PECULIAR LIBEL ACTION.

Evening Star, Issue 7167, 22 March 1887, Page 2

PECULIAR LIBEL ACTION.

A SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. The hearing of the action Robinson v. the 'Evening Star, in ’ which L 50.000 damages are claimed for alleged libel, was commenced in the Supreme Court this forenoon before Mr Justice Williams and a common jury of twelve. The following gentlemen constituted the jury: -Robert M’Vicker, William Douglas Smith, Richard Chalker, Thomas M'Caughan, Thomas Mockford, John Stewart, Thomas M'Neill, Frederick Page, Lawrence Griffin, William Fox, Henry Potter, Thomas Stewart. Mr D, M. Stuart appeared for the plain-, tiff; Mr Haggitt, with him Mr Hodgkins, for the defendant. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, formerly of Dunedin and now of Wellington, architect, against the defendants George Bell (proprietor), Gilbert Buchanan (printer), and John George Moody (publisher) of the Evening Star.

The declaration set forth That at the time of the committal of the grievances hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff was an architect carrying on business in Dunedin ; that in or about November, 1883, the defendants were and still are respectively the proprietor, printer, and publisher of the Evening Star, a newspaper published in Dunedin ; that in or about the said month the defendants printed and published in their newspaper, of and concerning the plaintiff, the words following

A Deserved Bebdkb.—William Henry White, of Kensington, was charged with assaulting Joseph Wilson Robinson on the 3rd inst. Ur Mouat appeared for the complainant; Ur Donniston for the defendant. The evidence showed that complainant, who is an architect, accosted a sister of the defendant at Kensington on the evening of the 29th alt., and having ascertained her name farced his company upon her. She was unwilling to carry on conversation with him, and walked at a fast pace in order to rid herself of his company. The girl went to the Atherromn, and on her way back to Kensington was again accosted by the defendant, who asked her to walk along some of the by-streets with him. Miss White met a gentleman acquaintance, and compl lined to him of Robinson’s conduct. Next morning she acquainted her brother of what hkd happened, and ho interviewed the complainant several times for the purpose of obtaining an apology. On the last occasion (Saturday afternoon) he met complainant on the street and informed him that unless he consented to give a written apology he would thrash him. At complainant’s request defendant went with the former to his office, and af.er some words had passed defendant struck him over the back and hands with a cane, the result of which had been to incapacitate the complainant from following hie profession for several days Mr Donniston was about >o address the Court for the defence, when His Worship intimated that this was unnecessary, as he was fu'ly convinced that complainant had acted most improperly in accosting the defendant’s sister in the manner he had, and it was a fortunate thing when young girls who were su' jeotod to such conduct had fathers and brothers to take their part. An assault had been committed, but ho thought a penalty of Is and costs of Court would meet the ease.

That the report of the hearing of the said charge, so printed and published by the defendants in their said newspaper, was not an accurate, bona fide, and impartial report, but was an improper and maliciouslydistorted account of the proceedings therein mentioned or referred to, and was so printed and published with a view of disparaging and degrading the plaintiff, and of exposing him to public ridicule, hatred, and contempt. That, in consequence of the publication of such report, the plaintiff was subjected to great annoyance and public ridicule, and was molested and interfered with, and the minds of the public were inflamed against the plaintiff. It was further alleged that in or about the month of December, 1883, the defendants published in their said newspaper, of and concerning the plaintiff, a letter signed “ A Parent,” dated the 27th of December, in the words following

A CAUTION TO GIRLS. TO THE EDITOR.

Sib,— Allow me to caution the youmr ladies of Dunedin against a certain “dude” who struts about the town apparently very anxious to mike the acquaintance of every young girl ho meets. This chaming young gentleman, if he succeeds in forcing himself on any young lady, ns a rule offers to her a neat o ird with three initials engraved on it; an! does not forget to state that he has a profes-ion and an office in the emt eot the town. lie is very anxious to tako lonely walks—always wishing to avoid the main thoroughfares. As it is no use locking the stable after the horse is stolen, I think it is my duty to warn young girls against this “dude,” as I have very goed reason to believe that his object is not honorable. I would say to girls: Re ware of these lonely walks and of this particular “ dude ” of whom 1 hare been writing. He is often watched when he little thinks it by fathers and brother?.—l am, etc., A Parent. Dunedin, December 27. That the plaintiff is referred to in the said letter by the contemptible, opprobrious, and malicious term or nickname “ The Dude,” and is further referred to as being a person meriting public ridicule, hatred, and contempt. It is then alleged that in or about the said month of December, 1883, the defendants published in the Evening Star of and concerning the plaintiff a letter signed “Cat-o’-Nine Tails,” dated the 28th of December, in the words following:—

GIRLS BEWARE. TO THE EDITOR.

Sin,—l beg ;to confirm a latter which appeared in your paper last night headed “ A Caution to Girls.” I think I recognise the “ gentleman," it I may call him one. I may add that he has given myself and companions a g'cat deal of annoyance at one time or another. I only hope that every girl he annoys will do the same as we did—viz., to set on his track someone who will stop his little game.—l am, etc., Cat-o’-Nine-Tails. That the plaintiff is referred to in the said letter in contemptible and malicious terms, and with a view of inducing the public to molest the plaintiff, and to subject him to annoyance and rough treatment, and of bringing the plaintiff into public hatred and contempt. It is alleged that in consequence of the publication of the said letters the plaintiff was subjected to great annoyance and public ridicule, and was molested and interfered with, and was subjected to malicious prosecution, and had several charges and proceedings preferred against him by sundry persons. The declaration goes on to say that in the said month of December, 1883, the defendants printed and published in their newspaper reports of the hearing of several of the said charges and proceedings preferred against the plaintiff in the Police Court, Dunedin, which reports commenced with sensational headings and were improper and maliciouslydistorted reports, interspersed with comments on the hearings of the said charges and proceedings, and with a view of bringing the plaintiff into disrepute and contempt, and inflaming the minds of the public against the plaintiff, and were nyt accurate, impartial, and bona fide reports thereof. In the same month of December, 1883, the plaintiff, in his professional capacity as an architect, exhibited in the Art Gallery of the Christchurch Industrial Exhibition several architectural designs; and the defendants, on or about the 20th December aforesaid, falsely and maliciously printed and published in their newspaper, of and concerning the plaintiff in his profession of an architect, the words following :

In the Art Galle-y are two feat (a) and wonderful objects in tho way of architentural drawings by Mr J, W. Robinson, ot Dunedin. One purports to represent the Provincial Hotel and Mr Jamieson’s drapery establishment at tho corner of Manse and Staffo d streets; tho other an enormous block ot buildings bearing the inscription "New Zealand Fruit Preserving Company.” The structures depicted certainly do not exist at present, and I should not imagine they are likely to, according to the plans; at all events, if they are ever erected it is fervently to be hoped that tho persons frequenting their neighborhood, and that the skies above them will never '-e anything like those delineated by the arlist. The skies arc simply appalling, while tho human beings are in such postures as a marionette trrupo would never approach I cam® upon Po(essor Von Ilaast inspiring these pictures carefully through n pur of glasses. Ho did not seem particularly surp iscd at the buildings, but he asked me if the people In Dunedin were really like those models wo saw b: fore us.

That the said words are not a fair and honest criticism of the designs therein referred to, but are a malicious and unfair abuse of the plaintiffs works, and impute to the plaintiff want of competent qualification and ability in his said profession, and are intended to be part of the malicious persecution of the plaintiff by the defendants, which had been carried on by the defendants during the greater part of the latter months of the year 1883 for the purpose of degrading the plaintiff and of exposing him to public ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and of injuring him in his said profession and in his character and reputation. It is further alleged that in or about the month of June, 1885, the defendants printed and published in their said newspaper a letter signed “ A Parent,” and dated the 2nd of June, of and concerning the plaintiff, in the words following WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH THE DUDE ? TO THE EDITOR. P IRi _fjotv.'itli3-tiding that, the dude with three initials haa boon ducked in the Leith, hnrsiwhipped, pelted with stoima, and frequently smothered with mud, flour, etc., ho still perambulates the north end pf the town, making himself a nuisance to poor motherless girls. Cannot something 1,0 done to,stop his offensive behavior before something serious takes place? I have no ill-will against the individual in queition, and write only through a sense of duty to warn parents to caution their girls to shun his society.—l am, etc., A Parent, Dunedin, June 2. That the plaintiff is referred to in the said letter by the contemptible and opprobious term or nickname of the “dude, and is also referred to in the said letter as being a person of dishonorable and immoral character, and with a view of inducing the public to molest and interfere with the plaintiff, and to treat him with ridicule and contempt. It is next alleged that in consequence

of the - aforesaid continued and persistent libels printed and published by the',' d,efendaiits of and concerning the plaintiff in his profession, character, and reputation. The previously extensive business of the plaintiff as an architect was completely; ruined, arid ho suffered great loss in his and reputation. Finally, the declaration, alleges ,tbat in consequence of the mental anxiety, produced by the publication of the aforesaid libels the plaintiff’s health -wag Undermined, and he was confined to bed and unable to attend to his professional business for the space of twentyone months, and is only just recovered from his illness, the aforesaid libels have caused the plaintiff great and irreparable injury, and they are malicious and untrue, wherefore he claims L 50.000 as damages.' JJ£The defendants pleaded admitting publication of the Police Court reports, but stated Jibat such, reports were a fair, accurate, and impartial account of the evidence and proceedings. The said proceedings were of public interest and concern, ami were published bona fide and without malice, and for public benefit in the usual course by the defendants as public journalists. As to the letters concerning “ A Dude” it was denied that the plaintiff was therein referred to. As to the notice of the Christchurch Industrial Exhibition, they alleged that the words complained of were published bona fide and without malice, and were a fair and honest criticism of the architectural drawings exhibited by the plaintiff. Mr Stuart, in opening the case, said that this was, perhaps, with the jury—as it was certainly with him—a case involving the largest claim that had come under their notice. The plaintiff was asking for no less a sum than L 50,000 damages. Before opening the facts he would like to explain something in connection with this claim. The plaintiff was advised by an eminent firm of Wellington solicitors to fix his claim at that sum, and he did so, though possibly the substantiality of the claim might throw an air of burlesque over the whole affair; for probably very few men In Dunedin —he did not care to single out the defendants could pay L 50,000, even though a jury awarded that sum. The plaintiff had opened his mouth rather wide, and he (the learned counsel) would like the jury to understand at the beginning of the case that the plaintiff would be satisfied with a less amount.—(Laughter.) The jury would clearly understand that in considering what damages the plaintiff was entitled to—and he would be able to show most clearly that he was entitled to substantial damages—they would be pleased to offer any amount like the algebraical X, which represented an unknown quantity; but unlike X it could be considerably reduced, and would come within the fancy of the claimant. So much for the amount claimed. Now for the matter of the complaint. The plaintiff was, in the latter part of 1883 and the beginning of 1884, carrying on business in Dunedin as an architect. He had a fairish practice for Dunedin, and altogether had a chance of succeeding pretty well in the Colony. He had not been very long from the Old Country, and, having got fairly established, was pushing his way slowly and unostentatiously to the front, when in the month of November, 1883, ho was the victim of a cowardly assault. He sought then the remedy of the Police Court—ho did not ask for L 50.000 damages in that action, but merely that his assailant might be punished for the assault. The present defendants, who we; e the proprietor, printer, and publisher of the Evening Star newspaper—a journal which he supposed the jury were all familiar with, and probably had been read by a majority of them with pleasure and occasionally with pain—the Evening Star, in a capacity that was selfconstituted, had chosen in its Police Court report to give a sensational heading to this case ; and the plaintiff further alleged that the report was distinctly inaccurate, unfair, and between the lines of it showed the grossest malice on the part of the newspaper, The defendants admitted that they had published this report, but stated that it had been done in all fairness and in the discharge of some duty which they ‘considered they had a right to undertake. Newspapers published all sorts of things that take place in the Courts; but ho (the learned counsel) would say, subject to correction, that the proprietors of newspapers were simply men who carried on their business in such a way as they thought proper. No one asked them to publish the papers, and they only published them because they made money by so doing. It must not be imagined that people conducted papers for the purpose’of serving their genera tion. They had had experience of newspapers in Dunedin, and knew that when they ceased to be carried on at a profit the proprietors forgot all about public duty, the papers went quietly into liquidation, and the place that once knew them now knew no more. However, the Star chose to publish a report and certain anonymous letters, and if the defendants failed to show that they were actuated by some real sense of duty—not fanciful or distorted sense of duty—but that they only did something, which as honest men they were bound to do —granting that there was no harm in publishing what took place at the Police Court; but if he could show that they went beyond the region of fair play, gave a distorted report, prefaced it with an improper and sensational heading, all of which must have the effect of damaging a young professional man—then it would be for the jury to say to what extent he should be reimbursed for the loss he had suffered, and to what extent the papers should be taught to confine themselves to advertisements and matters of that kind more strictly in future. This report the plaintiff said was inaccurate and untrue. It was merely a digest of the evidence, but the evidence was not given, and nothing but what would tell against plaintiff was given. The plaintiff would tell the jury in what respects the report was inaccurate and grossly unfair. In respect of this report, the defendants admitted publication, but alleged that it was an accurate and impartial report. In addition to subjecting the plaintiff to molestation and injury in that way, the defendants attac *ed him in his professional capacity of an architect. Some time ago an exhibition of fine arts—chiefly local productions—took place at Christchurch, and the Evening Star considered it its duty on that occasion to give an unprofessional opinion of several pictures which the plaintiff exhibited. The drawings were in Court, and the jury would be able to judge between Mr Robinson and the erudite reporter of the Evening Star, who poses as an authority. One of the drawings was the Provincial Hotel, Stafford street, and that, no doubt, would be familiar to the gentleman who wrote the article. His Honor: That is the outside.— (Laughter.) Mr Stuart: Wc say that that comment [read] on Mr Robinson’s drawings is not fair and honest criticism. The drawings will be here, and the jury could judge for themselves. If it were untrue, every word in that paragraph xvas calculated to do damage to a man practising the profession of an architect. Then in a number of the anonymous letters complained of the plaintiff was spoken of as “a dude’ ; and so far as the meaning of the word went he could only say that it would be found in very few respectable dictionaries or newspapers. Generally speaking, it was a word not met with in newspapers devoted to the reading of respectable persons. In conclusion he (the learned counsel) asked the jury to mark their disapproval of this kind of journalism by inflicting on the defendants such substantial damages as they were enabled to pay. He did not wish to see the Evening Star crushed or put into improper hands, but merely asked for such a verdict as would show that it was necessary that newspapers should be surrounded by proper safeguards, and colonial editors warned that if they chose to indulge in such kind of pranks they must pay for them, and pay very handsomely. He would show that the plaintiff was in the Dunedin Hospital for something like twentyone months at a stretch. The medical man who attended him would state that he was suffering from derangement of the nervous system, probably caused by the annoyance to which he had been subjected by the Evening Star and the satellites of that planet, if he might call it one ; and consequently not only was unfitted to earn hia living at his profession, but was unfitted even to exist, except under the most careful nursing. If that were true, then it was for the jury to say how far the Star should be made to pay for its libels. They would probably hear from counsel on the other side a good deal of this L 50,000. That amount the plaintiff was prepared to discount, and, as he had already said, would take a less sum. He would now call evidence to establish plaintiff’s case. William Joseph Wilson Robinson, the plaintiff, said that he was an architect in Dunedin in the latter end of 1883. In the month of November be figured as complainant in the Police Court in an assault case. That report was not an accurate one. Tbey had 'made the'statement appear as though he had been charged in the Police

Court with accosting a female in the street' It bore the sensational heading—" A Deserved Rebuke.” His Honor: It does not appear so from what Mr Stuart read. Witness: I had never been charged at the Police Court with accosting; females in the street. Only one witness was partly examined. I gave evidence, but not a word of it was published. I summoned a 'man named White for coining to my‘'office and assaulting me, : / Mr Stuart: Suppose you had sunk to the level of a reporter, and tell ns what took place.—(Laughter.) Witness: There was no talk of forcing my company. The only words said in Court were by the Bench, about an assault having been committed, and a fine of Is and costs was inflicted. There was nothing said about the Athendmm. - His.Honor : Have you not sense enough to tell us, as requested, what took place in the Police Court from the beginning ? Witness : What I Said in the Police Court was this : White came several times to my office. I did not know him the first time he came to my office. On one occasion, after some conversation, White asked me if I would go and see him at Kensington on the following Saturday afternoon. I could not go that day, and after being out during the afternoon I returned to my I found White and another man standing at the door. White asked me why I did not go down to his house. I said that I was too busy. He then said that I had been making a fool of him. I ordered him away, ana opened my office door to go in. White and the other man pushed open the door after I had gone in, and followed me in. White struck me over the head and arm with a malacca cane, and between them they destroyed architectural drawings worth L4O that were hanging on the walls. A gentleman named Johnson, who had an office in the same building, cande to my assistance, and White and the other man shortly went away. I took out a summons against White, but I did not know the other man. I was asked in Court a question about meeting the female in the street, and I answered that I was going home about 8.30 o’clock on the night in question, and this young person crossed the street and came up to me ; that we walked along together for a little while, and that then she asked me the time. 1 told her, and she then said she had an appointment at the end of the Cricket Ground. I asked her if she was not afraid of meeting her sweetheart. She said she was not; that he would not come up the street. When we got to the place he was not there. She then said she would go to the Post Office. I said I had no objection to her company, and walked on with her. On reaching the Post Office I said my office was further up Princes street. She walked along with me, and on reaching my office at Union Chambers I said “ Good night ” to her. I had previously promised to call on her at her house, but did not expect to see her again that night. I got some letters in my office and went out again to post them. On going into the Post Office I saw the girl following me. I asked her if she had not met her friend. She said she had not, and asked if I had any objection to going along the road with her. I said I lived at the other end of the town, and declined, but said that I would go as far as Guthrie and Larnaeh’s. I went as far as the corner of the Cricket Ground, ami there her friend came up. I turned back then, after saying “Good night.” That finished my evidence, and then Coxhead—the girl’s friend—gave evidence. He identified me as being the party who was with the girl, and said he saw me shake hands with her. The girl herself was next sworn, and gave her name; but gave no evidence. Her solicitor made some remarks as to whether I was the party that spoke to her, and she said I was. She said that she saw me going into my office, and subsequently saw me going into the Post Office; also that I walked along to the Cricket Ground with her till she met her friend. She said that she thought she had known inc before, being aware that I was an architect named Robinson, and that I had an office in Princes street. No one said in Court that Miss White had complained to a gentleman of my conduct, and no mention was made of the Athenaram. White gave, evidence as to going to my office and asking if I was the person who had been making friends with his sister in the street. I asked him who he was, and he said that he lived at the pipeworks at Kensington. He said that he asked me if I had made any appointments to see his sister again, and that I replied that 1 had promised to call on her next evening. He also repeated the conversation as to inviting me down on the Saturday. I wanted to call Johnson to give evidence, but the Magistrate said he did not think it was necessary, as he was fully convinced that the defendant had acted improperly in going to my office, and that he thought a fine of a shilling and costs would meet the case. That was all he said, and he never used the following words: — “ He was fully convinced that complainant had acted most improperly in accosting defendant’s sister in the manner he had, and it was a fortunate thing when young girls who were subjected to such conduct had fathers and brothers to take their part.” His Honor: You say that the Magistrate never used those words ?

Witness : Yes ; he never used them. It is a falsehood, and that is the most offensive part of the affair. To Mr Stuart: He never said that I had acted improperly, or that it was fortunate that young girls had brothers to defend them.

itness here remarked that he took it as an indication of the lower order that a girl should speak to and ask the time of a gentleman who never koew her. His Honor: Was that said in Court ? Witness : No, I would not be allowed to give all the evidence; but I wish to say that for the benefit of those friends of the girl who are sitting here now and gaping and laughing at what is going on. There are not three words of truth in that paragraph of what took place in Court. I can swear to that and prove it. His Honor: What are you telling us now? Was that said in Court ? Witness: No, your Honor. His Honor: Well all we want to know is what was said in Court.

To Mr Stuart: On December 8 I brought an* action against White, and the Star’s report of it states that the previous case was dismissed, which was not the case, as a fine of Is and costs had been inflicted. On April 23, 1884, I was charged with creating a broach of the peace by striking a man in Frederick street, and was fined L2and costs. The Star’s report [read] was fair; there were no inaccuracies in it as a report of the evidence that was given. I was referred to as a “ dude.” I question the accuracy of the report of a case heard in the Resident Magistrate’s Court on May 14, 1884, in which I sued a Mrs Bain for L 3 3s for services rendered as valuator. In the report I was described as follows: “The plaintiff, who represented himself as being an architect, was represented as being a perfect nuisance, and as having been dealt with at the Police Court for insulting females.” His Honor: Was that said in Court?

Witness: Yes, your Honor. His Honor: Then it does represent what was said in Court, so you cannot question the accuracy of the report. Witness: I complain of the remark that I “ represented ” myself as being an architect, it being meant contemptuously. Mr Stuart; Well, now as to the letters of which you complain, and which have been read.

Witness: In December, 1883, the letter appeared in the Evening Stab headed “ A Caution to Girls,” and it was followed by another headed “ Girls Beware !” Half-a-dozen or a dozen copies of these letters were cut out and posted to me at my office. Mr Haggitt: Well, we didn’t cut them out. Witness : I was fully convinced that I was the person referred to in the letters, and I had the words “ the dude ” called out after me in the streets.

Mr Haggitt: But Mr Bell did not call out after you, did he ? Mr Stuart: Mr Bell has doubtless too much sense to read his own paper. He would know nothing about the letters.

Witness continued: The result of the publication of these letters was that the minds of the public were inflamed against me ; aud when I called at offices and other places I was told that I was called a “ dude,” and had been horsewhipped, and I was ordered out of the places.

Mr Stuart: We will now come to the architectural plans. What do you say about them ? Witness: I exhibited at the New Zealand Industrial Exhibition at Christchurch the two designs [produced] for buildings in Dunedin. One is for a building to take the place of the Provincial Hotel and J, Jamieson’s drapery shop, and the other is for the New Zealand Fruit-preserving Com pany of New Zealand. The Evening Stab had the remarks about this as read. The following extract is incorrect“ One pur-

portV&Tfipreseht tbe Wfvtikdal Hotel ahd does not represent rthose 'Buildings, and no reporter oonld make such a mistake as th His Honor : The renter does not ray that they do exist; he rays that the structures depicted certainly do not exist at present, apd I should not imagine that they are likely to, according to the plans. Mr Stuart remarked that the report dfatinctly stated ifchat they purported to be the buildings in question. , Witness continued: Such a report m the Evening Stab would have the effect oi preventing my getting practice. Another letter appeared in the Evening Stab in Jupe, 1885, headed “ What shall we do with the dude ’ ” I was in ULhealta at th time, and I was followed about the streets and pelted, and also threatened to be ducked in the Water of Leith, The conse* sequence was that my health broke down. I had a good practice—making from Lls to L2O per week—but lost this; and had to go into the Benevolent Institution. I was reduced from comfortable circumstances to absolute penury. Mr Stuart: And for these wrongs you claim L 50,000 damages ? Witness : That amount has been “levied by a good number of solicitors outside Dunedin; some at Wellington and some at Auckland. Of course the professional men here look at it in a different light—out of mere friendship to the defendants. Mr Haggitt: I see the solicitors outside of Dunedin value Mr Robinson more highly than the local solicitors do. Witness: I have only this further to ray: From the commencement to the latter part of the year 1883—when these reports began by speaking of a deserved rebuke—till the latter part of 1885, 1 was completely ruined in my profession as an architect; my health was undermined ; and 1 was Unable to earn my living. Mr Stuart: What was the nature of your illness in the Hospital ? Witness: It was an effect of the injuries I sustained in the street through being followed, knocked down, and kicked. By Mr Haggitt: And you hold these publications responsible for the injuries yon received by being assaulted in the street ? Yes.

How long were you practising as an architect in Dunedin ’—About seven months altogether. When did you come here ? About five months before the time of the first assault. In what month did you come here from Invercargill ? —About the month of June, and I commenced the practise of my profession at once. Whereabouts’ Princes street.

How long did you remain there ?—Up till April, 1884. During that time I did nothing except practise my profession as an architect.

Now I want you to tell me what buildings were erected under your supervision during that time?—l did not erect many big buildings, but prepared plans for alterations —one or two in Dunedin and several orders from the country, Southland. Now, did you erect any buildings at all in Dunedin ?—No, I think it was only repairs that I got. What buildings did you do repairs to ? In Great King street —Mr Graham was the proprietor. What was the building ?—Some repairs to a cottage there—a six-roomed cottage, I think.

And what was the nature of the repairs you designed ?—The draining about the place, and “ renovekating ” the buildings.— (Laughter). You will find that word in the dictionary.—(Renewed laughter). What was the “ renovekation ” yon did to the building? What was the extent of them ?—General repairs. You did not design a new house. What did you design—the partition ?—lt is a matter of very little importance what was required. Then you cannot tell us what the extent of the repairs was ?—I would require to have the specifications to refresh my memory. Was the other job you had in Dunedin ? I cannot recollect; several other bits of jobs. And during the ten months you were practising in Dunedin all you can recollect doing was attending to the drains of a sixroomed cottage and “ renovekating ” the cottage ?—Yes, that is all I can recollect. And when was it that you made at the rate of Lls per week?—My business was affected shortly after I came to Dunedin in consequence of the publication of these letters and articles.

Why, the first of these things was not published till November 8, close on six months after you came here ?—About four or five months. It was about the latter end of June that I came here.

These things could not have affected your business till they were published. During the five months that you were in Dunedin before the publication of any of the matters complained of, did you make from Lls to L2O per week?— The principal money I made was for work out of Dunedin, for people coming in from the country. Very little work came into the office after the first publication. Did any come in before so far as Dunedin was concerned? —I got orders for_ these before (designs produced) for new buildings in Stafford street. Both Mr SibbaldandMr Jamieson intended to build at the time. From those gentlemen you got orders to prepare designs?— Yes, I got them some time in October, I think. Did they ever pay you for those designs ? -No. Did you ever send them in an account ? No. They had some talk about the designs being satisfactory, and the public having something to say about their being wonderful designs. They did not approve of the designs ? They did not approve of the designs after the Exhibition. That is purely the reason I did not get the order. Very well, we will see what those gentlemen have to say about the designs. Now we will come .to the report of the proceedings in the Police Court. You laid an information against Mr While, I understand ? -Yes. And that information was for assaulting you on the 3rd November ?—Yes. You say that this report of the case is wholly incorrect, and that in dealing with it the Magistrate said nothing about your conduct ?—Not a single word. Did not you accost Mr White’s sister at Kensington?—No, I was spoken to by her. That is your account. —That is the true account. My evidence did not appear in the Star. I said that I was asked the time by Miss White, and those were the first words spoken between us. The girl gave no evidence whatever. She merely gave her name as Fanny White, and said that she remembered my speaking to her. She was quite a young girl ?—About eighteen, I should think. Don’t you think fifteen or sixteen would be nearer it than eighteen ? —I would say eighteen. You did not ask her her age, I suppose ? I do not remember whether I did.

Do you remember whether she swore that you did ? —No ; I don’t recollect that she said that I asked her her age. Is vour memory good ?—Yes ; it is good. And you profess to tell us from memory what took place at the Police Court on that occasion without having notes to refresh your memory or anything else ?—I took no notes, but I remember what took place very well, What makes me remember clearly is that the reports were so absurd. That is how you recollect what the witnesses said in Court ?—Yes, that is how I recollect.

And yon profess to tell us on the 22nd March, 1887, what took place in the Police Court on November 8, 1883, from memory ? —I have notes of it somewhere, which I have been reading over several times. Where are your notes? I cannot say where they are. A good lot of my papers are in Wellington at the present time. And you do not know where your notes are ?—They are likely there. At all events you say now that this young lady was sworn to give evidence, although she did not giveevidence? —The only evidence she gave was to state her name and to say that I was the person who spoke to her. I am going to read to you a note of the evidence taken at the time by the Magistrate who heard the case. —There can easily enough be a note of the evidence. I could easily enough write out a few notes now to suit myself. . ~ , ~ „ . Do you mean to suggest that the Magistrate has taken up a pen and ink and written to suit himself ?—I have not heard-him on oath yet. I will know better afterwards. Do you recollect Fanny White saying anything to this effect; “On the 29th October, at night, I was going to the Athenteum from father’s house at Kensington ?” —No ; I have said the words she used. Those words were never used In Court. If the Magistrate’s notes

Mr Stuart interrupted the witness. Mr Haggitt; Let nim enjoy himself in the witness-box.

Witness: 1 swear the girl never Said that. Mr Stuart: That’s right; confine yourself to swearing,—(Laughter). Mr Hagcitt; Were these words used by Miss White: “ I know theMCuaed now ; but never before that night ? . Witness : She said she know me by sight. “He spoke to me; ho overtook me. Did she say that’-No; she said she was crossing the street. Those were the words she used in Court. “He spoke and walked. He came up to me and I walked faster?” Witness (apparently surprised): Is that the evidence ghe gave? Yes. I am asking you if she said anything of that sort?— That is utterly wrong. She never said a word of it. “ He left me near the City Hotel.”—That Is hot true, because my office is a good way off the City Hotel, and I went into my office. “ When he spoke to me, he asked me where I was going.” Is that so?— No. I asked her that question when we were near my office, and after we had walked some distance.

“ He asked my name, where I lived, my age ? ”—I asked her name the second time that I met her. On my asking her where she was going, she said that she was going to meet her young man. It looks more respectable going to the Athenseum than going to meet her sweetheart. I swear again that she simply gave evidence of her name, and that I was the person who spoke *°Then she never swore that you asked her where she was going, where she lived, or her age ?—She never swore that. Did she swear that you asked her to go up the hill with her ?—No. Did she swear that you asked her to go to the Cricket Ground ?—No. Did she swear that you met her again when she was going back home, and followed her and spoke to her near Cargill’s monument ?—I remember her saying something about meeting me going to the Post Office, . Now, mind what you are swearing, fori am reading from the Magistrate’s notes. Did Miss White not say in Court that you followed her and spoke to her near the Cargill monument ?—No. The words were used by her solicitor. Did she swear that you asked her to go down a back street with you ?—No. That also was said by her solicitor. Did you say that von took hold of her hand and that she took it away ?—No; that was said by her friend in his evidence. Mind I warned you before that I was going to ask you from notes of the evidence the Magistrate took at the time. You are denying that evidence was given, though it appears on those notes. Did she say she Saw no one she knew till she arrived at the Cricket Ground?— She never gave much evidence; she only uttered three or four words. Did she say you left her when you reached the Cricket Ground, and that she complained to her brother next morning ? That was said by her solicitor. She only said she knew him by sight, and thought I was Robinson, the architect. The other remarks were made by her solicitor, not by her. Now, you have said to-day that she spoke io you first?— Yes. She asked the time after we bad walked a few yards—l dare say about two chains. I was walking very fast. I did not intend that we should walk long together. It was half-past eight o’clock ; 1 looked at the time. You have sworn to-day that she spoke to you first ?—Yes, and I swear it now. Did Mr White want you to apologise for what you had done ?—He gave me an invitation to go to the house. Did he want you to go there to be thrashed ? Did ho give you the choice of being thrashed on your own premises or at his house ?—We were on good terms at that time. There was nothing said about going down to apologise. And you were never asked to apologise ? He never asked any apology till he came oil the Saturday afternoon. He came by himself the first time. Then was there no evidence in the Police Court about his going to your office for the purpose of obtaining an apology ? I think his solicitor made some such remark. Was it a written apology he wanted ? He talked something about a written apology on the Saturday afternoon. Was it not stated that unless you consented to give a written apology he would thrash you?—He talked something about an apology for not coming down to the house.—(Laughter.) The Magistrate, in deciding the case, made no remark about your conduct ?—No remark whatever. The reporter has invented the whole thing from the beginning to the end. Now, you are bringing this action against the Star. Did you "happen to look at the ‘Times’s’ ’-eport of these proceedings?— Yes. Did it differ very much from the Star report ? — lt appears to be an exact copy. Then the ‘ Times ’ had exactly the same report of the proceedings as the Star had ? —No doubt they have copied it out. They generally do. Those arc -the only two papers that it was in No respectable paper would make such a statement. Then the ‘ Times ’ and the Star are not respectable papers ? The * Herald objected to publish it. They told you so? Yes; it takes a friend or relation to make such a report, I remarked at the time that the Magistrate had made such a short address in disposing of the case. He simply said that a fine of One shilling and costs would meet the case. In answer to further questions, the plaintiff denied the accuracy of a report of the proceedings in the Police Court on December 8, 1883. It was not true that witness said he had more fear of the friends of the defendant (White) than of the defendant himself. That made it appear before the public that the Bench had no provocation to bind W bite over to keep the peace, and the case was dismissed. He complained that that report was in order to make a cloak for the parties. . His Honor : You say that the Magistrates decided wrongly, and, in order to justify their position, the reporter of the Star made a wrong report ? . . Witness : Those words were maliciously printed and published, and it is a malicious libel. I never said I was more afraid of the defendant’s friends than of himselL The witness denied that he had pointed out any of the figures on the designs shown at the Christchurch Exhibition. The designs had got damp and the figures disappeared. Mr Stuart: They have gone in out of the On resuming after the luncheon adjournment, . TT Plaintiff was further cross-examined. He said: Taken in conjunction with the Police Court report, “ A Deserved Rebuke,” I took it that the words “a dude,” in letters to the Star, referred to me. Since then I have been called a dude. It is & nickname, and has no particular meaning. I consider it very offensive. Three initials are spoken of, and my card has three graven on it. I have offered business cards to ladies, sometimes at their own residence, I could not calculate that I have forced myself on females in offering them a neat card, though they might have so considered it. My name, profession, and address consist of three letters.—(Laughter.) W. J. W. Robinson is the first initial; my profession is the second; and my ad--dress the third that is how_ I construe the paragraph into meaning me. My friends in Dunedin would recognise that I was the person meant as being the person anxious to take lonely walks in female society. As to the subsequent letters, I have been threatened with a ducking in the Leith, without any reason being assigned other than the letters in the newspapers ; so I imagined I was meant. A man named Bain threatened to duck me for talking to some female acquaintances. Mr Stuart pointed out that the defendants denied that the plaintiff was referred to in the letters, and they had pleaded urged that the plaintiff having sworn that the letters did refer to him it was competent for him to examine the witness on the point. Witness continued : I have been assaulted on several occasions before and after the appearance of this letter. I do not know that I deserved the assaults. They were the result of the rumors which were circulated regarding me. I have been pelted with bricks and smothered with mud an flour. I do not know, however, that i made myself a nuisance to “poor motherless girls.” I was charged with a breach of the peace at the Police Court on the 24th April. I was asked on that occasion by Sergeantmajor Beviu whether I had not insulted a. voung lady in George street, but I do not remember what reply I gave. The newspaper report of what occurred in Court is not consistent. There was no foundation for Sergeant-major Bevin’s question. I had never spoken to a young lady in George street. Sergeant Bevin was at the head of my persecutors. I was also

asked whether I was not covered with flour by a woman I was said to have accosted. I never answered the question. There was no foundation for the statement. It was some friend of Sergeant Bevin who complained that I had insulted her. I was fined L2 and costs, in default ten days’ imprisonment; but the Bench were entirely influenced by Mr Logan, who must be excused as he had something to do with my persecution. I never struck a man a cowardly blow on the eye as described by Constable M ‘Lauchlin. Constable M ‘Lauchliu never said in Court that several complaints had been made against me about following females and insulting them. The statement which John Matthews made is not a correct one. The witnesses who gave evidence against me were actuated by malice. This last thing happened in June, 1884, I loft Dunedin in the beginning of 1886. I never was charged with insulting females. I have been told several times that I did so, but I will defy anyone to prove it. Since leaving Dunedin I have been at Wellington, where I commenced this action on the Bth November, 1886. These events which I complain of took place in 1883 and 1884. Mr Haggitt: Before you left Dunedin how marty solicitors - Mr Stuart: That, Mr Robinson, is a piece of impertinence. You need not answer. His Honor: Wait till the question is answered. Mr Haggitt: Well, Upon my word ! Mr Stuart: My practice is not so extensive as my friend T a, but it is the first time I have heard such a question put. Witness: I have no objection to answer the question. Mr Stuart: Very well; answer it. Witness: Being amongst legal friends I ought to answer the question, Mr Haggitt: How many solicitors did you call on to try to get them to take up the case against the Star ? Witness: I went to several, unfortunately. And none of them would touch it ? —No. How many solicitors have you asked here to take up your case in Court since you came back from Wellington ?—I think I asked one, and that one referred me to some others—l think three. And you went to several others ? —Some one or two, I think. Mr Stuart: You did not ask Mr Haggitt, and you did not want him, did you ? Mr Haggitt: That is virtually untrue, because he did. My learned friend is under the misapprehension that I am reflecting upon him for taking up the case ; but I can assure him that that is not my intention. Witness continued : Constable M‘Lauchlin was waiting for me on the occasion ; ho says I hit a man a cowardly blow in the eye. He lias since been dismissed from the force. Mr Stuart: On account of this ? Witness: Yes.—(Laughter.) Witness continued : The rumors which were circulated and published about me were all lies. Dr Roberts, M.R.C.S., stated that he had a vague recollection of plaintiff’s having been an out-patient at the Hospital during part of 1884. He gave witness the impression of being a nervous individual; he was a most unsatisfactory patient, and witness got heartily sick of him before he got rid of him. No records were kept of the ailments of out-patients, but only of the number of their visits to the Hospital. To Mr Haggitt: I can throw very little light on the matter; I only know that the plaintiff was an out-patient, and that I could do nothing for him. Dr Davies, M.R.C.S., stated that he also remembered plaintiff’s attending at the Hospital. He could not recollect what disease the plaintiff was suffering from, but to the best of his belief treated him for nervous affections. His nervous system seemed shattered. Witness eventually got tired of him, for he could find nothing the matter with him.

To Mr Haggitt : I got tired of him long before I got rid of him. It struck me that he was in a nervous state. Henry Johnson, commission agent, deposed that in the latter part of 1883 he occupied an office in the same chambers as the plaintiff. I have heard him described as “the dude.” I take tills term to mean a masher, a man a little short in the head, a puppy, something degrading. The plaintiff has been pointed ont to me as “ the dnde ” in the street. Cross-examined : There might be other dudes besides the plaintiff. Mark Cohen, associate editor of the Star, stated that lie allowed the letters complained of to appear in the newspaper, lie had a general idea as to whom they referred to from what he had heard. Cross-examined : He did not communicate his impression to the publisher or printer of the paper. He communicated with the police before publishing the letters. The pictures produced attracted very general attention at the Christchurch Exhibition. They were among the fearful and wonderful sights which were to be seen, and they were written of as such. He did not send the report to the Star. That was supplied by a member of the ordinary staff. This was the plaintiffs case. Mr Haggitt was addressing the Court at 4.40 p.m.