SUPREME COURT— Monday. Before His Honor Sir G. A Arney
Thi' Comt was opened this morning at 11 o'clock, at which hour the Chief Justice took Ilia seat on the bench. The first cause culled on for hearing was that of
Busby v. Bell, Being an action for libel ; damages £7,000. The plaintiff conducted his own case JVIr. Whitaker appealing for defendant. The following gentlemen were sworn on the special jurj : — J. A. Gilfillan, foreman ; Jas, Thos. Boylan, John Kerr, H. Gilfillan, David Graham, James Green, Jas. Burtfc, Ralph Keeaing, Benj. Maclean, Every Maclean, Robert Patteison, John ltobeiton. Messrs. Win. Hobson, Thomas Lindsay Macky, and Charles Petsohler, were also summoned, but did not answer when called. The Registiar of the Coiut lead the isiues, to which defendant pleaded first not guilty ; Becond, justification ; and third, a denial of the special damage sustained by plaintiff. Mr. Bunby, in opening the case, said he was about to lay bufoio the jury the particulars of n suit which he considered woa not one of private interest only, but of great public hnpoitanco ; and he would not be at all sin prised weie the result of the case to be innde the
turning point in the nuBgovernmont of the country, and to winch he thought the inhabitants had only been too long subjected, and which, he believed, must have reached its acme. Although in the details of the case which it was necpssaiy to lay before them, he might trench very much upon the patience of the jury, he trusted they would consider the great importance of the case, and bear with him whilst he laid before them the main point* on which it would he necessary for them to adjudicate. He thought it was not a case of to day only, but one which in its results might affect their own interests in their own time, but also those of their children and children's children. He would not say that the eye of the country was upon them, and would watch with anxiety as to the result of their deliberation when they came to consider their veulict ; it would suffice to say that the eye of God alone was upon them, and their consciences would lead them to a tuie veulict, without his appealing to any clap tiap statements which were occasionally used by gentlemen of the law, when wishing to influence a jury. The case was one which would require special attention for its peculiarities. It was an action not against a person in ordinary life, but against a person in the Government, and who had written a false and moit injurious statement against him (the plaintiff). He wished to impress upon the minds of the jury that the defendant had written the libellous words in the full knowledge that he was wiiting what was not the truth; because if he (defendant) wrote only what he believed to be true, it would be idle to seek a verdict against him at the hands of the jury He (plaintiff) would take the liberty of leading a few extracts froir diffeieut authois, and bearing upon the case as one of libel. (Mr. Busby heie lead from " Lord Campbell on Libels," and from"Stoney, on the Law of Agency." A proof of malice was requisite in all cases where a public f unctionaiy was charged with having libelled any individual in the performance of any duty ; and when he had written anything which it might he said his duty had compelled him to wiite. The law on that point had been laid down by Mr. Justice Bailie}', iu a case which he would lead. (Extiact read.) The jury, he believed, would now be in a position to see that he had undertaken to prove that the defendant knew what he was wilting to be false, and so influenced by malice. Tims theie wag intrinsic proof, and another kind of proof which he would l.vy before them at a considerable length, and that was as to the previous conduct of the defendant to him (the plaintiff), which would be called extrinsic proof. Before proceeding to do so, however, he would read a specific judgment, as given in " Cook on the Law of Evidence " After giving these e\tiacts, he believed the jurj' would be iu a position to understand the nature of the case ; but fuither, to make them comprehend the chaiacter of the chatge sought to be established, it would be necessary for him to trouble them at some leDgth with a history of the case. He was perfectly aware, at least if he were to judge from what the public pi hits said, that the public were tired of him and bis claims, as unfortunately he had had many occasions to come before that court ; and for twenty two years had had to suffer from what he belie veil illegal tieatment and fiom persecutions which he was sure would not be believed unless it weie proved by unanswerable evidence A number of yeais ago, he had been appointed British lesident iu this colony, and, as subsequent events had shown, lie believed he had conducted himself to the satisfaction of those who had conferred upon him the title. His Honoi lemiuhed that it would not be necessary for Mr. Busby to go through all the particulais of his previous residence heie. Mi . Busby said under those circumstances he would somewhat cm tail his obseivations. He had continued in office in the colony for seven years, and he could assure them it was a period of great difficulty in his life At the conclusion of the seven years he received letters of a very complimentary character, and which he would place in their hands when they retired to their loom. Atsomeonsideiaole time before hisoffice as Bntish Resident had ceased, he leceived an official communication stating that a diplomatic agent was to be appointed here The agent would be enti listed with a special commission to induce, if possible, the chiefs to cede the lights of the country to the (jueen ; that they -should relinquish the right of selling land to whom they pleased and sell it only to agents appointed by Government Tt would be his (the plaintiff's) duty to piove, provided it were disputed, that he had acted undei the 01 deis of the yov eminent of New South Wales — though appointed by the King through the advice and under the instrument of the Eail Goodrich. He would also show that he was instructed to assist British settleis in the countiy ; and that in refeience to the many communications he received with lespect to the puichase of land from the natives it was assumed as a light that any man had peifect freedom to purchase the land fiom the natives. He held in his hands a copy of a letter received respecting the piuchnse of native lands, and the settler was authorised to purchase to any extent he pleased, provided the title w as not disputed among the natives. Sir Richard Burke had also advised him on the purchase of land. He had stated these paiticulars because the first settlen had often been called land-sharks, and he (plaintiff) had been called the king of them. Ha believed a more unfounded and untruthful a«seitiou could not have bren made regarding the first settlei«. He could assure them the settlers paid a full average pi ice for then land ; and that they actually paid upon an aveiage 1*. fid. an acre foi land which was good for nothing. And such was the case with a considerable portion of his (plaintiffs) land : inasmuch as when the Government wanted to pin chase a poi tion for a battalion of pensioners, he had offered it at 2s. Cd. an acie, with the exception of a poition fronting the sea, and which he had estimated as worth £5 an acre. So that, in fact, he had considered that there was no excuse whatever for the Government persecuting him in the manner they had done. (Mr. Busby then enteicd into paiticulars icgarding the cost lie had been put to in bunging his cattle fiom New South Wales to this colony, when intending to become a settler here ; and also in building a saw mill, upon land respecting which the present action was brought. He then quoted from a woik to show that when Sir James Stirling was appointed civil superintendent of the colony — at the time or shortly before plaintiff was appointed British lesident heie — he (Sir James) was authorised to secure for himself a giant of land of 100,000 acres ; the only conditiou imposed being that Is. 6d. per acre in the cost of improving, oi bunging out seivants, &c, should be borne. It ultimately resulted that Sir James had only expended a sufficient sum to cliitn 60,000 acres, and these he selected from the best blocks of land in the counfoy He (Mr. Busby) ha 1 spent sufficient money to rnable him at that time to claim 56,000 acies, but had got no land from the Government whatever. What he had obtained was purchased from those whom Government had sa.it! were the right parties to sell. He had consequently felt that the Government had treated him with great cruelty and injustice. He had been put to an enormous expense, and had spent the pist twenty years of his life in trying to obtain his rights The Government had sold a great part of his land and other parties were now in possession of it ; of no portion of his land could he dispose, with a title which a lawyer would consider it fair to advise his client to accept. He had obtained a grant from Governor Fitzioy for somewhere about 10,000 acres, and it was afterwards alleged that these grants were invalid — iu default of a minute description of the pro•perty. He was perfectly satisfied himself of the validity of the grants, and when requested to surrender them had refused to do so. He had been required to take his giants befoieaCommissioner. whohadrefnsedtogive him his woid that he should have them returned ; he consequently retained them, and considered that they were as valid as any which had been subsequently issued. Tn the Government Gazette however, he lmd after wauls seen that they were to bo consideied invalid. It was under these circumstances, that in the year 185S the Legislature had passed an act which he thought would give him a certain kind of relief. He however wished them to understand that he should not have thought it necessary to take advantage of that but owing to pecuniary obligations to others, and of which he thought it necessary to relieve himself. He had , .therefore resolved to submit one case to the Court, that he might see what the law enabled the Commissioner to give. The grant was taken into consideiation, but no definite settlement come to By the Land Claim Settlements Extension Act, 1858, the Commissioner was empowered to award him (plaintiff) 4,270 acres or thereabouts, in lieu of other lands ; but this was never done. 40,000 acres of timber land had likewise been purchased, and which depended almost exclusively for its value upon the timber growing upon it. It was proved before the Commissioner that £555 15s. 8d. had been paid for this land to the natives : irrespective of expenses of travelling, &c Up to this time he (plaintiff) had had two men as partners in the colony, whilst he resided in Sydney, but when the war broke out the partneis left the land upon which they had been •tationed ; and upon his (plaintiffs) leturn from Sydney, he found the place abandoned. Ho had, however, omitted to mention, that two or three year, before the time he had been speaking of, the natives had stated that it was their intention to make out a newboundary ; and government would not allow him to own. more than 2,560 acres. This limitation was fixed by the Land Claims Ordinance Act. Mr. Busby next entered into a statemont of an investigation of his land giants : contending that his laud had been robbed of its value by the timber being cut and carried away, although he had appealed to government to prevent the robbery. He had proved his title to his property befoie a Commissioner, and on the production of two of the natives from whom he had purchased it seven-
teen or nineteen years before : but the Commissioner had not allowed him to have the value of the land j had in fact never given his decision upon the claim. This was one part of the grievance. Had his decision been given in 1859, he (plaintiff) would have been enabled to realise possibly £2,000 upon the sale. He had complained to the Government that the conduct of the commissioner was very injurious to his interests, and appealed to Government whether it was consistent with equity that he should be deprived of his land. It was in the power of the Government to interfere, and ho had appealed to the Secretary of State, and had sent a memorial which he would read. The memorial was dated 29th Sept., 1860, and addressed to His Grace the Duke of Newcastle. (Memorial read.) The memorial was sent to Governor Gore Browne with a letter, requesting him to transmit it to the Secretary of State. The letter was dated 8th October ; and he had neglected to mention that four pamphlets had also been forwaided with the memorial to Governor Browne, with the request that they might be sent to Sir George Cornewall Lewis. The first pamphlet was on " Responsible Government," the second "Illustrations of Responsible Government," the third "Federation of Colonies," and the fourth " Lecture on the Colonies." The date of the reply of the Duke of Newcastle was April 17th, 1861; and from its tenor he (plaintiff) had been induced to ask a member of the House of Kepi e sentativestomove for a copy of the dispatch tiansmitting the memorial — with any minute entered by the Land Claims Commissioner, or other minister. (Mr. Busby then read the minutes alleged to have been made on the memorial by defendant ) He said the words lie had read constituted the libel ; and it would be for the jury to determine whether lie was not entitled to compensAtion at their hands for damages he hail received through the conduct of defendant. The pamphlets were forwarded to Sir G. C. Lewis, and the Duke of Newcastle had condescended to write another despatch, in the name of Sir G C. Lewis, thanking him (plaintiff) for the pamphlets. There w ere three points connected with the minute, to which he would direct their attention. It was so put that he believed nothing could be more ingeniously contrived to defeat the object of the memorialist. The first was the general question that it so abounded with extravagant mis statements that it would take a volume to expose them • the second, that it led the Secretaiy of State, looking at the minute as coming fiom an officer of the colonial government, to come to the conclusion that the memorial could only come from a man bereft of his reason ; and the third, that consequently no decision had been passed on his claims The defendant had gone into the pamphlets undoubtedly, because he could not find anything in the memorinl to find fault with, and had therefore "travelled out of the leeoid"— to use a law phrase — to make a false impression upon the Blind of the Secretary of State. Another statement in the minute was to the effect that if he had surveyed the land as the act required, he might at any time have been put in possession He would ask the jmy to reconcile that statement w ith the previous ones he had read. There was not act of parliament which required the land to be surveyed. Mr. Whitaker said the act did requiie that a survey should take place. Mr. Busby said his application had been for compensation in the shape of scrip There was never any survey in such cases, according to the Wnste Lands Act of 1S56. He would not detain the jury very much longer before pioceeding to call witnesses. Mr. Busby was then referimg to some matters in reference to the defendant's decision as Land Claims Commissioner, when His Honor informed the jury that it was not a question foi them to review the decisions of the Commissioner of Land Claims, neithei was it in Ins (the Chief Justice's) power to do so. The plaintiff was turning the trial for hbel into a trial of land claims There 'were some points in which it became his duty to interfeie, and this was one of them. The jury had nothing to do with those decisionb Mr. Busby apologised for the mistake ; he had no intention or desiie to mislead the jurj'. Then, refer ring to the pamphlets, he said if those pamphlets were brought forward, it would be for defendant to prove that they w ere misstatements ; and he had before said he had no possible objection to putting them in. [He then referied to grant of 25,000 acies on the Great Barrier as one instance, in which other "claims were treated different from his, and to shew therebj', in a. manner, the expressed malice.] The jury w eie possibly awaiethat this was the second time the case came on for trial , on the first occasion he subpoenaed the Colonial Secretary and the Commissioner of Land Claims to produce ceitam record* The Colonial Secretary said they were not in his possession, and the Commissioner of Land Claims had declined to pioduce them He (Mr. Busby) had since been under the painful neces sity of subpoenaing His Excellency Sir Geoi ge Grey. He had done everything in his power. He had addiesbed two letters to his Excellency. His Honor . Pardon me, Mr. Busby, you have made the general statement that you had done eveij thing in your power ; you cannot speak of the letteis just now. Mr. Busby Then, your Honor, I will call his Excellency Sir George Grey. His Excellency Sir George Giey, K.C.B. , then entered the court. His Honor asked Mr Busby did he wish that his Excellency should be sworn, stating if it weie merely for the production of documents, it w as not necessary to swear a witness. Mr. Busby said he had some questions to ask, beyond the production of documents. His Excellency was then swoin by his Honoi. Mr. Bu«by You are the Governor in Chief of this colony ' His Excellency I am. Mr. Busby Is your Excellency aware that this action invohes a charge against a member of jour Executive ' Hi" Honor His Excellency can know nothing of that [He then stated to Sir George Grey the cause of action and the parties concerned ] I have informed him of it. He is now aware that this action is brought by } r ou against defendant, a member of his Cabinet, for libel. Mr. Busby I will now hand in two letteis in reply to — Mr Whitaker The time has now come, your Honor, when I must inteifeie. I object to thoae documents. They were not received. Mr. Busby Is your Excellency aware that defendant in this action is a member of youi Executive Council ' His Honor . I have informed his Excellency that a member of his Executive Council is defendant in this action. Mr. Busby Did your Excellency leceive a subpoena to produce certain documents 1 His Excellency : Yes, I received a subpoena to pioduce documents Mr. Busby : Do you produce them .' His Honor : Mr. Busby, you had better specify the documents which his Excellency is Bubpoenaed to produce ; otherwise we shall not know what they are. Mr. Busby • A certain paper writing, addressed by myself to Governor Gore Browne, dated 8th October, 1860, requesting him to forward an enclosed memorial to the Duke of Newcastle, or her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies ; also a copy of Governor Browne's despatch, forwauling the same, dated 15th November, 1860 ; also Mr. Bell's minute on the same, dated 8th November, 1860 ; also the Duke of Newcastle's despatch to Governoi Browne, in leply to the same, dated 17th April, 1861 ; the same to the same, conveying Sir George Lewis' thanks for the pamphlets addressed to him by me, dated M.ty 20th, 1861 ; and all other documents, letters, and papers in your custody having reference to this trial. His Excellency : Before answering that question I wish to know if this Court has the power to subpana the Governor-in-Ohief of this colony ? His Honor : I have no doubt whatever of that. This Court has the power to subpoena any of her Majesty's subjects. His Excellency • I do not asfflthe question w ith any litigious feeling. I wish it to"T>e decided for the piotection of Governors hereafter. His Honor > I am not aware of any principle in law that would enkble the Judge Supreme Court to refuse to issue a subpeena. "* If there is any such objection, I would like to be informed of; it. Mr. "Whitaker : I am not aware of any, your Honor. His Excellency • I now answer the question that has been put. I understand the question to be, have I produced the documents which have been named ? In reply, I must say that I know nothing whatever in relation to those documents. That to the best of my belief I have never seen one of them ; and I wish to add that I comider it extremely improper for any one to summon the Governor of this colony to appear in this Court, to bring up public records, which if brought up at all should be brought by hi* Responsible advisers. The first document is a letter to ray predecessor, and I consider that a* Governor of this colony, so long as I hare a minutrjr possessing my confidence, and that of the legiilature of the country, that it rests entirely with them to produce or to withhold documents of such a nature. The other documents, in bo for as they are named, are despatches to or from the Secretary of State. On that subject I should wish to put in evidence a copy of the instructions given to me with iny commission. The particular clause that I lefer to in it, ii that all Governors of her Majesty's colonies are forbidden to give copies of despatches, or allow them to be taken without the permission of the Secretary of State. I wish further to
explain that by those histiuctions I am \irtually ]>iohibited doing that which I am now ordered under ft penalty to do; but, as a geneial rule, where the Governor's responsible advisers advise that the good of tho public service requires tho production of a despatch, I should consider that I had the Secretary of State's permission so to produce it, or cause it to be produced. I believe that all these papers are now in the hands of my ministers, who will, I havu no doubt, take such course in legaid to them as they think the good of the public service requires Mr. Busby ■ is your Excellency aware that they (the documents) wen? not treated as private or confidential or as secrets of State < Mr. Wlntaker: J object to that question, your 1 Honor. His Honor • You cannot put the question that way. Mr. Busby . I believe the documents were not treated as n confidential communication, inasmuch that they were made the subject of x a return to an address of the house of representative 1 !. Is j'our Excellency awaie that they were made the subject of a leturn to an address ' His Excellency . I have heard, in convex sation, that they were. I know nothing otherwise. His Honor to Mr. Busby . 1 cannot take down that that answer; it is merely heaisay. Mr. Busby • In effect they aio already published to the woild, and I am not awaie that any object can bo effected by keeping back the documents except to impede the course of justice. Does your Excellency still refine to pioduce them. His Honor : You cannot have understood tho answer of his Excellency, Mr. Busby. (His -Honor repeated the .vnswer). Mr Busby As I read his Excellency's commission, I do not recognise any other power than his own to e\eicise judgment in this matter. He can act entuely without the advice of his minister m it. He has a right to form his own judgment. Then, I ask, does hi-? Excellency still refuse to produce the documents or order them to be pioduced— they being under his control ' His Excellency : If they were in my possession T would not produce them without the advice of my responsible advisers. They are not in my possession actually. It is not for the Governor to come into court with a bundle of documents. I do not say they are not in my possession, — that is, that they aie not within my control. I believe they are in the possession of my responsible advisers, and have before sftid they w ill take such course in regaid to them as the public good may demand. Mr. Busby • I apprehend these documents are not in his Excellency's hands, but in his powev to produce them; he can order them to be pioduced ; therefore I wish to put the question to Ins Excellency. 1 w ish his Excellency to be so far infoimed His Honor I am not aware of any power which can wrest these documents from his Excellency. Mr. Busby I submit that they aie in the pow er of his Excpllency— that is, that he can older their pioduction without the advice of any one on the subject — entirely upon his own judgment. Consideiing, your Excellency, that this is a question in which one of your Executive Council is concerned, and that tho documents have been made public, does your Excellency refuso to ouler the pioduction of them ' His Excellency I have nothing to say but my fonnei answer. J think it would be extremely inconvenient for the Governor to exeicise such a pow er. The mimsteis should have the control of these documents, because if the Go\einoi alone had control of them, he is not under the power of the legislatiue : miadvisers are within the power of the com t, and of the representatives of the people T believe, in deciding as I have done, I have done what is best for all her Majesty's subjects His Honor : The person of the Governor, as the lepresentative of her Majesty is necessarily sacred, and this Couit has no power to giant an attachment against him ; the idea cannot be thought of If any othei person refused to produce a document or documents, which the Court might ordei the pioduction of, it is then in the power of the Couit to giant an attachment against that peison for contempt, and keep it in foice until the contempt of the Court is purged — that is until the documents are pioduced. Mr. Buiby • Do I understand join Honor that tho documents c.innot be pioduced. His Honoi Hib Excellency t-ays he has handed them to bis lesponsible advisers. Mr. Busby I again ask your Excellency, will yon refuse to order the person holding those documents to produce them. Uifc Excellency Unless my nmmteii advise me to give such an order, I will not. Mr. Buslty I have nothing more to ask hib Excel, lencyy. [Sn Geoige Grey then letired by the Judge's enhance.] The com t then adjourned for half an hour. Upon lebummg — Francis Eastwood Campbellw as called, deposed I am clerk to the house of repiesentatives; I leceived a subpeeua to produce before this couit, the letinn to an address fiom the house of lepiusentatives to Governor Gore Browne. I object to pioduce the document unless oidered by the court. I am acting under the nistitictions of the speaker of the house of rcpie&cntatrves. I did not make application to the speakei for leav e to produce this particular document. In consequence of what took place at last trial, I consulted with the speaker, and he told me T had done right in withholding those documents, unless oulered by the Snpieuie Couit to do so. I always pei mit the reporters to the press, and other persons, to t.ike copies of letuins to addresses of the house, and othei document- of like chaiactei. 1 remembei the leporter of the A ucl lander applying to me foi pel mission to copy the adiess, pud Idrclined to permit him. I lecollect you begging me to do you the favor to compare with me the copy of tho addiess in question, which I hold m my hand, with the ougiual which I had m the house of lepresentatives. I did peimit you to compare the copy with the original. By the Couit 1 cannot lefer to any legal authority for witholding those documents, further than the speakpr telling me not to produce them. T understand that the speaker, timing the last session, took legal advice. I am not awaie upon what authority I am advised to withhold them His Honor ruled that the original document should be produced, and it was pioduced accordingly. The Plaintiff tendered it as secondaiy evidence of the libel Mr. Whitakcr took objection to its being leceived, because it purpoited to be a copy of an original document of winch no sufficient account was given of the want of the original, and that it did not affect the defendant. His Honor reinatked at piesent it was not, admissible, because it was not proved to be a copy of the original [Aftei some fuither lemarks, His Honor observed that it was a great pity the plaintiff had not a lawyer to conduct his case for him ; and plaintiff subsequently said he had sent a retainei to a leading hamster, who declined having anything to do with the cose.] The hon. Alfied Domett was called, and, being examined by Mr. Busby, deposed : I am the Colonial Secretary. I am one of his Excellency's lesponsible advisers — one of his Executive Council. I am m possession of a letter dated the 8th October, 1SGO. I object to produce it in evideuce I hold it in my hands I have not been insti ucted by his Excellency to object to produce it I have not been instructed to produce it. I object to produce it because it would be detiimental to the public interest to do so. I am awaie that the document was tho subject of a letuin to an addiess of the house of lepiesentatives to his Excellency. I am awaie that it has been published in seveial newspapers. I am not aware that his not leturning it to the house of lepresentatives is not treating it as a confidental communication. I am aware that Mi. Bell is a member of the Executive Council. I believe the production of public docuracuts would in some cases be detrimental to the public inteiest. I be heve the production of a document which I hold in my hand would be of that nature. I cannot produce it. Mr. Busby cited cases to show that the production of documents could be enforced, and expressed a desir* that his Honor should rule that the document in Mr Domett's hand should be read as evidence. His Honor ruled that, so far as the evidence had gone, he would not be warranted in enfoicingthe pio- | duction. Examination continued : I cannot say whether the document has been laid on the table of the house. 1 received the document from Mr. Giaborae this morning ; and he leceived it, I believe from Mi. Scad, the Governor's private secretary. Mr. Busby was then sworn . He said : I took a paper to the house of representatives, and asked Captain Campbell to be allowed to compare it with the return made by the Governor to the address. I hold in my hand the document produced to me by Captain Campbell, or the leturn to the address, and which was compared by the captain and myself, with the paper I took to the house of representatives. I am prepared to swear that the document I produce is a true copy of the original letter I forwarded to the Governor, and this document has been forwarded from tho house of representatives. Mr. Domett recalled and examined by His Honour : The copies laid before the house are acted upon as originals. There are several members of house present, who will bear me out in that, I believe. Mr. Buiby continued : I will swear that the document produced it a true copy of the original letter to the Governor. It bears the impress ot the seal of the house of representatives, and is dated 12th July, 1861, -No. 17.
Tn answer to n question fiom his Honor, Mr. Busby read extracts upon the deeisionN of Lord Coleiidgo relative to the reception of secondary evidence. His Honor said, in the case cited by Mr. Busby, the original document was produced ; whereas the original document was not present at all in this case. Mr. Busby said it was in the hands of the Colonial Secretary, who refused to produce it. His Honor said it had not been proved that Mr. Domott held the. original document : lie had not even read it. Mr. Busby was proceeding further to comment on the case, when His Honor suid it was twenty minutes past six o'clock, and he would order an adjournment to take place till Tuesday, when peihapa within an hour from the time of re-assembling, the case might be brought to a termination. They (the jury) muat nil have seen that the fact of plaintiff conducting his own cnse had the effect of surrounding him with difficulties, and that it was difficult for the Court to help him out of them. If the jury however would meet again on Tuesday at ten o'clock, he believed they would determine the issue in somo way within a short time after meeting together. In the meantime, Mr. Busby Tvould have a further oppoi tunity of consideiing the detnils of his case. The Court then rose and was adjoin ned until ten o'clock this morning.
Permanent link to this item
SUPREME COURT—Monday. Before His Honor Sir G.A Arney CIVIL CAUSES., Daily Southern Cross, Volume XVIII, Issue 1686, 16 December 1862
SUPREME COURT—Monday. Before His Honor Sir G.A Arney CIVIL CAUSES. Daily Southern Cross, Volume XVIII, Issue 1686, 16 December 1862
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.