THE GREAT SLANDER CASE.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 207, 11 December 1869, Page 5

THE GREAT SLANDER CASE.

LEVIN V. BEAUMONT, Last week we published an epitome of the case so far as the particulars had reached us. We now supplement it by some further extracts from the special report in the Nelson Colonist :— CASE FOE THE DEFENDANT. Mr. Conolly, in opening for the defence, said that in the interests of his client he was bound to use all the safeguards the law would allow him to save him from the consequences which the other side desired to see spring from the present action, and therefore he had taken objections during the progress of the case, and sought to shelter his client' under these objections. Representing, as he did, a gentleman like Mr. Beaumont, he did not, however, regret that these objections had been overruled. He did not regret that he should have an opportunity of laying before the jury the facts of the case on which the defence was founded. These objections, it might be, would come up on a future day; but, in the meantime, it would be his duty now to put the defendant and his witnesses in the box, and he would undertake to prove that all the words actually spoken were justifiable, in the circumstances ; and it would be well to show that such proceedings as his client complained of could not be passed over, and that it should be published here and in England, that the public might bo put on its guard against any repetition of such conduct. He hardly knew now, notwithstanding that the character and conduct of Tetley was so well known, what opinion plaintiff entertained of that person ; never a word was said about him or his conduct, except that he had held a high opinion of him, and not a word was now spoken that would indicate that that opinion was changed. There was no doubt that from first to last Mr. Levin, by his propping up

of the man, was the cause of the success of Tetley’s fraud and dishonesty, for but for Levin he would never have had the means to do the harm he had done. Plaintiff well knew, from his business management and experience, that Tetley was a man of no means and large liabilities, and he concealed that knowledge from those whom Tetley had marked out to be his victims. Tetley came out without means, and plaintiff took him in hand from the first, and at the end of five years’ sojourn in this country, when he was £9OO in Mr. Levin’s debt, Tetley went to England for a holiday. A holiday ! JSot after making a fortune, by which ho would have been entitled to go and enjoy himself, but after he had made large debts, which were increased by plaintiff advancing him first £1,200 to meet the expenses of his holiday trip, and then £2,000 more, making £3,200, and on th's he live 1 in a style like a man of fortune, earned in five years; and his false appearances and false representations induced persons of means, and with sons, to place their sons and their money under his care; they deemed it a golden opportunity. 'The parents furnished their sons with letters of credit, expressing confidence and trust in both Tetley and plaintiff. Mr. Attorney-General: My friend, I apprehend, intends to prove all this, otherwise lie lias no right to say it.

Mr. Conolly continued : These letters wore shown to Mr. Levin, of whom their holders knew nothing except Tetley, and Mr. Levin knew nothing of them except through Tetley and these letters. Plaintiff said he did not remember the fact of these letters having been shown to him. nor of the interview when they were shown; but he should make that fact perfectly clear to the jury, and that all the business was done, not at the dinner table, but in the office of the plaintiff. Mr. Levin voluntarily undertook an office of trust, and to say the least he concealed from the persons interested the knowledge he possessed as to the actual financial position of Tetley, and it was perfectly plain, had he not concealed that knowledge, not a penny would have been given of the money that was lent Tetley, and by him paid to plaintiff in reduction of bis debt. He knew that Tetl y was indebted tojiirn £l7,ooo,„and from his business knowledge”lie could not have failed to know that had that fact been communicated to defendant, that balance would not have been reduced by the money of Tetley’s victims. No one could cell, no one could know, except one man, that Tetley was really next to bankrupt, if not wholly so at that time. Only one man could have told that, and that man was the plaintiff Was it not for his advantage to conceal that fact? Did not after events prove how he benefitted by that concealment ? He told us he did not recollect that he bad advised them to lend their money to Tetley, as being the best thing they could do ; but he (Mr. Conolly) would show that in two interviews—one with Peaumont, Wharton, and Garfoith ; and another, and separate one, with Pulliene—plaintiff had used the same language, word for word. Mr. Conolly at some length narrated the various points he intended to prove ; and, touching Mr. Eyes’ evidence, he said it was only yesterday from Mr. Eyes’ evidence that defendant knew how, when, where, and to whom the words alleged were spoken. He concluded by remarking that the amendment of the declaration respecting the carrying on of business by the plaintiff reduced the case to the practical issue of: Were the words spoken of by the defendant of the plaintiff true? He then called the evidence for the defence. ME. COXOLLY’s ADDEESS TO THE JTJREY. Mr. Conolly addressed the jury for the defendant. He congratulated them on the fact that, after three wearisome days, the case approached something like its close. Two questions the jury had to try, (1) Was the defendant in business at the time the slander was uttered ? (2) —and it was the substantial point for both parties—Were the words spoken by defendant true ? There was of course in addition the final issue as to damages, and that he thought the jury would very readily dispose of. He contended that the issue as to carrying on business was virtually departed from, for it was not attempted to be argued that Mr. Levin really and practically was in business at the time alleged, nor had it been contended that he had been damaged in business. The Attorney-General had opened his case as if the plaintiff had held one of the most lofty and honorable positions in the Colony, and as if the defendant were merely a contemptible person. If so, the plaintiff could afford to treat the matter with contempt. The plaintiff had put himself in the box, and had challenged cross-examina-tion, that was an open course ; and the defendant had done the same thing. Mr. Conolly then proceeded to remark on the evidence, observing that, making allowance for some small discrepancies in detail, so

small as only to show tho customary difference that often arose in the sound testimony of perfectly creditable witnesses, a difference so trifling as not in the least to affect i; in any mateiial point, while at the same time such trivial discrepancies went to prove the accuracy of the evidence. He pointed out Tetley’s position in England, his bringing out of these young men, their unanimous testimony that Levin recommended them to lend Tetley their money, and he finally maintained that it was a loan and nothing more, for the talk about sheep agreement was all moonshine. There was no such agreement. There was no sheep agreement at all, the money was lent without any security, and it was so lent by the advice of i'dr. Levin. The jury were hound by the evidence to declare by their verdict that that was not a disinterested advice. A. the most, without reckoning any other debts, and giving the fullest force to the evidence of the other side, the most the property in possession of Tetley was worth in 1865, was £20,000 ; and that was valuing land that a short time before had cost ss. an acre at £1 an acre, which it was not worth; against that he owed above £17,000. The whole thing would not have realised that sum ; yet Mr. Levin advised these young men to lend this man their money. He touched on the evidence of the defendant’s side, explaining certain discrepancies as to the time of the signing tire bills by Wharton and Pulleine, who wore both unaccustomed to business, and knew nothing whatever of bill transactions. He went over the main points in the evidence, characterising, among other things, what ho termed the special providence that brought Mr. Levin and Mr. Ingles together, the one in search of evidence, the other in need of a bill being done, and both, by special providence, found wh it they wanted in each other. Mr. Levin obtained his evidence, and Mr. Ingles secured his bill. He then alluded to the unregistered mortgage, which he said was a suspicions circumstance, anl there was no doubt that Mr. Tetley and Mr. Levin colluded together to enable Tetley to keep up false appearances. Mr. Beaumont, he showed was a highly educated man, his letter showed his power and intellect, and yet, newly from his university, he could hcrlly be expected to be a-ware of tho pitfalls pre pared for him. Look at the standard of comnu read morality, and say if—when a trust was reposed in a man whose duty it was, having accepted that trust, to faithfully perform it, and save the property of strangers from being wasted —it was right that such a proceeding should pass with impunity. Or were they prepared to say that if a man who, having been injured by such a proceeding, should speak the truth; or could the jury believe, in the circumstances, that plaintiff was injured ? Ho did not believe they could; nor did he believe, taking all the tacts into account, that the the jury would forget these facts, or bring pecuniary punishment on his client because he had dared to raise his voice against the great merchant of Wellington. THE ATTORNEY-general’s ADDRESS. Mr. Attorney-General then addressed the jury at great length for the plaintiff on the whole case, contending that, literally, the jury Were trying a merchant of high position and of unblemished reputation for an indictable offence. Mr. Levin had openly and unreservedly courted that trial. He put himself, his books, his business, and his character before them, and was willing and ready to put in many facts an l documents which could have completely shown that he was the victim of Tetley as well as others. The charge of conspiracy is utterly without foundation, and it must have le;n to Beaumont’s own knowledge. But that charge had been preferred, and he believed the jury would find it was triumphantly rebutted. Still there was, and it was not for the jury to shrink from the duty they had before them of really trying that charge. They might say that the advice given was imprudent, unwise, and not business like ; at the very utmost they could say no more. They might say it was imprudent management of his own affairs by which he lost so much by Tetley; but there was not a shadow of ground for the charge of censpiracy or collusion. Judged by his own evidence, it might perhaps be said that Mr. Levin had acted with great unwise. He confided too much in Tetley, who was highly recommended, and plaintiff was too much prepossessed in his favor. If he confided in Tetley’s honor for all those years from 1862 to 1868, be paid highly for it. "Was he or Tus" firm payment into his account of their money ? Had he stopped Tetley’s credit after that payment, there might have been some reason for dreaming of such a charge; but what did he do ? The accounts would show that if this money were paid in to the credit of Tetley’s account, it was paid out again, and the account dvent on increasing on the debit side, until from £OOOO in 1 86 >, it rose to over £21,000 in 1808: was that like a conspiracy to defraud ? was that like collusion to obtain and

benefit by these young men’s money? Ho reasonable person would believe it ; neither did it show - in fact it disproved the proposition—that as the defendant accused plaintiff of doing, that there was an agreement which was entered into for the purpose of swindling these young men. That was the issue for the jury to try, and there was not one title of evidence to show that there was any just reason for such an accusation. Why should the plaintiff he anxious to conspire ? The receipt of that money did stop him from advancing more money to Tetley, because he believed in his honesty ; so he went on still advancing, as he had already shown, and as tlie accounts proved ; and if he had thought Tetley was not trustworthy, if he had supposed his account was not good, would he have continued such advances? Certainly not. Mr. Levin had plenty of clients to whom he could lend his money at per cent. Yet we were told that plaintiff fitted out Tetley to delude young men, and bring some £7OOO to him, to be paid away again on behalf of Tetley. The thing would be absurd if it were not base to circulate such a slander. Could they find any motive why Mr. Levin should enter into such a vile conspiracy ? Why, in 1866, on retiring from the partnership, he took threefourths of Tetley’s debt, instead of one-half, which he was only bound to take; he took three-fourths because he believed him financially safe, and the debt good, and this was after he had given the advice he did give, advice given, it must be remembered, while sheep-farming was profitable, and before wool and sheep had declined in price, as they did in after years. Only half the case, not half had been heard. Had we been permitted to read bona fide correspondence, he would have exposed, beyond doubt, the utter absurdity of the charge against his client. He then defended the witness Ingles from the accusation that he had sold himself and his evidence, and that Levin had suborned him. It was perfectly untrue, he contended, that Beaumont had himself been been guilty of an injustice to Ingles, by undertaking to keep the bill running three years, and then putting it into the bank for discount. He alluded to the unregistered mortgage of which so much had been made. It was natural that a man should endeavor to get some security for a debt due by a person about to go to England, and it was also perfectly natural that, as the mortgage was temporary, the plaintiff did not get it registered, as it was customary then not to register deeds, especially if they were oi a temporary nature. After referring to several other points, the learned gentleman concluded a long speech, which lasted nearly three hours, by saying that a charge like this to a man in the high commercial standing of Mr, Levin, was a charge worse than one involving life itself. He had lived till now as the head of a large and wealthy commercial firm, without a blemish on his reputation, and though death was a fearful thing, a deep shame like what was slanderously sought to be affixed to his client’s name made life itself hateful. He now left Mr. Levin’s ease in the hands of the jury, fully convinced that they would not be actuated by any feelings of sympathy. Certainly they would have no sympathy with fraud—no sympathy with dishonesty, yet they must have sympathy with, they must do justice to, a man who loved his honor dearer than his life.