection of the Court, remarking that, a r-son behind him (pointing to the Hon. A. Buckley) was using his name toother members of the profession in connection with the bribe. Mr Buckley (rising excitedly)— This person haa as much right to be here as you, and to speak as you. Mr -ravers — Not in so insolent a manner. Mr Buckley—The insolence is aU on your part, how dare you address mc aa this person, your insolence ia beyond measure. His Worship—-I cannotaUow that. Mr Travers —My iosolenoe I Tour Worship, this person, who is Bitting behind, spoke out in the hearing of members of the profession in this Court, assoeiatiog my name with this supposed offer by Mr Orr. Mr Buckley—l did. Mr Travers—Whether Mr Orr made the offer or not I do not know. But this person [emphasis on person] has no right associating my name with anything of the fe|nd. I am not in the habit of Buborning witnesses at all, and I never had such a suspicion cast upon mc aa is cast upon mc by this man. Mr Stafford—What is the Court to be turned into ? Mr Travers—Your client should go out of the room t let him leave the Court. Mr Stafford (to Mr T»v«rs)—You have taken any amount ot liberty that you ought not to have taken. Mr Buckley rose amid uproar. His Worship—Take your seat* sir. Mr Buckley (still standing, and in great; wrath)— This fellow Bays what is— [ His Worship—Btf good enough, MrBuckley, to take your seat, j Mr Buckley (still standing)— Had it not* been fortiie respect is which I holdthisf Court I should have something to say xn a| Matter not pleasant to this fellow. I Mr Travers—Hang mc, state what you* like, you vagabond. My character if above? suspicion. (Laughter a_.d uproar.)

Mr Bnokley—You ruffle, xepeftt thoe* words outside the Court. ___ -BorrytKtmen whoought to knowitftta£and who happen tohave-buainees in-4hi»~Gourt, ?bouldcenmder this a matter forMaugb.t?r. It is • -veryy-very ssrious- matter- indeed, and it ie with very- grave regret I see gentlemen in the position thoae gentlemen occupy, making imputations "of dishonorable conduct one to the other j it ie to mc very disgraceful. I .know there is some excitability of temper, bat they ought to endeavor to -restrain it; for my part I must say. I am entirely at a loss to understand why the oeunsel for the defence in tote matter has persistently imputed personal motives to the coaneel lyt the prosecution. I wa3 very much surprised wb>n Mr Buckley went into the box and imputed to Mr Travera animosify _ond personal feeling. Mr Tmve?s;ia; only acting ;aa counsel for the prosecution, and should be treated with proper oburttey. At the fame time I must ask Mr Travcrs to avoid using angry words, which only call forth equally angry replies. Mr Travera—l wish to state, and I call upon you to support what I have said, throughout the whole of this case that J have not asked a single question calculated to justify the language and conduct of Mr Stafford. I have been here performing a dnty, and I believe within the strict rules of my duty. I have not asked a single question of a single witness beyond what wae necessary, and if counsel is to be bullied by gentlemen in their position, there is very little hope of any person coming within their reach achieving justice. Mr Stafford—l must say, in my own defence, that I have persistently pursued an entirely different course from the other eide—that of keeping behind the scenes, and from the public gaze one thing more important than this, something which is more important to the parties interested: I say my friend has brought a person here knowing the degrading sphere surrounding him, and he ought nos to have done, so* One can pardon the feelings of Mr Buckley. If my friend , was degraded by his client in the manner in which he has been degraded leayhe ought to have been ashamed of himself for bringing him here. ; His Worship—l hope this Court will net lower its dignity by counsel at the Jtable making it the arena' for personalities and conduct which, aiuonget gentlemen, is to be regretted. Ido hope our proceedings; will be characterised by something like tii ordinary rules of courtesy and gentlemanly intercourse. I <?o not want to say any more, because I feel very strongly there had been a certain amount of want of " tone. , ' Mr Travers—By mc, sir ? ; His Worship—l do not say that. Mr Stafford—By mc, sir ? Hie Worship—l would rather not e&y. ■ The next witness called was £. T. Gillon. Mr Gully, appeared for Mr Gillon, and said:—Mr Gillon, your Worship, has an* objection to hie evidence being taken, an<| I would aek permission to state the reason of his objection. Ido not know whether Mr Travers has any objection. Thamatteri to some extent, involves a question of lawj His Worship—Have you any objection to giving evidence P ' ' \ Mr Gillon—l have absolutely. I wish Mr Gully to ttate the ground of my objection. ' ' '.-.'- : , ". ■ \ Mr Gully—ln the first place, your Wori ship, I have to call your attention to the 132 nd section of the Justices of the Peace Act. I shall aak yon to rule whether Mi Gillon is compelled to answer concerning this case. Hβ has a right uadee this section to refuse to answer questions provided he can .offer a juet excuse fo# each refusal. Now I propose to.submit to you that there is good reason for hie refusal to give' evidence. la the first place, I have ts state that he. hid absolutely no knowledge of any informaj tion relating to this case, except what he has obtained in his professional capacity: aa editor of th<* "Evening Post.'*' The result of the enquiries he has made may of may not be material in this investigation, but in any case I think him justified in refusing to give evidence. I wish to state most positively tbat Mr Gillon'a refusal to give; evidence is fully a mattes of principle, and has nothing whatever to do with thte .particular -case. There is no personal reaton for his refusal, his object tibn fioleiyon a principle that [in all easei communicat.oas which pass through the haaaeot newspaper -editorri are Idie confidential results of en 4 fairies wMujh, gentkmpn. .of %&,.- Prese make, and I think it rather an extr*jrdiaary thing that they eLould be Caljei to juatify paragraphs which they may have written. Here is a question of public policy involved in Mr Gillon'a rel fusal to give evidence, and I think he should be shielded by the Court. If yori rule that.ho is obliged to give evidence it will be impossible for-members of the presq to carry on their business in a manner oon| ducive to the public interests, aud if the result of enquiries which they may make are to be made public a great deal of tin-i Pleasantness will be caused. I hope your Forehip will recognise that the objection is not made cub of disrespect for Court, butt I simply as a matter of policy on behalf of the profession to which he belongs. His feeling in the matter I may say is shared by moat of the leading newspaper men throughout New Zealand, whom he has' consulted. I submit that the objection may fairly be put forward that if information is given to a newspaper on the tacit understanding that it shall not be di-* vulged, it -is very important that they should ;nbti be obliged to repeat it in a Court of Law. Again, your Worship, I contend that my client is perfectly justified] in refusing to answer questions relative to; enquiries he has made in his capacity as editor of a newspaper. His Worship—-Do you mean to say that any information given to the editor of a newspaper by an accused person ie privileged ? Mr Gully—l am not patting the. matter to you as a matter of law. Strictly speaking, I must admit that euch is nob privileged. Your Worship has discretionary power in the matter, and it is for you to say whether my client must give his evidence. His Worship—l must decide against him. The only just excuse for refusing to give evidence Iβ that the person so refusing v privileged at law. I muet hold that Mr Gillon ia not privileged. Mr ia the first time in my limited experience that a newspaper editor: has been subpoenasd as Mr Gillon has been.' Mr Gillon—lt is out of no disrespect to the Court, nor from any wish to defeat the ends of justice, that I decline to answer any questions as to information givtn to mc confidentially as a journalist, but as a matter of principle in regard to my profession and personal honor. As regards' myself, I know nothing of the case except what has been told mc aa a journalist. I am one of the oldest journalists in the colony, and I have never known a newspaperman put in the witness box under each circumstances;' I decline to be forced: into the position, of: a private detective, spy; or informer, and I have consulted most of the of my profession in the colony, who all concur in the -view I take. His Worship—Newspaper men assume' to themselves apoeition which is rather a peculiar one. You are not protected in regard to any admissions made to you by the accused; do yon object to be sworn ? Mr Gillon'—No; as I wish to state on oath, that I personally know nothing about this affair. The witness was then sworn, when he said that he had had no ccnver* ation with the accused before the tarring, bat be declined to say whether he had any oonversation with him or with anyone else in reference to it after the affair took place. Mr Travere—You decline to say as a matter of principle whether you have had a conversation with the accused since the tarring took place ? Mr Gillon—Yes; I consider that my own personal honor and that of my profession is involved. I know of no «rimii«-< outrage being committed—putting a newspaper jnan in a witness box to divulge information obtained by him in bisprofesnonal capacity;MrTravers—Tousay yon never heard of a similar instance. What about* libel action P t . l&.epon-Olooneein a caee of libel inwluchhifOTO paper i, concerned in'