Supreme Court, Nelson.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 206, 4 December 1869, Page 4

Supreme Court, Nelson.

/[Before His Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.] ( WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24th. LEVIN V. BEAUMONT. This was an action to recover £5,000 damages for a slander alleged to have been promulgated by defendant, to the effect that plaintiff, who is a merchant living at Wellington, had colluded with Joseph Dresser Tetley, late a sheepfarmer in Marlborough, to defraud defendant and others. The Attorney-General and Mr. Brandon appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Conolly, Mr. Hart, and Mr. Pitt for the defendant. A special jury was sworn in, consisting of Messrs Everett, Bently, W. H. Turner, Hodder, Blackett, C. H. Brown, Huddleston, Lowe, Baton, Mackay, Lewis, and Bennett, (foreman). The Attorney-General, having opened the case in a speech of over an hour in length, called

W. H. Eyes, Superintendent of Marlborough, who stated : I remember meeting the defendant on board the Airedale. In a conversation which took place between us he accused Mr. Levin and Mr. Tetley of having swindled him. He said he had brought out certain moneys which had been invested, by the advice of Levin and Tetley, in sheep on Tetley’s run, and that this money had been paid to Levin to liquidate Tetley’s account with him. He said that he had brought this accusation before, but had since apologised; he now, however, intended to withdraw the apology, as he was convinced that Levin had acted in collusion with Tetley. I cautioned him against speaking in this manner, and he replied he did not wish to make it a private or confidential conversation, but had told lots of people already, and that he would rather like to have an action brought against him if it should cost him a few hundied pounds, as it would give him an opportunity of making the whole affair public. He said he had also written to several influential people in England informing them of the whole transaction. He said that he had come out under Tetley’s wing, together witli Mr. Pulleine, MfTWhaiton, and Mr. Garforth; that they had aIL bfoughtrrnitr money," which was only to be invested by the advice of Levin and Tetley; and that the whole of this money had gone to liquidate Tetley’s overdraft with Levin, He said Mr. Levin was going to England, and that he would find it rather hot for him on his arrival there. Nathaniel William Levin: I have been living in Wellington for 28 years, where I was in business as a merchant up to March, 1808. The business is now carried on by Mr. Pharazyn, Mr. Johnson, and my son, under the same title of Levin & Co. I knew Mr. Tetley. He went to live in JLekerangu.ia,.lßsß. I heard from him two months ago, when he said he was living about JOO , miles from Monte Video. I know Pulleine, Wharton, Beaumont^find Garforth. They came out in with Tetley, who introduced them to mo. He sautTKe*'wished to talk to me about them, and we arranged a meeting. We met, and Tetley told me he had advised them to purchase sheep, and to leave them with him until they could procure country, and then these four were to enter into partnership. I said I thought it was as good a thing as they could do. I received a letter shortly after from Beaumont stating that he and his companions had purchased 7,000 ewes from Tetley, and asking me to pay to Tetley’s account the amount of £2,700 that I had belonging to him (Beaumont). I never heard of any conversation with regard to the lending of money by those gentlemen to Tetley. Wharton brought me a letter of introduction, in which I was requested to advise him as to the investment of his money. In December, 1868, after Tetley’s departure I went to Picton, and on to Kekerangu. I met Beaumont. I received from him a written apology for statements he had made. In January he came to Wellington and inspected all the accounts with reference to Tetley’s affairs. He made no remark about the sheep agreement then, or with regard to the money paid for them. In Eebruary I heard from Mr. Eyes what Beaumont had been saying about me, and I then instructed my solicitors to commence the present action.. Some time after I received a letter from Beaumont withdrawing his apology. When I first heard of these slanders I had made every arrangement for leaving for England. Cross-examined : I have purchased wool in Wellington since the year 1868. I transacted the business in a private room in the buildings occupied by the firm. I first became acquainted with Mr, Tetley through a letter of introduction he brought from Mr. Weld. He came out as a settler, after he arrived, I learned that he had little or no I have England. I was induced to make advances

to him from the strong recommendations he brought, and also from personal prepossession in his favor. Before I went to England in 1863, Tetley, -who was considerably in our debt, had executed a mortgage to our firm over 6,000 acres belonging to him. The mortgage never was registered. Ido not know why. We had not been in the habit of taking mortgages Bince my return we have always had them punctually registered. I never saw the mortgage from the time it was signed until last January. I never told Beaumont, about the time he wrote the letter of apology that owing to the confidence I had in Tetley, the mortgage had been purposely left unregistered. I'he mortgage of 1862 was first spoken of by me to Beaumont in Picton. I said that I had one in 1862, which was renewed in 1866, and that I took another in 1868 owing to an engagement I had made on leaving the business. I remember telling Beaumont that such was my confidence in Tetley that I never took a lien over his wool. In introducing the four young men, Tetley told me that they were to invest their money on his and my recommendation. I never recommended that they should lend Tetley their money. In March, 1864, Tetley was indebted to our firm £13,000 ; and in March, 1865, £IO,OOO. This was after our receiving £6,700 from Beaumont and his companions. His property had frequently been valued to me at £20,000. In 1865 there were about 25,700 sheep on Kekerangu and Eichmond Brook runs, 17,500 of which were rented. In March, 1866, the balance against Tetley was £19,800. In 1867 it was over £22,000, and the number of sheep 35,700, about 24,000 of which were rented. In 1868, the balance against Tetley was £24,240. I looked upon it as a perfectly safe debt. When I saw Beaumont in December last I then fully believed that Tetley would be out again. Beaumont never charged me with having misled him. He never said that I must have known that Tetley was totally unfit to be trusted with the money of the young men, and that I had advised them to invest it knowing that it would fall into my hands. He made certain ''charges with reference to the mortgage, and also of my having recommended him to lend the money to 'Tetley, which I totally denied. He complained of the Awatere property having been burdened with the expenses of the Kekerangu run. I told him these expenses had been reimbursed by quarterly payments. As we were riding to Kekerangu I told him that I would not enter into terras about the sheep until he had retracted the statements he bad made UwUIUOU ...... IT V apology. I sent copies of this letter, and also of the one withdrawing the apology, to England. After examining the accounts Beaumont declined to express any opinion at the time. Ee examined: Mr. Tetley was introduced to me by Mr. Weld, who spoke most highly of him. Jn 1859 took a nine years’ lease of Major Richmond’s run at £2,000 a year. I always found the "money to" pay'TTus rent. From time to ftime he sold sheep from Eichmond Brook. The rent to Mr. Trolove was’WlTSDlKfof the first throe years, and £I,BOO for'the /last three. This rent was also paid by me. I believe that up to the time of Tetley’s return from England in 1865 I was his sole creditor, and I do not think he incurred any further expenses except to pay for runs he purchased. About the end of 1865 he wrote to me saying he should have to open an account at the Bank of Hew Zealand for small accounts. The sheep that he rented were on the usual terms. Among others he had 1,000 belonging to my sister-in-law. I made the agreement witK him in J 862,"* and renewed it in 186.Sju.st previous to hisT~ leaving for England. There were also 615 of Mr. Bell’s, which were purchased by Tetley in 1867; the money, £4OO, was paid by us. The reason why I obtained the mortgage from Tetley in 1867 was because he was going to England, and lest any accident might happen to him. Up to that time I had never pressed him either for money or security. In 1865 Beaumont placed £2,700 with us, for which we allowed him the usual bank rate of interest. The money remained with us until Beaumont drew it to pay Tetley. I received a letter from Tetley about the middle of February, 1865, endorsing drafts from the other three young men. I gave no advice as to the terras on which the sheep purchased by Beaumont and the others should be left with Tetley. Some months after they were purchased, I received a letter from Beaumont, in which he said, “ you will probably know that we are to receive £BOO a-year from Tetley.” With the exception of that and one more letter that has already been read, I have received no intimation from Beaumont or any of the others with reference to their investment in sheep. In 1866, Beaumont, Garforth, and Wharton

owed me £554 This was paid by Tetley. In 1867 there were on the Kekerangu and

Richmond Brook runs plenty of sheep to pay off defendant’s demands, if he had chosen to claim them. In 1866 I took a mortgage from Tetley, as his overdraft had then increased to £20,000. Until 1868 I had never seen any of Tetley’s properties, but depended entirely upon the representations made to me. This closed the case for the plaintiff, the Attorney-General reserving to himself the right of calling witnesses to rebut what might be brought forward on the other side. Mr. Conolly submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury that the plaintiff was in business at the time the slander was uttered. The pleas as amended stated that he was a merchant and commission agent in New Zealand; whereas it had been shown that he had only been engaged in one transaction in 1860, the partnership having been dissolved in 1868. It was also shown that at the time the slander was uttered the plaintiff had let his house, sold his furniture, and was just on the point of sailing for England. The objection having been overuled by his Honor, Mr. Conolly opened the case for the defence, and called Richard Beaumont, who stated : I became

personally acquainted with Tetley in in Yorkshire, where I ■tfras inTmMced to hy'a "friend of my father’s. By invitation from Tetley, I met him for the purpose of talking over New Zealand affairs with him. In the course of conversation, plaintiff’s name was mentioned. I did not see much more of him until we sailed for New Zealand, Shortly after our arrival in Wellington, I, in company with Tetley, dined with plaintiff. Garforth and Wharton came in the evening. The conversation took a general turn, and I remember that Tetley was highly praised. I had a business conversation with Mr. Levien at his office a few days after our arrival, where I met Tetley by appointment. Wharton, Garforth, and myself produced letters authorising us to draw on England. We were told it was desirable for young men to invest money as soon as possible, as it gave them a stake in the country, but that as new comers were not well able to judge of an investm nt, it should not be locked up for more than two years. Plaintiff said, Why don’t you lend your money to Tetley, you can’t do better. A discussion took place as to the value of sheep, when Tetley said to Levien, “ You know it dosen’t matter much about the price, as in this instance it is a mere matter of form.” Eventually we purchased 7000 sheep from Tetley, which were to be left on terras. The sheep were not delivered nor set apart, nor was there any written agreement. We received 12£ per cent, for the investment. Eor the first five or six months we all lived with Tetley. It was not until the end of 1868 that I learned that Tetley was largely indebted to Levien. The Manager of the Bank of New Zealand was the first to inform me after Tetley had left for England that his affairs were in a queer state. I had no notion then that he owed plaintiff any money. The Bank has seized his sheep, and plaintiff had foreclosed his mortgage. I have received £9OO from Levin indirectly, _ as he and I both held bills of sale over sheep, and he gave me this money to waive my right, as there was some doubt as to the validity of his document. In December, 1868, I met the plaintiff in Picton. I refused to shake hands with him or to have anything to say to him, except as regards business matters. We then went to Mr Conolly’s together, where Levin remonstrated with me for treating him so coolly, . and assured me that I was under an error. I complained then of his having taken a mortgage over Tetley’s property, after havv ing advised us to trust him with our money, ' He said this mortgage was. only a substitute for the one that had been executed in 1862. At; Blenheim, Mr. Levin endeavored to explain away many charges that T had, .-.brought against him. I said that by propping up a man of-straw he had been the means of deceiving us, and that in advising us to invest money with Tetley, ..when he wps so deeply in his (Levin’s) books, he had not acted justly towards us. He replied that at that .time Tetley only owed feim a trifling sum. lie said he had always considered Tetley’s property. quite r sufficient to meet all demands upon it. After his explanation he asked me to write an apology for what I had said with reference to him, which I did. Speaking of the ft mortgage, he said that: it showed what confidence he had in Tetley, that he had never even registered it. Subsequently I inspected the . account at Bavin’s, and found that he had come out in the first instance without

money, and that he never had any.. After I had looked over the hooks; Levin said, , .you.ought now to give me a clean , biU/’Vto which X replied that I would not .do.so; as I was more than ever convinced 'that the charges I had-at first brought against him were correct. Mr. Levin, jun., said that I ought not to blame them, but I

said that I was not so childish as to blame them for honest advice wrongly given, but that I did so for fitting Tetley out like a privateer to prey on others. I heard Mr. Eyes’ evidence ; that portion referring to what I said %bout Mr. Levin was correct. Cross-examined ; After my conversation with Levin in Wellington, in January, 1865, I considered that ray money, amounting to £2,700, was lent to Tetley. The letter I wrote to Levin in March was written at Tetley’s dictation. I fully believe that the money was lent to Tetley in January. I have no recollection of the money being left with Levin upon the same terms as those allowed by the banks. I believed that I received some interest from the time the money was drawn in Mr Levin’s office until it was formally transferred to Tetley I Tetley never told me that he would write to Levin asking him what the price of the sheep would be. I know Mr. Ingles. I met him at Wellington when we first arrived I saw him shortly after at the Kaikoura. I don’t recollect speaking to him on the subject of a sheep investment. I remember my conversation with Mr. Eyes on the Airedale. I don’t remember his warning me against publishing a slander. 1 said that I wished the fact of my retracting my apology to Mr. Levin to be made as public as the letter itself. I did not enter into partnership with Tetley prior to April, 1868. There were several of us in partnership, and we have been held liable by the bank for the whole overdraft of £ 13,000. The partnership was for the Awatere property'' I employed no "solicitor. Mr. Conolly drew up the deed of partnership. From some act of mine the sheriff seized the sheep in Kekerangu after Tetley had left forJSngland. Shortly after we arrived from England, Wharton, Gar forth, and myself commenced farming at Kaikoura. Mr. Levin acted as our agent. ”We”each drew the money we placed in Tetley’s hands. We also got an overdraft of £554. I know this was settled, but I didn’t exactly know how. When I met Mr. Levin and Mr. Pharazyn at Picton, Mr. Levin did not tell me of the mortgage of 1862. It was owing to Mr. Levin’s explanations that I withdrew the expressions I had made use of against him. After seeing the accounts in Wellington, I told him I would write to him giving my reasons for being dissatisfied with him. Re-ex-amined : I made an agreement in January, J. 865, to lend the money to Tetley. I considered any man bound by his word of honor to acknowledge a verbal agreement. I have seen plaintiff’s accounts with Tetley, and cannot find any entry showing that Tetley had the money before March. Mr. Tetley never consulted me on business matters until lately, I never had any conversation with Tetley relative to the sheep mentioned in my letter of March. Ingles has asked me to withdraw my slanders against Levin, as I was bound to lose the case. When I made myself liable to the bank I expected Tetley back. I found Tetley’s account from 1865 in a box at Kekerangu, but I did not discover when his account first commenced until I inspected the books in Levin’s office. Henry Wharton : I arrived in New Zealand in .1865 with Tetley. I was then under age. I knew Tetley in England ; he waiTat my mother’s house, where he advised her to write to plaintiff. I never saw plaintiff before I arrived in New Zealand. About four days after we landed, Beaumont, Garforth, and I went to Levin’s office, where we met Tetley, who asked me if I had my letter. I produced it, and Tetley and Levin took it into the private office. After a few minutes they came out again 'together, Tetley said, “ Mr. Levin does not at all like the responsibility of advising young men, but out of personal regard to myself he will do so on this occasion.” We then had a conversation, the substance of which was that we were to lend our mon,ey to Tetley until some suitable investment offered. An arrangement was eventually made.that we.were to lend the money to Tetley at 12J per cent, for two years, unless some, very desirable investment turned up Tetley explained it as a sheep investment. I then signed some paper ; 1 am not sure what it was, but I think it vvas a draft on my mother for £IOOO. We never received either sheep or security. I was in Wellington in 1866, where 1 met plaintiff, who asked me whether I was likely to get any more money from my friends. I replied I thought I should, when he said “ you will be getting a good stake in the country.” I have received interest from Tetley. I have never been repaid any of the money I lent to Tetley. I lost altogether £2500. Cross-examined : [ never put my name to a bill in England. I might have kpown one when I saw it. I had never been in any business. I was about,six months under age when I arrived here. I wrote to my mother for a second £IOOO, telling her that I Had sheep on terms with Tetley. I remember that £ 1200 was to be set aside for our Kaikoura

property’, each of us paying £400; but T was not aware that Beaumont's money was all gone at that time. I was drawing at that lime interest from Tetley on £1,600 At first I received £2OO a year, and then £l6O. Sometime afterwards we entered into partnership with Tetley, and the arrangement was that our investment should be absorbed in this partnership. We ceased to receive interest on the sheep investment a few months before Tetley left. Re examined : I wrote home about my investment at Tetley’s request, and 1 am certain lie saw my letter The words “ sheep on terms’’ were dictated by him I never had any document to show we had sheep on terms, but only Mr. Tetley's word When we wanted money we applied to him for it. By the Court : Tetley told us it did not matter about the price of sheep when they were taken on terms. We never had any understanding with him as to how we were to be paid, except that the interest should be paid half-yearly Nothing was said about increase or wool money. Frederick Arthur Pulleine. 1 first knew Tetley in 1864. I met him in Yorkshire, where he was looked upon as a man who had made money in New Zealand. Shortly after arriving in Wellington I went with him to Levin’s office. Tetley said “This is Mr. Pulleine whom I spoke to you about." I showed my letters to Levin, when he said “lend your money to Mr. Tetley." I had been told by my father to place implicit confidence in Levin and Tetley ; this I did throughout the whole transaction. There was very little conversation between us and nothing was said about sheep. My father had known Tetley for some years. 1 signed my first bill of exchange at Kekerangu. I signed three altogether. T came of age on Uie passage out, 1 had never been in any business, but what was termed a “ mud student” at home, that was, I was learning farming. Tetley never showed me any sheep as belonging to me. He said that he would write all particulars to my father. He was to give me I2£ per cent I was not engaged in the manage-

ment of the station. I was merely gaining colonial experience. In 1868 I with others signed u deed of partnership with Tetley. I have never seen any of my money since. I pul £2 300 into the partnership. I went to Canterbury in iB6O, where I bought some horses. On my return I saw Levin in Wellington and told him. I was suprised at his refusing to cash my order for £IOO. He told me he had no funds Tn the same envelope with the order I had sent was a letter from Tetley. Cross-examined : Tn addition to the £2.300 1 had about £7OO invested in the Awrtere. I don’t remember anything being said to me at Kekerangu by Tetley with reference to the sheep investment. All I know was that my money came out somehow or other, and that I received my interest. I knew nothing of the arrangements made for the disposition of my money.

This closed the case for the defence, when the Attorney General re-called Nathaniel Levin, who stated : I have said with reference to our meeting in Picton. A portion of what he said was true, hut only a portion. When Tetley commenced his connection with me he paid uie_£ I QUO I heard what Beaumont said yesterday about inspecting the accounts in 1867. I said I hoped he was satisfied with them. I have no recollection of his saying that he would expose such transactions in order to let people know that they could not he done with impunity. He never said anything about fitting* Tetley out as a privateer. At my office, during the interview between Tetley, Beaumont, and others, and myself, there was no price named for sheep. Nothing of the kind that Beaumont has stated occurred. I never had any oral communication with Mr. Tetley on this subject. I received a letter from him about it on 2nd March. Cross examined : 1 stTfrladHere to what I said, that I have no recollection of any business communication with Wharton or Pulleine at my office when they first arrived. By a juror: In January, 1865, Tetley owed me £14,400. I believe at that time he was leasing 9000 sheep and 28,0'K) acres of land from Major Richmond; 8000 sheep and 18,000 acres from Mr. Trolove; 9000 acres freehold and 10,000 acres under license, and 7100 sheep of his run at Kekerangu. I considered him to be perfectly safe or I should have stopped his credit.

Henry Ingles: I came out in 186 g, In January, I1?§5, I saw Beaumont in Wellington, and shortly afterwards at my own house at Kaikoura. He told me he had (e v i n at Wellington, and after dinner luid' had a long yarn with him, when Levin told him the best thing he could do was to invest his money in

sheep. In April, 1864 I spoke to him about a Tetter he had written to Levin, and advised him to drop the affair. He said he had never had sheep on terms with Tetley, and I asked him whether he did not remember telling me when first he came to Kaikoura, that he had sheep on terms with Tetley He said he did not recollect it. Cross-examined : I was first spoken to about giving evidence in this case by Levin at Kekerangu. I purchased sheep from Tetley in I s6B* We gave bills for them. The first bill was renewed and the second one became due just about the time Levin came to Kekerangu. I had no business transactions with Levin before, but he then advanced me £7OO on the security of bills signed by our firm. He had offered to do this before, but we had refused. W. H. Eyes : I heard Beaumont’s examination yesterday. I heard him say I commenced the conversation by referring to this letter of apology. This I deny as I knew nothing of it until he told me. I feel confident he mentioned to me that he had invested in sheep with Tetley. A. de B. Brandon : I was acting as solicitor for plaintiff in [862. I had been doing so for some time and am still. I remember Tetley’s mortgage of 1862. It was executed because he was going hp)ne.„ t received no instructionsTrom plaintiff not to register it. William Levin : T am a member of the firm of Pharuzyn, Johnson, and Levin. I remember when Beaumont came to examine Tetley’s accounts in January last* While I was in the room Beaumont never said anything about my father fitting Tetley out as a privateer; nor did he say anything about being dissatisfied with the accounts, nor threaten any proceeding against my father. I do not recollect ever having said to Beaumont that it was unfair of him to blame my father for having given unfortunate advice He never said that he considered my father morally if not legally responsible for the losses he had sustained through Tetley. Arthur. Ben rose.-Seyjnou.r ; „L know the Kekcrangu Station. Unimproved freein that neighborhood was worth £l per acre. Land held under license from the Crown. 1 should have valued at £IOO per 1000 acres. Bhe.-p would have been worth one pound per head for a mixed flock. Hugh Stafford : 1 knew the Kekerangu run in 1865, Large improvements had been made on it. The freehold land was worth £l and the leasehold 3s per acre. A mixed lot of ewes were worth 225. per head I should think the improvements were worth £3OOO. Mr Conolly rose to address the jury for the defence at half-past four, and after a speech of an hour and a half the Court adjourned for an hour. On the Court resuming, the Attorney General addressed the jury for two hours and three quarters, and his Honor the Judge having summed up, the jury retired at 1 1.25 p m. At half-past one on Saturday morning they returned to Court and informed the Judge that there was a hopeless difference of opinion among them, and not the slightest chance of their ever agreeing. His Honor said that he had no power to dismiss them until they had been locked up for twelve hours, without the consent of the counsel. The jury therefore retired again, and were locked up until a quarter to three, when the counsel on both sides effected a compromise, each side paying its own costs. We understand that the difference of opinion existed on the second issue—- “ Were the words spoken and published by the defendant of the plaintiff true Elevt-n of the jury being of opinion that they were not so; the twelfth however stoutly maintaining that they were correct. [We have thought it desirable to give from the Nelson Evening Mail, the above epitome of this famous and interesting case, but we are informed on the best authority that while the evidence is correctly reported, the last sentence is quite erroneous, and contrary to the fact. When the jury came in the first time, seven of their number were in favor of giving a verdict for the defendant which would have seriously affected the social position of the plaintiff, while live were for giving him nominal damages only j when the jury came in again, 11 were for giving nominal damages of say sixpence to Mr. Levien ] but the malcontent juryman declared that “ he would not allow an hair of the young men’s heads to be injured,” not seeing that the course proposed was really most in Mr. Beaumont’s favor, by terminating the case for ever. Thus the whole of the jury were agreed on the merits of the case. It is satisfactory however to learn that there is not any likelihood of further action being taken.]