ALLEGED CRIMINAL LIBEL.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7176, 11 October 1888, Page 5

ALLEGED CRIMINAL LIBEL.

At the Provincial Council Chambers, yes* terday morning, before C. Whitefoord, Esq., 8.M., F. J. Kimbell, Esq., J.P., and F. Guinness, Esq., J.P., Thomas Brown Bain appeared to answer to two informations charging him with having written and published a libel on John Ollivier. R.M., and John Holmes, a practising barrister and solicitor of Christchurch. Mr Holmes appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Joynt for the accused. The plaint of Mr Ollivier set out that the defendant was suspected of having written and published in Christenurch a libel on the character of the plaintiff, a Resident Magistrate and Justice of the Peace, and in connection with the decision given by the plaintiff as such Magistrate and Justice of the Peace in a certain prosecution against one Elizabeth Ellen Hadfield, an innkeeper, for encouraging and Inciting one John Kobert Pawsey, sen., to drink on her licensed premises, the City Hotel. The following was the libel complained of, and which had been circulated as a printed flysheet:— HIC, HiEC, HOC. While Gentle " Shepheid " guards his flock In "City"of the Plains, And make them shout and pay for hoot Of lost" ilay Queen's " remains. Poor Pawsey, one of Joseph's "Jainbe," Is " sk nu'd " alive, Oh dear! Fed up on steaks, oysters, and jams, Till be feels rather queer. The day of reckoning comes too coon, Poor P. has partea in live days One seventy-five, the silly coonJoe grins, and his harmonium plays, [as follows! The Lord's my " shepherd,' 111 not want, He makes mc lambs to " skin," To " City " pub he leadeth them To feed with hock and gin. Twas " Honest John " old Olloware That sat upon the Bench. He said Joe had the beer of it, And what he charged was fair. "Hullo! old man," cried out the crowd, J "Are you too on the squarol 1 Why, Omes and you were pals last night, Asa that seems rather queer." "Ne'ermind," says John, "Ihold the power And you can't tell mc why, The papers say the grapes are bout, V Joe'e hocked it, so have I." Ye gods, where's old Diogenes, With his lantern all alight J He needn't look in vain for Beaks, Whore honest and upright. The people know that " honest John" Cannot be bought or si>ld. Haste then friends, subscribe for him, Another pot of gold 1 (Case dismissed). Meaning by such libel that the plaintiff a Magistrate l and Justice of the Peace had acted corruptly and dishonestly in adjudicating and deciding upon the said case ! against Mrs Hadfleld, and that he had been corruptly influenced in his decision by John Holmes, who acted as counsel in the case for Mrs Hadfleld, " to the great scandal an J reproach of the administration of justice in this said colony, and in contempt of our Lady the Queen and her laws, and to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, being an indictable offence." i In the information laid by Mr Holmes the libel was said tp lie in the lines marked above by a bracket, which meant, as the information went on, "that this informant and the said magistrate, John /Ollivier, Esq., the night previous to the said John Ollivier adjudicating in the said case .... had been in company together as boon companions, and that the said John Ollivier, Esq., of and being such companion of this informant, was influenced by this informant to corruptly ad' minister justice, and to dismiss the proseI cution against the said Elizabeth Ellen Hadfield, he, the said Thomas BroWn Bain, well knowing the said defamatory ! libel to be false, to the great damage, scandal, and disgrace of this informant, and to the evil example of all Others in the like case offending." Mr Holmes, opening the case, said the cause of action arose from the fact that a prosecution was instituted by the police, as detailed in the informations. It was unfortunately true that in all communities there are unscrupulous gentlemen, who are without means and without character , and who on occasions of public excitement such as elections misuse their talents to blacken the character of men whose shoes I they are not fit to blacken. That anyone I should attempt to blacken the character of one so respected as Mr John Ollivier never entered his head. He had a] ways regarded the defendant as a- respectable man, and could not think he would have been guilty of such scurrility. The libel was divided into two parts, one of which was written by the defendant in the presence of Mr Caygill. Finding that the defendant was the author of the libel proceedings -were instituted. People had said, "Oh ! why should you take any notice of Mr Bain ? no one does so." Well, he would point out to the Bench that there was a broad imputation that Mr O livler and himself had spent the Wednesday evening together and had arranged matters so as to screen Mr J. O. Sheppard. for the fee simple of whose body and soul neither of them would give a farthing. Their Worships would see that there was an imputation that the fountain of justice had been corrupted and no worse offence could be alleged than this, as if this were allowed to go on there would be no respect for law and order. The libel had been circulated not only by those in what might be called the " jokist " walk of life, bat also persons holding good positions here. Now, if anyone sent such a libel to the 'Minister of Justice, the Minister would at once ask if any steps had been taken by Mr Ollivier to vindicate his character, If this had not been done, then the Minister would at once say that Mr OJJivier .was not fit to hold his position as a Resident Magistrate. It was, therefore, necessary that the character of a gentleman who had held the position of Resident Magistrate for ten years, and had decided some of the moat important police cases, should be vindicated. Them had only been one appeal against his decisions, and that had nob been upheld. As regarded himself he felt it to be his duty to take such steps as would vindicate his character, as, unless he did so, should he come forward for any public position, this would be thrown in his teeth, and he would be told that any man who would corrupt the fountain of justice was not fit to represent Hi» people in any capacity. They did not wish to press hardly on Mr Bain. If he showed by his conduct there that day that he regretted what had been done they would not press for his punishment. But, on the contrary, if he enhanced* the sting of what, had been done by his conduct, then they would then preos for his committal for criminal libeL He would now call evidence. Joseph Ivess deposed rhat he was son of Joseph Ivess, who had a printing office in Lich field street. Witness worked there. On the 28th September defendant brought some manuscript. That produced (the alleged libel) was it. Mr Caygill brought this second manuscript produced (the second part of the libel) and said it was for Mr Bain. The two sheets of manuscript were then printed. The two pieces of MSS. were printed on one sheet. This is the sheet produced. The lower part of the printed sheet was brought by J3ain. It commences at the words " 'Twas honest John " to the end of the verses. Witness printed them and showed proofs of them to the accused. He made some corrections and erasures. Both proofs were shown to Mr Bain. When they were corrected Mr Caygill told witness to print three dozen, and then Mr Bain told witness to print another dozen. Mr Bain paid him for the printing, half a crown. Witness gave the four dozen to Mr Bain. Witness had not spoken to accused since. Witness's father was absent from town. Had he been there the printing would not have been done. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Witness was aware that a reward of £5 was offered for the discovery of where the printing was done. Witness became aware of this by seeing an advertisement in the paper. The signature to the advertisement was thatof Messrs Holmes and Loughrey. After seeing that advertisement witness went the same night and gave the information. Witness had not seen the £5 nor had he asked for it. He had given information to Mr Holmes. Re-examined by Mr Holmes — When witness'father came back and found that the printing bad been done in his office he took witness up to Mr Holmes' house and he then gave the information as in his evidence. By the Bench—The MSS was given back to Mr Caygill after the printing:. Witness got it back and gave it to Mr Hill, Messrs Holmes and Loughrey's clerk. Witness had no doubt about the MSS being that which witness printed. James Caygill deposed that he was a printer. Witness knew the accused, mad

saw him on Friday week, the 2Sth. Witness did not see him writing any verses. Hβ handed witness the first part of the manuscript now produced. He a3&ea witness's advice about printing »t, ana witness told him where he could gee » done. He then asked witness to,^ 6 /* for him, and witness then took it M 164 Lichfield street. Witness told accusett he could get it printed at Ivesa', &n» he instructed witness to take it. He <"<* so, and gave it to the last witness, vv tvness knew accused's handwriting. B the MSS produced were in his handwritinK he believed. Witness saw an imperfect copy of the two pieces of MbS> after it was printed. He afterwards saw a perfect copy after printing. He recognised the printed sheet now produced as a copy of the MSS. It was not given to him by anyone, but he saw it in the olncer After the printing witness got both tbo MSS from young Ivess. Mr Ivess, sen.., afterwards asked witness for them, and he - gave them back to Mr Ivesa. Witness had been a long time in Christchurch. The words " Old Olloware " in the stcond part of the verses referred to Mr John Ollivier of course. It meant the Police Magistrate, Mr John Ollivier. The words " Why, Omes and you were pals last night referred, witness should think, to Mr John Holmes. Witness had never seen anyone connected with the proaectition since it started. Witness did not think the words " a light" or " for," which were corrections in the last verse were in.Mr Bain's handwriting. Thomas J. Hill deposed that; he was managing clerk to Messrs Holmes and Loughrey. The MSS produced were m witness' custody. He received them from Mr Holmes, he thought. He now remembered that he received them from Mr Ivess, jun. Witness gave them to Mr' Holmes. He had no doubt that the MSb were those he received from Mr Ivess, jun. Witness had seen the printed slip produced. The words " Old Olloware referred, he should imagine, to Mr John Ollivier, the B.M. The word "Omea" referred to Mr John Holmes.;; The lines referring to Mr Holmes and Mr Olhvier being pals' the night before', meant that they were chumming up together that night, and that they were boon companions. The words " that seems rather queer" following the preceding two lines meant, in witness's opinion, that Mr. Holmes had "squared" Mr Ollivier. On reading the whole of the verse witness should think that it meant that Mr Ollivier had been squared with reference to Sheppard's case—that was, the police against Mr 9 Hadfield. Witness recollected that case being heard. It was on Wednesday and Thursday, sUith. and 27th September. Mr Ollivier was the majfis- . trate adjudicating on the case. The counsel for tho defence was Mr Holmes. The case lasted two days. ' - i Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Witness, hheld the opinion that "old Olloware meant MrOliivier. He founded it on tho similarity of the sound in spelling. There was an "1" in Olloware as in Ollivier. Besides this, the next line said " He sat. upon the Bench," and Mr Ollivier was the only Magistrate sitting on the Bench. Again, Mr Ollivier was known as "Honest John." He had heard him referred to as Honest John. "Omes" witness thought referred to Mr John Holmes from the similarity of the sound. Witness had no idea that he was to be called as a witness until he came into Court. He had not discussed the question of the libel with anyone as to the construction of certain words in it The libel had certainly been discussed in his presence: besides, he had the papers in the case. Neither Mr Holmes or Mr Loughrey had spoken to him as to the construction of the words. Taken in conjunction with the following two lines, the words as to Mr Holmes and Mr Ollivier being pals together, conveyed the impression that Mr Holmes had " equared " Mr Ollivier. - Re-exaniined—When witness used the wprds "equared Mr Ollivier" he meant bribed him. Frederick Wyatt Francis deposed that he was Major in the N.Z. volunteers. Witness had seen .the printed slip to the alleged libel before. Xα hia opinion the; words "Old Olloware" referred to Mr John, Ollivier, the R.M., at least witness took It to do so. The word " Omes " he took to , refer to Mr John Holmes. The meaning of the words "Why Omes and you were pals last night, and that seems rather queer,". seemed to witness to be that Mr Ollivier and Mr Holmes had been together the night before, and formed an opinion as to the result of the case. Whea witness i first read the verses he took the construei tion to be that Messrs Oliivler and Holmes had met together and had some conversation on the subject of the case: that they had discussed the matter; and that an opinion as to the result of the case had been arrived at beforehand. Witness had not looked at the verses since until this morning, when he looked at them again. Knowing-the people as well--as he did, he dismissea any idea of the two gentlemen referred to being guilty of atiy misconduct. He had told them what hid. opinion would be if he did not know tho. people as well as he did. Cross-examined by Mr Joynfc—Witness, had been in Canterbury for thirty years. Witness was a commercial traveller for the firm of S. Manning and Co. Mr Joynt bete put the construction of the verses as he contended the witness had given it at first, but which had subsequently been altered somewhat. The witness stated what he had said, which differed somewhat from the words taken down by Mr Joynt. . Frank Egan deposed that ho saw tho printed slip [the alleged libel] in Messrs Warre, Hockley and Co.'s office. Hβ saw it also in the street. It was shown to him, by Mr T. Acland. Witness read it over, and the words " Old Olloware " he took to refer to Mr John OlUvier, R.M. The word " Otaesi' r he took it. referred to Air John Holmes. Taking the four lines commencing "Hullo" and ending with "queer, witness should say that they wero rather defamatory. The meaning it conveyed to him was that Mr Holmes had unduly influenced the decision of Mr Ollivier in the case referred to—Begina v Sheppard, a. charge of inciting one Pawsey to drink brought against Mrs Hadfleld. Witness thought, from reading the verses, that Mr Holmes bad unduly influenced MrOliivier pending the hearing of the case. Tho words commencing v. From their mind" to the end seemed to witness to convey the idea to hib mind that Joe had squared, it. The words " You needn't look in vain* for beaks, who are honest and upright* seemed to him to mean that Mr Ollivier might be relied upon as being honest and upright. Witness was subpoenaed in the case Police v Mrs Hadfield. On the first day of the case—Wednesday—when tho Court adjourned a few minutes to four o'clock, witness joined Mr Holmes in Cathedral square. They went across the square towards Morten's buildings. When, nearly opposite the Post Office Mi Ollivier, joined them. Witness and Mr HolmeS were going to the Hereford Hotel. Mr Holmes' invitation to go to the hotel was before Mr Ollivier joined them. They all three went into the hotel. They wenti into the lower bar, where there were a number of persons. They were in the hotel for two or three minutes. When they came out they separated. Mr Holmes went oat first, ana witness and Mr Ollivier walked through the town. From the time Mr Oilivier joined them until Mr" Holmes left there was not a single word on allusion by anyone to the case of the Police v Hadfield, which , had beea, heard IftatdaybyMrOllivair. ■ .. . .' Kobert Hill deposed that he was manager for Mr Quill, Empire Hotel. The document now produced—the alleged printed libel—witness had seen before. The words " old Olloware" referred, sofa* as be took it. to Mr John Ollivier, tho Resident Magistrate. The word " Ornes" witness took to refer to Mr John HoitneeM The lines from the words "Hullo" to "queer" conveyed the impression to witneea's mind that there had been collusion between Mr Holmes and Mr OUlvier. Witness meant collusion about the case — the City Hotel case. Witness knew that Mr OlUvier was the presiding Magistrate at the hearing of that case, and that Mr John Holmes was counsel for the defendant. James Cassldy deposed that he was anarticled clerk to Mr T. W. Stringer. Hβ had seen a copy of the verses produced, He had one given to him on Friday, September 28th. The day after judgment was given In the proceedings against the manager of the City Hotel witness saw* copy of the verses posted up in the bar of the Clarendon HoteL Reading the verses from "Hullo" down to "queer" they conveyed the idea, to his mind, that the man who wrote the verses meant that there had been collusion between the counsel and the Magistrate in the case of Police v Hadneld. Witness took the -words "old Olloware" to bo a. punning allusion to Mr John Ollivier, the Magistrate in the case Police v Hadtteld, and the word " Omes" as meaning « Holmes, the counsel for the defentlanfc. He thought the word "Pawsey w in «»« verses referred to the prosecutor in.the case. He took it as a squib on the whole case of Police v Hadfleld. . . Andrew Loughrey deposed a solicitor. He remembered the case oi Police v Hadfleld, In^ which W Ollivier

* the ease, Mr Holmes came to the office about 4.30 p.m. MrTooveyand Mr Cartwere fcb«re,«»d remainedl for about l*lf nn-nour., Witness went home with Mr TTolmes and stayed there tall pTm. Neither of them saw Mr OTlvfcrfrom the time of leaving the office till reaching Holmes' house. John Ollivier deposed that he was a Resident Magistrate and Justice of the Peace. He had been acting as Resident Magistrate for twelve years. He recollected the case of Police v Mrs Hadfield coming before him on the 26th and 27th Sept. - Witness had never spoken to Mr Holmes either directly or indirectly as to the case except in Court, nor had Mr Holmes to Mm. He did not think for one moment that Mr Holmes would be cuilty of offering witness such an- insult. It was not within bis knowledge that he spent the evening of Wednesday, the 26th, with .Mr Holmes. The words "Old Olloware" in the document before him referred, he believed, to witness. It was his Maori name, and he had frequently been referred to by it. The word "Omes" he should judge by the reading referred to Mr , John Holmes. The words from " Hullo " to **queer" conveyed, to his mind, the impression that he was guilty of a malversation ofi mtice. After 4p.m. on Wednesday evening, September 26th, witness did not see Mr Holmes until he appeared before him on the following morning. Witness was never present with Mr Holmes and Mrs Hadfield, or with a person named Sheppard and Mr Holmes. Witness had seen the allusion in the verses, "You have hocked it, so have L" He had never bad hock from Mrs Had* field, or Mr Sheppard—certainly not within the las month or two. The verses to his mind contained a mischievous Blander and libel, and if there was one particle of truth in it the Minister of Justice ought and would remove his Excellency's warrant as an R.M. at once ' from him. It also contained a false and malicious libel. on Mr Holmes. Circumstances had occurred between the accused and himself, which proved maliciousness. It was the abstraction of a portrait from his office. Mr Joynt objected to this line of examination, as his client bad no chance of meeting it. Mr Whitefoord—You can avoid MrOUivier. Witness—Well, witness had declined to know Mr ?3airu Mr Ho'/mes wished to ask Mr Ollrvier whether he had expressed his opinftm of Hγ Baia to him. Mr J-oynt objected to this being done, and Mr Holmes did not press it. Examination continued—%My declining to know Mr Bain occurred some time before the case was heard. John Holmes deposed thab he wae a harrister-at-law, and saw the printed, document containing the alleged libel on Saturday, September 29th. The words "old Olloware," in his opinion, meant Mr ■ John Ollivier, R.M., Rnd the word "Omes" referred to hiuiself. The lines from "Hullo" to "quiier" conveyed td him that Mr Ollivier and himself spent Wednesday night together as boon companions, and that witness had corruptly influenced him to dismiss the case referred to in the printed document. The case referred to was the Police v Mrs Hadfield, In which Mr Ollivier presided as the sole Magistrate, and witness alone acted as counsel for the defendant. The informant in that case was by one T. F. Cullen against Mrs Hadfield for inciting and causing one J. R. Fawsej to drink in her licensed premises, known as the City- HoteL The word "Pawsey "in the printed verses referred to the Pawsey mentioned in the information. The word " Joseph " referred to one Joseph Oram Sheppard, the agent of Mrs Hadfield, who was alleged to have incited Pawsey to drink. The words " City pub " referred to the City Hotel mentioned in the information. The lines from " The papers say" to "So have I "conveyed to witness , mind that Mr Ollivier was bribed in connection with that case to dismiss it, and bribed by drink. The lines commencing " Ye gods " down to the word "Gold" conveyed to witness that Mr John Ollivier was not an honest or upright Magistrate. It also conveyed the idea to witness that he was an unpaid ■ Magistrate, and not in good circumstances, and that his friends should subscribe for him a sum of money to keep him honest and upright. On Wednesday, September 26th, about 4.15 p.m., Mr Egan overtook witness in Cathedral square, [the witness then corroborated MrEgan's evidence on tiiis po"*nt j. On getting , close to Morten's buildings witness invited Mr Egan to join him, as he was going to the Hereford boteL Af tei this they were overtaken by Mr OQivier, who joined them, and they all went into the Hereford Hotel together. -This was about 4.20 p.m. They were served by a young girl, with whom Mr Ollivier, being the best lookingof the three, had some conversation. Witness only remained a minute or two, went ont oftfae front door, and straight down Hereford street to his office. Messrs Toovey and Cartwright, with Mr Loughrey, came into the office to consult witness about a case, and they remained there till after 6 p.m. Mr Loughrey then went with witness to his house and remained there until his dinner hour—aboat 6.45 p.m. Witness never saw Mr Ollivier after leaving*the Hereford Hotel at 4.20 p.m. until he saw him on the Bench the next morning, Thursday. September 27th. He had never been in MrOllivier's chouse, and did not recollect that Mr Ollivier had ever been in his. Witness neither directly nor indirectly, by writing, conversation, or message, ever mentioned to Mr Ollivier anything respecting the ease of Police v Hadfield, on which he was | adjudicating, anywhere or at any time, j except in the Court, while witness was ] conducting the defence. Nor did he know or ever heard suggested, that any one else did, nntil that blackguard publication came oat. Mr Ollivier had never spoken to witness at any time or in any place as to the case, or even hinted at the name of the case of Police v Hadfield, except as a Magistrate in Court. So far as he was personally concerned, he did not care what Mr bain or any one else said about him, as he was too well known; but he had taken the trouble and expense on account of the libel on Mr Ollivier. W. G. Walker, clerk in the Resident Magistrate's Court, produced the information hi the case of Police v Hadfield, and also a record from the books of the Court that the case was dismissed. Mr John Ollivier, R.M., presided. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Joynt called no evidence. It was, of course, for the Conrt to say that the skit ' bore the interpretations put on it. Mr Whitefoord—What we have to do is to see if a prima facie case is made oat. Mr Joynfc—Precisely so; bat it would depend on the interpretation pot on the meaning of the skit. ' The accused, who was then committed . tor trial at the next sittings of the Supreme . Court, stated that be had nothing to say. Mr Joynt asked that the bail fixed should be Mr Bain's own recognisances. Mr Whitefoord said the Bench could not do this. Mr Joynt said that this being a private prosecution, be would ask for light baiL Mr Holmes said that it was a case of s serious nature, affecting the administration ofjustice. Mr Whitefoord said the bail would be Mr Bain in £109 and two sureties in £50 each. Mr Holmes said there was another case, and as Mr Bain did not see his way to - meet them, they would have .to go on with it. He would now ask that the ease be adjourned for a week. The second case then stood over for a week.