THE WHITAKER-HUTCHISON CASE.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7779, 5 February 1891, Page 6

THE WHITAKER-HUTCHISON CASE.

APPEAL BY THE PLAINTIFF.,

(PBBSS ASSOCIATION TEIiSGRAM.) WELLINGTON, February 4.

In banco this afternoon before the Chief Justice argument was taken on the appeal by the plaintiff in the Whitaker-Hutchison case. Sir F. Whitaker appealed against the decision of the Chief Justice in refusing to strike out from the Statement ot Defence certain references which were made to the private account* of Sir Harry Atkinson and Mr Mitchelson.

Mr H. D. Bell, who appeared for the plaiutiff, opened the case by stating that the inotiou before the Courc was one to review a refusal of his Honor to strike out so much of the amendmeut defence as referred to the allegation relating to the private accounts of Ministers other than Hon. Sir Fredk. Whitaker. He (Mr Bell) understood that the mutter had been fully argued in Chambers before hi- Honor and practically he could do no more than treat this matter as ou its way to the Court of Appeal. The learned gentleman then referred to the fact that an application made by the defendant for the inspection of the books of the Bank of New Zealand had been adjourned until Friday next, to be taken in Chambers, and ottered the suggestion that it. suould be adjourned iuio tne Banco Court, so that it siiould be taken before the Court of Appeal along with the other part of the ca*e. This, of course, was supposing hU (Mr Bells) preseut argument failed to convince his Honor. Mr Hutchison, who is conducting his own defence, said he preferred that the matter should be allowed to stand over until Friday, and Mr Bell did not press the point. Continuing his argument, Mr Bell said that the allegation was thuc Mr Hutchison had committed libel by stating that Sir b\ Whitaker was heavily indeoted to Llie Bank of New Zealand, and, as Aitoruey-Geueral, had corruptly used hia influence to supply the Bank's needs out of tne puolic lauds, but he (Mr Bell) contended that no words were used in the liuel io convey the impression that any other member of the late Govern* meut than the plaintiff, Sir F. YVhkaker, was indebted to the Bank, in wishing to nave the private accounts of two other members at the Ministry examined, the defence were really making a charge vvbich was not contained in the alleged libel, and counsel argued that technically these two paeons were atraugers to the action, and iii support of hia contention quoteu ** J. ay lor on Kvldeuce," eighUi cditiou, page 305. In conclusion Mr Bell submitted upon principle th it his Honor's decision in Chambers was incorrect, and should be reversed by the Court, for the reason that matter relating to fair Harry Atkiuaou and Mr Mitctiulsou watt a matter relating to strangers, aud therefore irrelevant to the main action.

Mr HutcuUou coateaded that the meaning wnich the jury would put on the libel would certaiulyallow reference to be made Iα evidence iv enief to Sir 11. Atfciusou and Mr Mitcnelson's relations with tlie Batik of New Zealand. He quoted Che ca.no of O'Bvlan v the Marquis of Salisbury (which was not couiaiued iv the reguiur reports, uut was fully, aud uo Uuubt correctly, reported iv ttte London Times), winch was aii accion for libel contained iv a speech upon a speech. This case, he thuugbt, was mote in toucu with the present actiou ttiau any of the authorities submitted by his learned frieud. He (Mr Hutchison) submitted thac the allegation chat, two other Ministers having colluaively acted under circumstances similar to chose under which tne AttorneyGeneral had acted in connection with the administration of public fund* was evidence wiiich would be relevant upou the trial. He admitted that the Ministers iv question were not parties to the autiou, but it was open for tue Colouial Treasurer to have taken actiou iv conjunction witli the Attorney-General. Mr Bell— i'he action of the Treasurer is coming later on. Mr Hutchisou, continuing, pointed out that in his speech containing the alleged libel he had not counned bis remarks to one individual, aud had gone as far as to say, "I will asJfc the Government to meet this charge." In conclusion he contended that the plea set was relevant, aud that the order made by his Honor in Chambers should be discharged. His Honor reserved his decision.