ALLEGED CRIMINAL LIBEL.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11529, 11 March 1903, Page 3

ALLEGED CRIMINAL LIBEL.

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. \t the Courc yesterday, beioi'e Mrll'lK-tlwit!. S.M., Wilfred Badger -.-.a- charged by H-my Slater with having wit ten and published a di-i.-matory libel, j contained in certain It tiers .which had been | sent to various pet sons concerning an action In the Supreme Court some years ago. Mr Russell -appeared for Mr Slater, and Mr Baa_vr was undefended. The iollo-.flng are extiacls from tlie letters in hi.-h th- libel is alleged to lie: — "On July 22nd. lojS. there was signed and afterwa;-.N hied with tlie Supreme i'.a.n-t at ChrisUhup ii. as ihe start of an ,ct"on Thomas v Bulger, a false warrant !,i sue. which warrant pmported to o-e r-i-wd by Mr Godiivy J. Tnoir.as. but it was not'so signed, this I have resented ever .-ince as "a for.eiy »r quasi-forgery. and this 'faked - warrant was successful, is it w.ts doubtless intended to be, in drawing from mv counsel a statement of defence which ought never to have been necessary. A big nionev 10. * to me, has followed as i consequence of such false warrant. ' \n enclosure, a. letter to Mr Justice Denuiston and Mr T. W. Stringer, contains the following sentence:—" I say that Mi Henry Slater, the person primarily liable for the forged or quasi-forged warrant In a second enclosure, alleged to be written by the defendant, occurred these words;"—"A warrant, to sue not signed by Godfrey J. Thomas, as it should have been, but on the face of it purporting to be so, and containing not his signature at ail. but a colouiable imitation of his signatuie." Mr Ru«-ell said -this was a charge ot criminal libel, laid under section 7 of the Criminal Code Act Amendment Act, 1901, land ho would ask his Woiship to decide whether tlie libel came under ths section. It made the person who published the libel liable to one year's imprisonment. Mr Russell then referred at some length to the English law of libel. The letter in which the" libel was contained was written to Mrs Brett, and it 'bore Badger's signature. He. had also committed other libels by sending eopie* of the letter to oither people. Mr Russell then gave a brief outline of tho oase, to which Badger referred in those letters. Catherine Brett, wife of J. 11. Brett, said that some time ago she accepted £500 from Mr Brett's brother, in South Africa. She was to give a mortgage over property. The mortgage was in the name of Thomas and two "others as trustees. She received a letter, dated January 10th, 1903, by post, and it was signed "Wilfred Badger" in his own handwriting. The letter referred to business, and the name of Mr Henry Slater wa„ meninontd in the letter. Mr Thomas was her brother. Mr Slater was conducting business for her brothers. A memorandum in the corner of the letter read: — "I have sent this letter to Mr Thomas, Mr D. R. Brett, and Mr and Mrs Mathias." She knew the people referred to. When she read the letter she showed it- to her brother, and they took it to Mr Slater. Henry 'Slater, "solicitor, who was acting for Mr" Thomas in the matter of a mortgage in 1898, said he. was instructed to arrange with Badger to act with Thoma3 as trustee. He was also instructed to search a certain mortgage which he imagined to be in the names of Thomas and Badger. Before he left for England, Thomas gave instructions with regard to tha mortgage to secure an annuity for John Brett, and ultimately the property was to revert to James Brett. He then had various interviews with regard to Mr Godfrey Thomas being reinstated as a trustee, with the result that this was effected. Witness made a copy of the warrant to sue, and the copy was filed by the clerk during witness's absence in Sydney. The original warrant was filed* some time in December, before the action came on. There were no other warrants put into Court except the original and the copy. This was all the evidence. Tlie accused reserved his defence, and was committed for trial at the next criminal sittings of the Supreme Court. Bail was a*?o"Wed in two sureties of £100 each.