CHARGE OF LIBEL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 9491, 13 August 1891, Page 6

CHARGE OF LIBEL.

AN AUCKLAND SOLICITOR. [Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND. August 12. Mr Hugh Shortland, the well-known solicitor, was charged at the Police Court to-day, before Dr Giles, R.M.,with having libelled an unmarried woman .in letters sent, to,three, separate persons.. The Court was; crowded. ■ Mr Hugh Campbell, in opening the case for the informant, men-? tioiied that the defendant had been engaged to .marry “the informant, but, as the priest objected,: the mother, refused her consent, whereupon the defendant had threatened to defame the girl’s character. Mr Campbell mentioned that the mother had flogged the suitor and pat him out of the house, but he returned shortly afterwards. He also stated that the defendant had once written to the informant asking for .£2O, and also asked her mother to make over certain property to him when he married the girl. The defendant once or twice interrupted Mr Campbell, stating that he was making alle-~ gations that could not bo supported by evidence. Various witnesses were examined as to receiving ..the letters-con-taining the paragraphs mentioned in the information. SSSS

A further telegram says ■ Hugh Shortland wascharged withhaving in or about the month of July or August, 1891, at Auckland, written and, published certain false, scandalous, and defamatory libels concerning the moral character of an unmarried female. Mr Campbell opened the case at some length, and then went on to read a series of extraordinary letters, signed " Hugh Shortland,” “ Hugh Shortland,” “ Hugh,” and “H.S.” respectively, produced in support of the allegations in the information. The evidence of a number of witnesses was taken as to the receipt of letters by them in relation to the informant, and referring to her conduct and character. At the close of the evidence the defendant said that he was not ashamed of any of the letters be had written. Mr Shortland, addressing the Bench, condemned the action of the informant in not appearing. He claimed the right in law to draw the informant. If she was not drawn be claimed that the case must be dismissed. Dr Giles stated that he would not commit himself to any such view. He only had to decide whether there was a case to go a jury. He did not know that it was necessary to call the informant. Mr Shortland said it was the privilege of every Englishman to plead his cause. At the proper time he. would bring evidence to support his position. He admitted that he had done some things which were very unwise, and which he bad deeply regretted. .The accused was then committed for trial. Bail was allowed, himself in £SO and two sureties of £25 each, or one of £SO.