ALLEGED LIBEL

Press, Volume L, Issue 15016, 10 July 1914, Page 10

ALLEGED LIBEL

CLAIM FOR £1000 DAMAGES, FAIRBAIRN v. "OTAGO DAILY TIMES."

- Tn . tin- Supremo Court yc-.iteriiaj Tnuriiing. before his Honour Mr Justice Sim and ;> sneeial jury of twelve, the hf.uin;: <>f the case oi alleged libel between A. Fairbairn. of Christchurch, .v: ] tie Otago Daily Times Company. •i! Duncdiri, was continued. The sum ■ A £)''■'■"> i- claimed on four causes of acno-i fat JL"2OO each; in respect of a Jendirij.' article and three letters. Sir .John Findlay. with him Mr Wright, appoan-d for plaintiff, and Mr W. ('. ■ Mc.Greiii.r. with him Mr C. •Stringer, lor >!)<• dcleiidanl company. Andrew F.'iirriairn .'mam took his [ifaco m 'ho wiino-w-box. In further \a-.r:.;M;:i!on by Mr McGregor, wi:n.'s.- .-aid that he firs', came to Can-i>-rh;i:\ it: i±'.>.~t. Fie bad known Air Godfrey for some years. "Hoi- a man of high c-iandmg in the commntiitv,. i_ he not r :: asked Mr Mc-(■'re-or. "1 personally do not think ko,'' replied witness. lie re mc inhered the lett-rs Mr Godfrey had written to the •Times" and Prr.ss." lie bad instructed his "V-filb'itor to take action against tho I-apers, but he bad not done- so as yet. Why? For tho reason given the day !>cior<\ Mr McGregor asked witness why ho bad not taken action against tho Christchurch papers when the letters appeared on September 17th, and the "Otago Daily Times" leader appeared :i mouth later. Witness said that he was free to tako -action only when tho report was presented to "the House. "I havo been advised to wait in re-.'ation.-to Mr Godfrey's letters," said witness, "although it was my desire to •take joint, action. If I had no recourse against Mr Godfrey I would havo taken action against the papers." "Do you know that the leader of tho 'Otago Daily Times' was based upon Mr GodfreyV letter? Why did you not proceed against Mr Godfrey or the Christchurch papers instead of fixing upon a paper m another district?" "I have already answered that." DELIBERATE LIE ALLEGED. ' "Yon suggest that Mr Godfrey has told a deliberate Ho for the purpose of blackening your character?" 'That is so." Mr Fairbairn said further that it had boon, proved up to the hilt that the Merchants' Association- . had secured control of sugar, matches,' tobacco, and' various other commodities,, and in every instance they had raised tho prices to the public or prevented prices] being lowered to the extent of tho remission of duties. Mr McGregor: Yon knew that before you were'on the Commission? Mr Fairbairn: I knew that, certainly. "And do yon think yon wero a proper person to sit on the Commission after you had made up your:; mind? Don't yon think it was indecent?" "K'o," said Mr Fairbairn; "1. don't think - so. It :was not , indecent or- dis- ; lionoofrablo'.at. all." • :' .... 'Mr McGregor proceeded to"' read ' Mr■ Godfreys-letter at length', and put.it, to witness whether the sta'tements-wcro true, and asked why ho had not taken action, y . . Sir John Findlay took exception to this statement, but as tho letter claimed tio bo the basis for the article in the'"Otago Daily Times" his Honour allowed the cross-examination to proceed. •.../. Mr Fairbairn.. in reference td the newspaper renorta of the Christchurch sitting and ,Mr Jamieaou's evidence, said that ho saw a grave discrepancy between them and the official report, lmt at tho time he had not seen tho Christchurch papers as tho Commission left immediately for Auckland. REASONS FOR REFUSAL. . Asked about the .reasons'for the'ris fnsal of .the merchants in Dunedin to appear' before the Commission, w-tness Tcad from tho evidence in Dunedin tho account of Mr McGregor _ appearanco .before it. "Don't you know that they refused to appear because you wore a member of tho Commission?'.' asked Mr McGregor. "i am not behind-the brains of the ■Merchants' Association^"" aaid witness. "I had my own* suspicion that they wore afraid to appcarJiefore us." "Before a biased Commission," said Mr McGregor. . ,-_ "Beforo an open Commission," retorted witness. "But you have' admitted that you were biased," insisted counsel. Witness added that the reason why tho merchants <were. not--forced to give «!videncb was because of & flaw in the Royal Commissions Act. ' Argument ensued between counsel and witness v i)S to'the value of tho Commission and the calibre of tho memibers of it.' Mr McGregor suggested that the .whole,commission was a farce and a gross waste of public money. "I don't agree with that," said .Mr ITairbairn\

"Is there any, other result-accruing from it than' that of putting the MerxAants* Association«in the' pillory' of public opinion"?" .asked counsel. 'Witness mentioned ; the ' Pure Food {Act and the Pure Drugs', Act. QUESTIONtOF RELEVANCY. In the77cottrse of argument;''■•■ witness eaid that ✓the - reason wby : Mr Merrett, of Wellington, was not. allowed to give feasons for the non-appearance of the merchants was that he was not sworn. - "Was the true reason not that jthey, objected to you' and were going to say SO?"' ■.'•' :: '*-' -V ", " . ■': ,- : " '

"I can't answer innuendoes like that,'' replied witness. - His Honour interrupted here to say that the position seemed to bo that when:Mr McGregor had had the chance to give reasons ho had not taken it, and that later when the merchants iwantod to give reasons they were de3iied the chance.

A little later his Honour asked Mr McGregor "to try to confine himself ; to. something relevant to the present case." ......' '■■' '.. .- .'...;'

.Mr McGregor said ho desired to show %hat Mr Fairbairn did.wrong.in going on tho Commission. ■

His Honour: That may be, but that ■ 'does not justify you in saying that ho wont there to try and grind his own ' axe; '

Turning; to the Merchants' Association, witness, said that if-his firm had tsharged tthe-prices, used by the Merchants' Association he would have netted £200,000 pront.

\ RE-EXAMINED. \ 80-examined by Sir John Findlay, witness denied that, as imputed, he %a_ ever coacßed any witnesses appear- , ing. before tie Commission. 1 To establish the value of the report ' presented by the Cost of Living Commission, Sir John Findlay put it to witness that in the opinion of the p"North American Economic Review" the. report was "far superior to anything that has appeared on the subject thus far in the United States.' This review was one of the most authoritative in the world. .' It was further stated that in Anck3and one man, on being sworn, refused to give evidence because witness was a member. He then offered to retire, /hut the witness would not accept this loffer. ■ |

1. THE "SUGAR TRUST" CASE. "Yon know tho case vof> the > Sugar (Trust "trial in Wellington?" said Sir •'John. "Did any of the members of tbe 'Merchante* Association go into the wit-ness-box there-to-answer the .charges'?" one," responded-witness. , "Did you go into the-box and repeat*he charges yon made P."—"Yes.'i

"And the merchants were" convict and fined?" —"Yes." "And the Court of Appeal upheld i decision?" —"Yes." His business lmd been damaged, sa witness, by a falling off in returns, ai acrimonious correspondence had aria with England, America, Europe, ai Australia. Havo you had any difficulty sin then in obtaining supplies? "From that time," said witnes "an attempt has been made io bovco ns everywhere, and to stop our'su plies in rice and other commoditie In every instance it has been becau. wo don't charge enough—because v don't charge what the merchants wai us to." This closed the case for the plainlii THE DEFENCE. ADDRESS BY COUNSEL. Mr McGregor, in opening for the d< fence, said that a newspaper had right to critk-i.se in tho interests of th public. The plaintiff was a publ: man, and tiio defendant company, a a newspaper, did from time to "tim comment freely on the Commission an the action of ihe plaintiff in sitting o that Commission. It was considere that by sitting on that Commission M Fairbairn acted wrongly, and even di; honourably. He bad, in the box, cor fessed that be had made up bis mm* that the Merchants' Association wa guilty of wrongful arts, and yet h wont there, knowing that they wero hi chief rivals, and proceeded to sit ii judgment upon them. QUESTION'S AT ISSUE. j The letters, pursued counsel, appear ed while the Commission was sitting and the article after tho report lva: made. It had' to be determine* whether these letters were libellous anc malicious or only fair comment. TJu question was whether these comment: had overstepped tho line. In the -.-as« of the leading article, the crux of tht question was that a comparison of the official report showed a discrepancy with the newspaper report of the sitting held in Christchurch on June 18th. 1912. On tho basis of this plaintiff claimed that the paper alleged that tec Commission had improperly and dishonestly tampered with the ovidenco by suppressing it. It. was curious that Mr Fairbairn was not mentioned in the article, and yet ho put the cap on his head, and came and asked for damages in rospect of the article. For the defendant, it was represented that the article was published without malice, and in good faith, and upon a privileged occasion.

RECITAL OF FACTS. The facts wero that in Christchurch Mr Cuthbe'rt Bowyer and Mr Jamieson gave evidence. In tho newspaper report. Uowyer was represented as having referred,to Rcckitt's blue, but in tho offi rial report that reference was missing, and tho point was whether in fact he bad made that reference. Now, nc single witness had sworn that Bowyer lid not make that reference. Yet he would ..call residents of Christohnrch who',would swear that ho did refer to Reckitt's blue as an illustration.of his irgumont. This was a principal point, md it was almost inconceivable that llr Fairbairn could not have heard the itatcment. Both Christchurch : nowslapers, it would, be shown, had references to tho statement about Reckitt's due, and one-of.the reporters would be ailed to support his report. BECAME COMMON PROPERTY. Within a few weeks, continued Mr tfcGregor. of the report being pubished it became obvious to those who tudied it that this mistake had been r.ade. Mr Godfrey thereupon wrote at ongth in September and October, 18IJ, o "The Press" -and "Times" stating ho facts and making strong charges gainst Mr Fairbairn for not putting ,'itnesses right. .From that day .Mi 'airb'airn had not moved to'correct the latter or bring .Mr Godfrey to book, 'hese statements became common proerty all over tho Dominion, and the Otago Daily Times,", in their duty at üblic. journalists, read' the letters, kfter waiting for a timo to see if anj xplanation 4followed,-and seeing none he leading article was written in the rdinary course of business and pubished-. 'Thereupon followed--Mr" Fairairn's splicitor's .letter r NO APOLOGY SUGGESTED. This letter assumed that tho article ■as aimed at M r Fairbairn, and mad< o suggestion of z. withdrawal or apo jgy. The solicitors simply said thoj 'ere going to 6iie for. libel. ,Tho posiion was that in all cases of threatenot bel an apology should first bo dolanded. ~ , ■■•■ '"' Sir John Findlay: That refers tc lander —not libel. - His Honour: They were not bound tc 0 that. .Mr McGregor:, I .don't say it is the iw-r-I'eay ii -is'the practice: . Sir John Findlay :7Wbuld they hav< pologised? ■.„,.,-.'■■. Mi- McGregor:' l" have - said thoj ould if this'had been asked. WHY THE DELAY? His Honour: The writ was-not issuec ill April. Mr McGregor: I am coming to that [o Added that after the drst lettei qthingrwas heard for six- months hon the writ was issued without fur ler notice. In that interval all. the Dcuments'.in.tho newspaper; offices hac sen destroyed, and Mr Gordon, chairan of-tho Merchants' Association, hat :mo to England..: .Then, proceeding! ero taken, and that was why now icire ; Was so.much difficulty inascor lining, what were tho real "facts aboul owyer's and Jaraieson's evidence. Yel Lr Godfrey's letter haid been allowoe > pass unnoticed. By his neglect t< lawer that, Mr Fairbairn, had brpughi lis case about.' It would also be eooi tat be should never have''sat upon th< Dmmission at all. .Any right-thinkinj an would see that, and by doing s< t Fairbairn had brought tho whole ling upon himself. ffE CHARGES IN THE L7ETTERS Mr McGregor stated that it would- b< oved that, there had been suppres in of the evidence given by Jamiesoi id. Bowyor. The jury would havo U mo to tbe conclusion, after hearinf c evidence, that Bowyer had glvoi idence about blue, and that Jamie d had contradicted it. Mr Godfrey id drawn attention to, this, and th< ry would bo asked to believe that hi arges wore substantially true because they were,not. they would havo beei mplained of. Counsel went on to refer to tb< .tors 'published by the paper. ■ H( Id that the greater number of peoph >uld hold that tho Commission wai perfluous and a waste of money- H< liatainod ihat Mr Gordon's lettei ts true, and that Fairbairr did,gel chance to' "grind his axe." Tin ;ts we're truly stated, and'th© com ;rits "wore fsir . and bona-fide com fnts. The other letters .were also re swed, and their substantial accuracy Held. He maintained that the Hon ■ Mackenzie had Fairbairr ?auso. he was a friend of his, anc irbairn ,was* the man who was work- : up the Cost of Living Commission go and sit as a judge upon.:his rivah s reprehensible; Fairbairn • had do "attacks upon his trailing rivals : 1 the. comment,that the Commission i been, appointed to enable him tc ack his rivals .was fair. A REPORTER'S EVIDENCE, f'ohn Jamos Pollard, newspaper reler, engaged on the staff" of the yttolton Times" and "Star," said "t he had reported Trtho whole of- the •istchurch ; 6ittings of the Commission his papers. Referring to the eviico given by Bowyer on June 14th, 2,-he said* he remembered reference ag made to ;ReckittV blue. ATugh'his report of tho witness's stateit was condensed, it was correct as as it went, and accurately conveyed meaning. . . ." .. , Ir„ McGregor: You are quite Bore ryer made'that reference to Reckitt'a 3?W-~ _•■-»'=■ ' ' ' '•"" n'tness: Yes, qnito sure, .-c passage - about Mr Veitch. asking at "-"the three -halves" of -.the romisi\of duty-was ah-o> read from the or« . •• '

Ed In tne official report there was no reference to Reckitt's blue, said withe ness. The work, it was explained % was. done id by longhand reporting. Shorthand id gave the exact words,, but longhand rein porting was quite clear and moro likely id to give tbe public a sharp and condensed view of tbo evidence. Special :e care would be taken in tho case of figures. .. «. To Sir John Findlay witness said tt that Berry as a "Hansard" staS rep- porter would be capable. He admitted s. that ono reporter would got some state;e tnent that another reporter would •c miss. The inference in the case of it Berry's report would bo that cither the shorthand man had not heard the f. words or else that at that particular point tho shorthand had "broken down" and tbe whole passage had been left out. A .shorthand outline might be mado badly and afterwards bo unv. decipherable. '"The Press" report of a the reference to Reckitt's blue was ine correct on the race of it. but its exisc toner bore out his own report. ■s A LITTLE DIFFERENCE. S Sir John Findlay: You would appear to havo made sense of what the ro"J porter on "Tho Press" has failed to make sense? 1 Witni-ss: Tliat is so. The passage from "Ttic Press" was .7 read and the difference pointed out. £ "The Times"'said that Ileckitt's blue * had been sold at BJ<l and the duly reduced by 2d. but the prico fell to only 75-d.-" Mr Yeitch's joke was that the" retailers, the morehants. and tho . public each cot "halt" of the reduction. "The Press" report showed that - tho witness said 2)d of reduction in , the duty. > "May I put it to you." said Sir John, I "that when Mr Berry came to this I joke and also possibly to the confusion > between the 2d and tbe 2id, be decided •> to leave the whole thing out?" i "Ho might have done so,'' agreed i witness. > Turning to Jamieson's evidence on June 18th. 1012, witness said that tho ; report appearing in tho "Star" was a summary of his written statement. In the "Times'' of tho next mornim* that synopsis was reproduced, but Jamieson's full statement was also given. At tho end of this statement there appeared a supplementary statement which he (witness) had not handled "in copy," as it had not been handed to him. Sir John Fincflav: "If he had pven that evidence beforo the Commission or handed it to you, you would havo used it?" "Oh, yes, certainly." said witness. "You wero there all the time and you heard no evidence of that kind given by Mr Jamieson?" "That is «o." said witness. Hcnrv Oakley, of Taylor and Oakley, was called to further supoort the fact of Bowyer having referred to Reckitt's blue. Sir John Findlay. however, said he was prepared to accent the evidenco given by Mr Pollard as true, and admit that Bowyer had referred to Ileckitt's blue. "Very well," said Mr McGregor, "that will shorten my case." MR JAMIESON'S EVIDENCE. A. W. Jamieson, assistant-manager of • the New Zealand Farmers' Co-operativo Association, said that ho had four copies of his evidence to bo given before the Commission. He had not supplied copy to the newspapers beforo hand. After ho had finished bis statement ho was cross-ex-amined. Ho had loft out some passages in reading it. "Besides this statement, did you have any. other papers with you?" asked MiMcGregor. "Yes," said witness, "there wero also prepared four copies of a statement dealing specifically with tho evidence given by Bowyer and Westgartb. I also had books and price-lists covering a long period." . . [ 'When you wero being cress-examin-ed wero you asked about Bowyor's evidence?" asked counsel. "Yes," said witness. "I asked, in response to a question, "Do- youj-ofer to Bowyer?" and Mr Fairbairn replied. "No, I have another mattor in my mind.''

AN IMPORTANT POINT. In reply to a question witness feaid, "As I finished my evidence I picked up those reports that I had prepared and handed them over to Mr Collins." "That was what is called the supplementary statement?", queried counsel. "Yes,'' replied witness. "What did you.do with tho price list that you had? —"1 am under the impression that I handed tho price lists in with the report." , ■. "Did you give copies of the suppler mentary roport the same day to tno Press?" asked Mr McGregor. / "I sent round," said witness, "to tho Cost of Living Commission that afternoon to get a copy of it as I had handed the clerk all my copies. I. am not sure whether I got ono or two copies back. After I had finished business Lwent round to "The Press" office and^handed a copy to, 1 think, 3D- Kelly to. bo published." Witness said that ho received a copy of -his evidence back from Miss Rout to bo corrected, initialled and signed. Ho told the messenger that ho was very busy, but that ho would go through it and return it as.soon,as possible. He. went through the crossexamination' when ho had an opportunity, initialled each page, and signed the end. Ho also initialled each page of the statement, and signed it at .the end. "Did you look," asked counsel, "tc see that your supplementary statement was at the end?" "No," said witness, "I did not. I assumed it would bo thero." "TRICKS OF MEMORY." In cross-examination witness said tc Sir John .Findlay that ho would sweai that the previous witness, Mr Pollard, could not have had his statement before going to tho .Cost of Living Commission on tho morning of Juno 18th. "You know Miss Rout," said" Sit John. "Yes." "You know her reliability."—"Yes.' 1 "Will you swear that you,did not tel] Miss Rout about a week ago that yon fvere under tho impression that you landed that supplemeutary statement to some of tho Commissioners at the Clarendon Hotel?" "Yes, I will contradict that," said vitness. Witness said further that at a conerenco of the Farmers' Co-op. Assoaation recently he had a conversation vith Miss Rout. He then referred tc i conversation he had had with one of he Commissioners at the hotel. After his conversation Miss Rout rang him ip—a few days afterwards. She then oade the statement referred to, and he orrected her. and said sho was wrong. "Miss Rout is a careful and truthful roman?"—"Yes." "You' told ns yon had prepared s Latement, and that just before you bean to road the statement you handed copy to Miss Rout?"— Yes. "Can you say to-day wha£ y«n cut at of your reading of that statement?" -"No* I cannot say." "On page 9 Miss Rent had struck out bat yon did not read. You cut off tmt page and returned it to her. Do on remember doing ao?" —"Jfo, I on't remember." "Well, your memory can't be so good 3 the. character you gave it," comlehted Sir John. .Witness protested that ho had done is best. "I believe yon," said Sir John. "I ierely want to show yon that your emory is playing yoo. tricks." CHAT SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT. Witness was examined npon his evimce that as he was leaving the wifc--265-bpx ho "believed" he handed the ipptementary statement to Mr Coi3S. -"Doesn't that- strike you as amaz-

ing?"' said Sir John. "You had not read ifc, and your evidence was closed. The Commissioners bad not seen or heard it, and there could be no crossexamination about it, could there?" "No," said witness. Counsel asked why, if the supplementary report was meant- to be evidence, it was not run on with the other statement. Witness said that the two statements were separate. "Why did not you read it to the Commission?'' demanded Sir John Findlay. "Well. I d-'dn't." replied witness. "Why? Why? Why?" asked Sir John. "It was overlooked by mc," replied witness. "But you didn't overlook handing it nto the clerk ?" said Sir John. A SUGGESTION. I';* o .?' I will suggest what happened.'* ►aid bir John. "That supplementary •eport was very bitter and quite unlike four style. Have you not said that bo Commission treated you very :ourteotts!y, and that yon had the two -rungs separate, and that- as they reated you well you did not read the npplementary statement? If they tad not treated you well, you said you'd iave read your supplementary report. s tbat < not. s:o?" asked counsel. "No." said witness. In, further-examination witness said ie could nut say whether it was after o had seen the afternoon editions or .ot that ho sent to tho clerk of tho -ommission for copies of his supplementary evidence. He noticed in tho fiernoon papers that tho supplemenary report was not there. Ho believed p bad told Mr Kellv, when he gave mi the report later, that ho had anded it iv as evidence. QUESTION OF INFERENCE. "Did you lead Mr Kollv to believe," emai.ded Sir John, "that tho suppleloutary statement was presented to Commission in the samo way as the ther statement ?" "I don't think so," replied witness. •Don't you know that fie printed it i part ol tho statement?" "1 am not responsible for what tho aper did." "But in 'The Press' oi' Juno 19th, it speared as part of tho original statesent?" "Yes." "So that Mr Kelly-must havo birred from you that it was handed in tho oamu way a.s tho first etateentr" "Fossibly." ''Did you ever tell Mr Kelly that his fcrence was wrong?'' "There was no occasion to do so," id witness. INSTRUCTIONS FOR. PCBLICA-

TION. "How did both papers eoino to publish tno full text of your statements?" asKeu bir Jonn. "Instructions," said witness, "wero given to bota papers to pubash tno statement in fuU. J ' "By whom?" "By myself," replied witness. "Incluuing tho supplementary statement?" J-tfos.'" "Well now," said Sir John, "what does your Association pay tho 'Lyttelton Times' and 'The lVoss' for advertising and other work in <a year? Several thousands?" Witness: "Wo aro very extensivo advertisers." Sir John: "Will you tell us what you said to the 'Times' , when you went thore to instruct them to insert this statement which had never been read? Did you offer to pay for it as an advertisement, or at all?" Witness: "I think we had to pay for a portiii.of it." Sir John- Findlay: So you acfcnaliy had to pay to get this unread supplementary statement published. How ii'iieh ? "I cannot lecollect." "So your memory fails yon thcro again," said Sir John. Witness was also c*oss-examincd at lengtn upon his signing of his evidence. Ho reiterated that ho had not noticed when ho signed at tho end, that the supplementary report was not attached. Ho had assumed it would bo there. EDITOR IN THE BOX. James Hutchison, editor of the /Otago Daily Times," eworn, said that ho had written tho leading article complained of. He had eeon Mr Godfrey s letter i_ the Christchurch papers directly attention had been drawn to tho discrepancy between tho reports • published in tho Lnristchurch papers and the report in the official record of tho Commission, lio verified the statement by reference to the official report, and ho accepted Mr , bodfrey s. quotations from *,hfc Lhnstchurch papers of Juno as being accurate He waited a few days to see if any explanation came about tho discrepancies, and as no explanation appeared, he assumed there was nouo to ?S 1 4 f A ad^4 in - co r erifi ed the cx- "£?■ i rom the Christchurch papers, i si, y^r^ ny fu rthor knowledge?" isked Mr McGregor. '" No "* wha tover," replied witness. •*u «2? gor referred to tho letter rom the f.'ptago Daily Times," in vhich t was said that Mr Fairbairn was not n the mind of the writer at tho time <no article was written. Sir. John Findlay objected, and his Jorionr said that what had been in Mr Elutchison s mind did not matter. " NO MALICE. r"^?Jf ou kuow ' M r Fairbairn?" asked dr -Ylcu-regor. "No, never mot him before," replied Fitness. "It has been suggested that this Lrticle was inspired fay mahco." said »T^ c ? r - " mat do you say?" Ifaat is absurd," replied witness, n \rJ. »• ,-™ ur ,P"P? r had commented n Mr I'airbairn'H being appointed preh°outf' nn? t xpre T d the view th «t he bourn not havo been appointed o "-— That is so." To questions about the letters against Ir Fairbairn, witness said the coTumS t the paper were equally ooen to ittors in favour of Mrfairbairn If ny were received they would have been üblishod. Before Mr Gordon's lette? ppeared there had been letters from -hers in Dunedin Before publishing Merchant's" letter, which made sueestioiis about the Hon. T. Mackenzie, o had. communicated- with tho writer J see if he was sure of his facts, and as reassured to publish le letter. To Sir John Findlay witness said that 11 the letters would havo boon seen y mm beforo being published "So that by October, when you rote your article, your mind would ive been impressed with Fairbairn's iscahty?" asked Sir John Findlay Wrtness smiled. To further questions 3 said that he had previously given r Fairbairn editorial attention. "Shall tell you the occasion?" he volunteer"No, I am satisfied." said Sir »hn.'. . -• Witness agreed that the discrepancies >on which he based .his article wero at in the official report the referonco Bowyer to Reckitt's blue did not pear, and that Jamieson's supplemtarv report also was absent. "Did you make enquiry to see if this a due to tho shorthand writer's orror to the deliberate suppression by the mmission?" asked Sir John. Witness: The question of deliberate ipression by the Commission was not my mind at all. sir John: Then, I take it, that yon n't suggest that the Commission re been guilty of "deliberate eup«sion?" IVitness: Nor have I ever suggested NO CHARGE. 'Are you prepared to accept the tement that Bowyer's evidence was lestly treated by Berry and by tho nmission?"—"Yos, absolutely." 'Are you prepared to accept tie tement that the evidence signed by niesou-was treated honestly by.the

Commission as his evidence?"—" Yes." j "Then do you admit that there is I no charge against tbo honour or integ- j city of tuo Commission?"— "No charge i against their honour or integrity wa« ever intended." I "Do you think such a charge would bo justified?"—" No." , | "Now," said Sir John, "I am going to ask you whether an editor who has made tho admiweions you havo mado is mtitled to write and publish this article headed "Faked Official Documents." Asked to say if a "faked" document vas not discreditable, wituess said it vas if it was not reliable- and trustworthy. "What did you mem W tho word aked in this connexion ?'' asked Sir Fohn. "The article," replied witness, "was t generalisation based upon the speciic statements contained iv Mr Godrcy's lettor." INSISTENT QUESTIONS. j "Did you believe," demanded Sir Win, "that tho Commission' had faked ,ny official record?" j "I believe." said witness, "it was; lot to bo relied upon." ! "Did you believe it had been faked?" "By the Commission?" queried witess. "Yes," replied Sir John. * Witness: 1 believe thcro was a disropancy. "Did you believe that the official ocument had been faked by anybody?" emanded Sir John. I Witness: It is very difficult to answer Yes" or "No" to that. Sir John: Yon are tho only ono who an answer. , Witness: The object of the article ' as to insist upon tho importance of ie absolute reliability of all State ocuments. Sir John Findlay: I know. When ou nscd these words did you believe lat any official document had been iked? Witness: I cannot say that I boliered ay official document had been faked. ." THE ARTICLE REVIEWED. Sir John Findlay went through the adinc article sentence by sentence. "Why did You uso tho word "tam>r," ho asked, "instead of "alter." "I cannot say." replied witness. "Did you not suggest," counsel jked further, '"that it did not suit Mr owyer or .one of tho Commissioners > allow certain evidence to remain?" "The words are open to that conruction," replied witness. "What do you mean by 'the simple an of suppression,' " again asked unsel. "Who did the suppressing?" "I don't know." "And what abont this scntonco?" quired Sir John. " 'And it must be vious that if any faking of tho ovince tendered to tho Royal Comrais>n is permissible, the opportunities brded to a prejudiced Commission of iking the recorded evideuco 6urt the dings it desires to present aro limit;s.' I put it to you," declared. Sir hn, "that it is impossible for any isonable man to read that article wn to that point without coming to o inevitable conclusion that you aro urging the Commission with being sjudiced, and with altering the evince to suit its prejudiced concluns." ' "I do not accept that conclusion at ," replied witness. . ''Well, what do you mean by using • words 'faking' and 'it must be ohms,' and all the rest? What was > meaning behind these words, if not it?" 'That is not the meaning behind tho rds, Sir John," replied Mr Hutchii. "If there was this striking coinence that Mr Bowyer's references to i 0 and Mr Jamieson's evidence also appeared in the official record, there lowed the general remark that if it possible for evidence before a yal Commission to be faked, then i opportunities of making, the recordevidence suit the findings it presents limitless." . Jir John Findlay: That is precisely » answer! want. OTHER EVIDENCE, llbert Arthur Howes, commercial vcllor, Dunedin, representing R. dson and Co., also gave evidence. V r flliam R. Gordon, of Neiil and Co., nedin, said that in 1912 ho was irman of tho Dunedin Merchants' lociation. He had sent Mr Fairrn a marked copy of his letter. Aner lettor of his had said that if tho rchanis were called beforo a proper wnal, they would give evidence. 'Was there anything in Mr Fairrn's action at Dunedin to suggest t he was attacking his rivals?" ed Mr McGregor. —; Yos, I have some things picked I ir~ ," said witness, with a copy of tho jj~ srt beforo him sprinkled with I~? » kers. jir John Findlay took exception, but I of less was allowed to deal with what J taken place at Dunedin before he ■' noss) had written his letter. If 'itness referred to a question in :h Air Fairbairn askod what goods *_ to be purchased from the Merits' Association. Some of these ars could be purchased by Fairbairn, still he had that list put in as remting that those articles were coned by the Merchants' Association, abject here was to blacken the Merts' Association. Witness gave sev- ' instances, warranting, he claimed, ' same conclusion. The merchants, » aid, would never have refnsed to I*! 1 evidence if a fair number of comial men were on the Commission. i refused only because Mr Fairi had attacked them. • John Findlay: Is it the Merfcs' Association or the "Otago Daily j s" which is really fighting thia ) tness: Which case? 1 . • John*. This case. H , tness: I know nothing further H that I was subpoenaed. I know of \ 11 mnexion between the two. 1 Ml ou are not chairman now?" If o, but I would know if anything II doing in that way." " . 11 Fairbairn was recalled,.to be ex- gm