CIVIL SITTINGS.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XXVIII, Issue 95, 27 November 1869, Page 4

CIVIL SITTINGS.

BTBONG- V. POLLOCK, TRUSTEE IN THE ESTATE OP "W. AKERSTEN, A BANKRUPT. In this caso plaintiff claim od damages for loss alleged to have been sustained by the non-fulfilment of the terms of a lease entered into by plaintiff and defendant. Messrs. Pitt and Conolly appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Kingdon for defendant. The plaintiff had leased an acre on the Haven road to W. Akersten, and the lattor had entered into a contract to make certain excavations in the hill at tho back of the road. Theso excavations had been only partly executed, and the action was brought to recover damages for non-fulfilment. Tho evidence was clear as to tho non-fulfilment of contract, but it was attempted to bo shown from the nature of tho soil, that had tho work been executed, namely to cut out terraces in the hill for building Bites, tho work would not have stood. The jury having retired for an hour, returned a verdict of £10 damages, and costs. Tho Court was then adjourned until ten o'clock the following morning. Wednesday, November 24. IMPORTANT SPECIAL JURY CASE. KEVIN V. BEAUMONT. Tho plaintiff in this case, formerly a merchant in Woilington, sought to recover £5,000 damages for a slander circulated by defendant, to the effect that the plaintiff, in collusion with Mr. J. D. Tetley, formerly of Marlborough, sheepfurmer, had swindled defendant and certain other persons out of money which they brought out to the colony for the purpose of investment. Tho Attorney-General and Mr. Brandon appoarod for tho plaintiff; and Mr. Conolly, Mr. Hart, and Mr. Pitt for defendant. The following gentlemen were sworn in as special jurors : — Messrs. G. Bennett (foreman), E. Everett, 0. H. Brown, J. Bentley, F. Huddleston, W. 11. Turner, J. T. Lowe, S. R. lEodder, R. M. Patou, J. Blackett, J. Mackay (Tcrtiu9),*and J. Lowis. The following were tho issues set down for trial : — 1. Did the defendant speak and publish of the plaintiff the words in the plaintiff's declaration alledged ? 2. Were the words 60 spoken and published by tho defendant of tho plaintiff true ? 3. Did tho plaintiff carry on business as a merchant, and agent for sheep-farmers, runholders, sheop-runs, and stations, as in tho plaintiff's declaration alleged, at the time that tho said words were ao spoken and published by tho defendant of the plaintiff? 4. To what damages (if any) is tho plaintiff ontitled ? The Attorney General, in opening the pleadings, said the plaintiff was Mr. Levin, a merchant, who had occupied a prominent and influential position in Wellington, whero ho had done a large business for a long period of years. Mr. Bcaumuut, the defendant, was a runholdcr, in Marlborough. The action was one for slandor, oxpressed in word?, from whicli the plaintiff now. sought — as he must necessarily do, in vindication of his charaoter — redress at the hands of the jury. It was not so much a matter of money as a vindication he demanded. Ho came to disprove the slanderous assertions which had been mado ; and it would be the duty of the jury, when they came to assess the damages against the defendant, not to apportion them according to the defendant's mean* of paying thorn ; but, at tho same time, it must bo borne in mind that if they gave merely a small or contemptiblo sum, that fact would in effect as much damnify the plaintiff as if they gave a verdict for the defendant. Having said thus much, he would at the outset make some remarks on tho law of slander, tho law of conspiracy, and the law of cheating, because as the case became developed, all the6o points would arise. Slander spoken was distinguished from words of tho same kiud written and priuted, as being less considered j but when spoken and published to the injury of a man damages followed. Tho law presumed that n man was damaged by such statements, and when such Blander was spokon of a man in the plaintiff's business and situation, it did not follow that it necessarily would, but it might damage him. That was consistent with common sense. The jury knew how difficult it was to trace loss of business to any cause, and it wus sufficient if the slanderous expressions were such as might have done bo. Ie mattered not whether the person so slandered was in a position of wealth ond trust or not, or if he wore but tho humblest person in the land j if one man ventured to say of another words charging him with an indictable offence, the Bhtndorer must bo liable in damage. Common senso would show tho necessity of this law, so us to shut men's mouths so that they shall not with impunity charge people with crimes that would, if true, render them hahlo to be indicted If a man in business was spoken of in words involving, by implication or otherwise, suoh a crime, ho would bo entitled to dumages, unless the slauderor could justify tho statement. The langungo also clearly charged plaintiff with conspiracy to cheat and defraud the defendant, and it would be thought that defendant would not now deny it. The defendant was bold to slandor, but whon brought into Court ho sought to shelter himself under the miserable subterfuge that tho plaintiff was not in business at tho time tho slander was uttered. He thought lie might bo able to show that under the rule of Court plaintiff would not be able to prove his declaration as to being in businoss, — and, therefore, that ho might go forth und slander him with something liko impunity. But Mr. Lovin had been twenty-sovenyeardin business, and had conducted himself and it honorably and well, with credit to himself, and was retiring from it in order to visit tho old country. Early in 18G9, Mr, Levin was making preparation to go to England, and, although he had dissolved partnership with Mr. Pharazyn, ho va9 still carrying on business in Wellington. True, he was going homo, oithor as it might happen to conduct businew there or to retiro from business altogether, a% he thought fit; at all events ho had not ceased to carry on business as a merchant. He now came to the charge of conspiracy and cheating. It was declared that Mr. Totley and ho had colluded to ewindle, which is eimply a chargo of an indictable offence. If ho could provo that churge it would enable tho defendant to put tho pUintifl* in tlio dock and bo tried for tho offenco. To collude in such contoxt mount an agreement or confederation ; it was not ueoeMtU'jr to omploy tlto word conspire \ it was

not necessary for a slanderer to express himself in the language of an indictment. Anything thnt expressod a charge of confederacy, meant in such a case a charge of conspirarcy. Now as to the law of cheating. It was a rule in law that cheating was not an indictable offence. Fraud in private transactions between individuals is not indictable ; and, therefore, although defendant had charged plaintiff with cheating as between himself and defendant, that would be no ground of action ; that had been held ; but if he charged two men with cheating, that was charging them with confederation, charging them with an indictable offence. His learned friend would no doubt seek to shelter this defendant from the consequences of this act, for defendant, in tho first place, denied tho words, though in subsequent paragraphs he admitted them, — but by the first plea he, in effect, said, " I will put you to the proof of the words, and if 1 find you cannot prove them, although I admit them in the next plea, although I declare you to be guilty of fraud, of conspiracy, charge you with being a fraudulent person, and with cheating and swindling ; although I say all this, yet, if you fail to prove that I said it, I shall claim a non-suit." Mr. Conolly : I am sorry to interrupt my learned friend • he i 3 not reading the pleadings, but he is professing to quote from them. Mr. Attorney- General : I am not professing to quote them. lam only giving their actual meaning. Mr. Conolly: It would be better to put them in and read them at once to the jury, rather than put them in. the light the Attorney-General is placing them. The Judge : I don't think Mr. Attorney-General is wrong, although I am not surprised at Mr. Conolly rising. It is allowable to set forth what counsel deems tho meaning of the pleading. If the words were spoken, I do not see why they should not be admitted. In truth, I don't like to see a plea of Not Guilty in such circumstances, and I always set it right before tho case comes into court. Mr. Conolly : But your honor, in this case it wa3 necessary. There is a positive denial that all the words set forth in the declaration are correct. We deny some of the words altogether as having been used of aud concerning tho plaintiff. Mr. Attorney-Genneral proceeded to say that when counsel addressed the jury they did not adhere merely to precise words used by tho defondant. Ho did not think ho was going beyond what was right and warrantable in addressing a jury. However, his friend wished to have the pleadings read, and they shall be read. The first count of the declaration was intended to meet the case in the event of the plaintiff not being able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he was carrying on business as an agent and merchant ; and to meet the probable excuse that tho words were not spoken of him as a merchant. The second count was introduced for the purpose of meeting the objection, and to show that the plaintiff was ca-rying on business a3 a merchant and agent. Tho learned gentleman then proceeded to read the defendant's pleadings, commenting on them as lie went on. Referring to the 4th plea, in which it is alleged that tho words alleged to have been spoken and published by the defendant of the plaintiff were and are true, — he said he wns not far wrong in saying he had slandered the plaintiff, and that though denying it, he admitted it subsequently. The Judge : It is quite clear that tho charge is in the plea, and that was what Mr. Conolly was contending for ; but the question for the jury is not whether these words are on the plea as a matter of narrative, but whether they were spoken out of doors, and at tho time declared. Mr. Attorney-General : And also whether they were true, aud whether they mado out a charge of swindling. On the fifth plea ho remarked that defendant seemed to say plaintiff had not got hold of tho right language. Ho says, " Although we did slander you, and say allmanuer of things against you, yet the language userl wa3 slightly different from that you have attributed to U3. I have never said that my money was ordered by my relatives to be invested by tho advico and counsel of Mr. Tetley and Mr. Lovin, but only that the moneys of other gentlemen wore to be so invested." There was very litllo difference in the fact. On the 6th plea, in which the words of defendant are quoted, " My money was invested by Levin's advice and consent, ond went in liquidation of Telley's overdraft with his firm," he (the Attorney-General) did not know if by this his friend wished to disconnect tho charge of swindling from that of colluding in this transaction, but he himself held that both went together. That, however, was not the way pleas should have been framed ; they wore really all ono pica, all aimed at justifying the slander. After quoting tho seventh ple.i, he said, here followed thirteen paragraphs he called them, and not separate pleas, for there was really but ono plea — setting forth justification, and theso the plaintiff says in effect, " I will prove before a jury the facts I have stated, and I will claim from this Court a vetdict for tho defendant under tho justification given by tho proof of the facts." The Judge : That is, I suppose, under the 88th Rule of Court, which states, "If the defendant justify tho alleged libel, or slander, on the ground of its truth, the plea must show clearly and specifically the charge which the defendant, undertakes to establish against tho plaintiff, unless the same bo shown in the alleged libel or slander itself." The defendant denies the allegation. The Attorney G-eitebaii, after reading ns fur as the I7th plea, said, quoting tho 18th, this was defendant's conclusion regarding this transaction, — that the plaintiff did act in collusion with Tetley, and that lw and Totley did swindle the defendant. That part of the pleading was applied to that part of the declaration which charged the defendaut with stating that plaintiff had swindled tho defendant and the young men, and had colluded with Tetley for that purpose. Passing on to the last pleas, he said that that plea declared that tho words referred to therein were not spoken of tho plaintiff, but ho contended that they were spoken of the plaintiff. They were, ib was true, us pleaded, spoken of Tetley, but they were a3 much spoken of tho defendaut, because they were spoken of the transaction in which both were charged with being concerned together. Tho learned gentleman then described tho course he should take in conducting his case. He would first prove the uttering of the slanders, and the occasion on which, aid tho person to whom they were uttered j but ho should not produce his case in full, nor go into any evidence with regard to rebutting the allegations brought forward, and the evidence that would be adduced in justification of these allegations. He had not intended to read tho pleas at this stage ; but having done so, und having pointed out what was necessary to support an action for slander, and having pointed out tho difference between words spoken of a private person, and words spoken of a merchant in relation to his business, he should allow the defondant to go on with his case, and then bring evidence to rebut the statements, 110 added that in case of slander of a private person the action must fail unless the plaintiff could prove spoeial damages ; but he would provo that tho plaintiff was carrying on business as a merchant at the lime the slandei'3 were uttered. He should also provo that tho firm of Levin and Pharazyn still continued, (although plaintiff had left it,) and continued under the samo narr.o, Levin & Co. At the time tho slanders ware utterod the plaintiff was making arrangements for going to England. At this time he found that Mr. Beaumont was spreading this slanderous report, and this stopped his departure. After touching on some points of evidence he proposed to bring out, tho learned gentleman said that tha thought might struck the jury, and many people besides, with regard to Mr. Levin, who for twentyscvon years hid occupied a high commercial position, that it was not worth his while to bring into court tho person slandering him. But the case was very different from an ordinary caso of slander. It might be a prudent courao to follow if the slandor was uttered in tho heat of Iho moment ; but this was not the fact in this, case. The defendant had admitted the utterance, and 1 ad apologised for doing so ; but ufrer«ai\ls ho repeated the slanders, with additions, behind Mr. Levin's back. And not only did he utter the slanders, but he said he should publish them over tho Colony, and over England. " I will write to the Barings" (tho Bunkers), lv» said, "to Aloxau Icr's," Bedfern and Alexander, the correspondents of Mr. Levin ; and to other Bankers. It was necessary to sho-.v that Mr. Levin did not colludo with Tot Icy. He was goiug home, and what could he

say to his friends who learned that the*e slanders had been uttered and spread, if he, instead of staying and refuting thorn had fled before them, leaving bohind him a son in business, with his late partner, Mr. Phavazyn. It was no mattor bow enthvly he might personally disregard slanders marie by a person in Mr. Beaumont's condition; he could not, as a business man, do otherwise than notice them ; it was his bounden duty to do co. The learned gentlemen then callfid William Henry Eyes, who deponed : I am Superintendent of the Province of Marlborough. I know the plaintiff and defendant ; Mr. Beaumont is a sheepfarmer in Mavlborough, Mr. Levin a merchant in Wellington. In February last, I met Mr. Beaumont, on board the Airedale. In the course of a conversation Mr. Beaumont, accused 'JL'etley and Levin of having swindled him. He said he and others came out bringing some money with them, and he and the others were to invest it with the advice and consent of Levin and Tetley, and that certain moneys had been so invested by the advice of those persons, and that the moneys, which had been drawn for, had been paid over to Mr. Levin in liquidation of Mr. Totley's account. Mr. Beaumont went on to explain that sometime previous to this he had met Mr. Levin in Picton, and had refused to acknowledge him ; that Mr. Levin then sought an interview with him, and made certain explanations which satisfied him at the time, and he wrote a letter at Mr. Levin's request saying so. He added, " I am now going back to Wellington to demand that letter back, because from subsequent investigation, I believe that Levin has been acting in collusion with Tetley throughout." I observed that what ho was saying of Mr. Levin was rather slanderous language, and I cautioned him to speak in a lower tone of voice, as there were persons standing near. He said, " I am not making a private or confidential communication to you. I wish everyone to know it ; I have told it to many others." I said he would be having an action for defamation, brought against him. He said, "1 would rather have it than not. I wish the transaction mado public, and I should not. mind spending a few hundred pounds over it. If ho does not return my letter, I think I shall have the whole thing published in the Wellington papers." He also said he hnd written to tho Baring's, to Alexander's, nnd to certain Directors of the Bank of England ; and he further told me that previously to this he had written to his friends in England, and had been tho means of preventing Tclley from borrowing £50,000 or £55,000 from his (Beaumont's) friends in England. Mr. Beaumont accused Levin, in conjunction with Tetley, of swindling him, and that he (Levin) was ns bad as Tetley. He said, with reference to the swindling, that they had acted in collusion together from the first ; and he also used the same reason with reg t ard to the letter he intended to withdraw, because of such collusion. Mr. Attorney-General : I understand you to say that Mr. Beaumont said that the money obtained by Mr. Tetley, went in liquidation of Tet'ley's overdraft Avith Levin' ; did he mention the names of any other persons who had been concerned in this matter ? Witness : He mentioned the names of persons who had been affected by the transaction. Mr. Attorney-General : Who were they ? Witness : They were Mr. Wharton, Mr. Pulliene, and Mr. Garforth. Mr. Attorney- General : What did he say ? Witness: He said that these three and himself camcoubunderTetley's wing, and that their money was only to be invested with the advico of Levin and Tetley, and that both had advised the money to be invested with Tetley, and that it was so invested and went in payment of Tetley's overdraft. Ho characterised it as a swindling transaction throughout. Mr. Attorney- General : When ho referred to the transaction, did he make uae of any expression respecting Mr. Levin's going homo ? Witness : I could not ba sure ; but I think Mr. Levin's going to England was referred to, nnd that Mr. Beaumont siid " Levin will find it rather hot for him whon he gets there." Mr. Attorney-General : That was with reference to the letters to the Barings and other 3 ? Witness : Precisely. Mr. Attorney-General : Did Mr. Beaumont, in speaking to you, directly accuse Mr. Levin and Mr. Telloy of acting in collusion together ? Witness : He did. This closed the examination in chief. Mr. Conolly, (in cross-examination) : What time in February did you have this conversation with Mr. Beaumont ? Witnoss : I can't give Iho date ; but I think it was about the middle or latter half of February of tho present year. Mr. Conoily : Did you ascertain that Mr. Beaumont was going further north, to Tauranga ? Witness : 1 did. I think ho went North either the same day he arrived in Wellington, or tho day after. He was only a very short time in Wellington, and he was some weeks away. Mr. Conolly : How soon wa3 any memorandum of your evidence taken down ? Witness : It was taken down very soon after it was mentioned to me. It was taken down by Dr. Featherston. I was asked to write it, but I refused. Dr. Featherston, nest day, waited on me with Mr. Levin, aud asked me to confirm the words I had used, and I did confirm them as being substantially correct. Mr. Conolly: You hoje stated that Mr. Levin and Mr. Tetley had advised Mr. Beaumont to purchase sheep ; are you sure he said this ? Witness : I could not positively say. The Judge : The word sheep was used I think. Witness : I believe I understood the money was invested in sheep. Mr. Conolly : Are you quite sure that Mr. Beaumont said he had written to the Barings and Alexander's ? Witness : lam quite positive ho said so. Mr. Conolly : Was it not that he had written to his brothers in England, and that they would take the advico of tho Barings ? Witne»s : It is my impression that he said he had written himself. Mr. Conolly : Is it also your impression that he said his own money was so restricted to the investment under the advice of Mr. Tetley and Levin ? Witness : Yes. I might possibly be mistaken, and have jumbled up some of the points, I did not expect to be examined on the subject. Mr. Attorney-General : My friend asked you if it was your impression that Mr. Beaumont had said that Mr. Levin and Mr. Telly had swindled him. Mr. CoNoiiLY : I have not asked the witness a single question on the subject. Mr. Attorney- General : Then I am mistaken. To witnoss — Is it your impression that Mr. Beaumont informed you that the money was invested in sheep ? Witness : That is my impression, so far as I can recollect. Nathaniel WillianiLevii, being sworn, said: I am a merchant, and have carried on business in Wellington for nearly twenty-nino years. From 1841 to 1862 on my own account; since then to March, 1868, in conjunction with Mr. Pharuzyn. The business is now carried on by Mr. Pharazyn, Mr. Walter Johnson, and my son, under tho former style of Levin and Co. When I retired from the business I still retained my land agencies, and the agency of the Trust aud Loan Company, having an office on the premises of the present firm. I knew Mr. Tetley, who was a sheep-farmer in the Province of Marlborough, intimately from tho beginning of 1857. I believe he is now residing about one hundred miles north of Monte Video. I was introduced by Mr. Tetley in January, 1865, to defendaut and his three friends — Messrs. Wharton, Garforth, and Pulleine. They all dined with me in company with Mr. Tetley a few days afLer their introduction, when we had some conversation relative to their proceedings, and as to the investing of their money. Mr. Tetley and myself advised them to buy sheep, and place them with Mr. Tefcley for two years or so until they could procure country, when they should enter into partnership and farm for themselves. The amount of money at their commuud' was not mentioned. A. few days after, about the cud of January, they went with Mr. Tetley to his run. In March following 1 received a letter from defendant, stating that ho and bis companions

had agreed to buy 7,000 sheep of Mr. Tetley, also instructing me to place tho sum of £2,777, which he had left in my hands, to Mr. Tetley's credit, less the exchange. With this letter he also sent a letter of credit on a firm in London, which he wished discounted and placed to Mr. Tetley's credit. I cannot recollect hearing anything about defendant or his friends lending Mr. Tetley this money. Mr. Wharton was the only one who brought a letter of introduction to me, and asked me to advise him as to the investment of his money. Mr. Tetley left; for England in July, 1868, and in the December following I went to Picton, and on to Kekcrangu, to meet defendant. It was at this timo I received the letter of apology. [Letter put in and read] :—: — " To N. Levin, Esq., Wellington. " Dear Sir — I have to express my regret that the complexion of some things in connection with J. D. Tetley's affairs led me to take views injurious to you, aud to give expression to them'privately. Explanations made to me, and your offer to give me every facility for tracing out Tetley's transactions through the books of your late firm, have satisfied me that any such statements made by mo aro unjust to you and your late partner, and I am happy to be able to withdraw them. "Yours faithfully, "R. Beaumont. 11 December 26, 1868." It was arranged that defendant should inspect the books with reference to Tetley's accounts. Defendant came to Wellington on the 18th January of this year, inspected the books, and went on to Tauranga. [Copies of Mr. Tetley's accounts from the books of Messrs. Levin and Co., for a number of years, were here put in and admitted]. These accounts show the receipts for all the moneys paid for the 7,000 ewes tranferred by Mr. Tetley, except £1,000 which was placed to Mr. Tetley's credit in 1865-66. There was £4,000— being £1,000 each from Wharton, Garforth, and Pulleine, which was crcbited on the 13th February, 1865, and £2,700 from Beaumont, credited on the 23rd March, according to his letter of 18th March. 1 received tho £4,000 from Mr. Tetley by bills of exchange, drawn by those gentlemen in favour of Tetley and endorsed to me, and £1,000 drawn by Wharton on his mother. [Bills produced]. This is tho £4,000 referred to by Beaumont when speaking of his companions. About the 24th or 25th February last, I received information from Mr. Eyes. Up to that timo I had not received any letter from Mr. Beaumont withdrawing his letter of apology. Within two days after I heard this statement from Mr. Eyes I instructed my solicitor to raise an action against Mr. Beaumont for slander. I received a letter from Mr. Beaumont about March, addressed to me inside, but to Lovin and Co. on tho cover. [Letter put in and read]. " N. Levin, Esq., Wellington. " Sir, — I am now in a position to state in writing the inference I draw from my inspection of Mr. Tetley's account with your firm. At your request, I wrote you a letter at Kekorangu, at the end of last December, stating that tho explanation you had given me of your share in tho transactions by which I and others were induced to intrust our money to Mr. Tetley, wa3 such as to convince me that neither I, nor any of the others who have been co-victims with myself, had any cause to complain of the conduct of yourself and your firm. This letter I bog to retract, as I regret to say, that after due deliberation, I am unable to reconcile your statements, on the good faith of which my letter was written, with the facts which an inspection of Mr. Tetley's account with your firm forces on my conviction. " You will remember that the statements made by you were in answer to accusations you imagined I had made (or might probably make) against you. They were, as nearly as my memory will serve, as follows : — • Charge — That, in January, 1865, when you advised myself and others to lend certain sums of money to Mr. Tetley, that person was largely indebted to you, or your iirtn. Your answer was — That, as far as your memory served you, at the date named Mr. Tetly was only slightly, if at all, in your debt. Charge — That Mr. Tetley had been in the habit of burdening the Awatero property with the expenses of his private station of Kekerangu, over which you held a mortgage, and of which you received the wool by paying the expenses by cheques on tile Bank of New Zealaud. Answer — That though Mr. Tetley had been in the habil of paying every expense by cheques on the Bank of New Zealand, which was the account of tho Awalcrc property, yet that he did so purely for the convenience of his men, who objected to being subjected to tho exchange charged on Wellington orders, and that an inspection of your account would show that you had made considerable payments quarterly to meet the payments made by the Bank of New Zealand, on account of his private station. " You further stated that you had not tho slightest suspicion that Mr. Tetley's property was not sufficient to meet all demands on it, and that, when you were writing off possible losses on your various accounts, you excluded Mr. Tetley's property of Kekerangu from the list. " These were your answers to my charges, and these you stated that an inspection of Mr. Tetley's account would support. I regret, however, to state that the evidence borne by the account in question demolishes your defence, in my opinion, and not only confirms but gives me fresh, grounds for grave complaints against you and Mr. Tetley. " I will state a few of the chief points on which I ground my charges. " Previous to Mr. Tetley's departure for England in 1863, he appears to havo effected a mortgage on his property in your favor. This was never registered, j and, by this omission on your part, Mr. Tetley was enabled, without fear of detection, to assert to us, as he constantly did, that his property was unencumbered. Mr. Tetley appears to havo come out from England originally with small means, and to have gone home in 1863 with encumbered property. Yet he was enabled, by funds supplied by you, to act the part of a man of fortune, instead of appearing in his true colors as a needy adventurer, or, at any rate, as a man of small meaus. By means of theso false appearances he was enabled to get himself placed in the position of guardian to inexperienced new-comers, a responsibility which he discharged by referring us to the very man who held an unregistered mortgage over his property for advica as to an investment. To call to your mind how thoroughly Mr. Tetley appears to have prepared the way for tho catastrophe which has now been completed, I will quote one phrase in the letters written by tho parents of his victims, at Mr. Totley's suggestion : — ' I hereby authorise my son , to draw for , such money only to be invested with the written consent of Mr. Tetley or Mr. Levin.' " When I add that your advice was for us to lend our money to Mr. Tetley, I have completed my first ground of complaint that your advice was not entirely disinterested. " I can confidently assert that, utterly inexperienced as I was at the time I first entered this Colony in colonial notions of dexterity in business matters, had I known that Mr. Tetley was referring myself and others to the holder of an unregistered mortgage over his property as a suitable adviser, I would have rejected the advice I received to lend my money to Mr. Tetley, without a moment's hesitation. • "I further find that Mr. Tetley purchased a property called Wikawa by cheques on the Bank of New Zealand, and has paidforlandonhisown property in the same way, and mortgaged theso purchases to to your firm. That, in one instance, he has paid a sum of £2000 out of tho Awatero account in payment of a bill given to you. As you have been in a position to form a tolerable notion of Mr. Tetley's pecuniary affairs, I consider that these form just grounds for complaint on my part. "Of the sum of £1700 paid by Mr. Wharton's friends to his account with you, a3 his agent, and which appears to have been paid to Mr. Tetley's private account, when I think that you, as his agent, might have been aware that he had no interest whatever in the Kekerangu property, I will say nothing, as that is question for Mr. Wharton or his friends to deal with, not for myself. The points affcefing the other victims I will also leave for their own consideration, as I have no authority to attack or condone your action in the matter. "So far as giving my consent to tho action of the Bank of Now Zealand in waiving their right to dis*

pute tho validity of a bill of sale held by you over certain stock, &c, of Mr. Tetley's, in bo far as it affected the security they held over the same property, I qonsidered myself at liberty, on behalf of myself and my partners, to accept the consideration you offered as an equivalent. But, as regards your conduct towards those gentlemen in conjunction with Mr. Tetley, prior to April, 1868, 1 have no authority to express an opinion as to their probable view of your conduct. But I have no doubt that, though they have proved themselves so facile a prey to colonial dexterity, personally, or through their friends, they will be able to form, and, if necessary, express an opinion on your conduct. I beg once more to state thab I retract the letter I wrote you expressing myself satis6ed with your explanation, and shall be obliged by your returning ifc to me at Starborough Run. Failing this, I propose to send both letters to the papers in this Colony, and giving them what publicity may be necessary in England, in order to let any who may read the fiist letter judge how far it may be deemed to represent my true sentiments. " I am, your obedient servant, "R. Beaumont. "Tauranga, March 10th, 1869." Messrs. Redfern, Alexander, and Co. were and are still the English correspondents of the firm, and at that time I held a power-of-attorney from one of the members of the firm of Baring Brothers. At the time I heard of the slander, I had let my house, sold my furniture, and taken my passage for England in the Ruahine. Cross-examined by Mr. Conolly : I have made one purchase of wool since I retired from the firm. I transacted my business on the premises occupied by the firm. I was introduced to Mr. Tetley by a letter of recommendation from Mr. Weld, in 1857. Mr. Tetley was never manager of Mr. Weld's run. I did not know Mr. Tetloy had ever been insolvent before he came out from England, but after a short acquaintance I was aware his means were limited. I was very favourably impressed with him. During the first year, Mr. Tetley overdrew his account with us £1,091, and I do not think he ever had a large amount to his credit at tho end of any one year. Before I left for England, in 1862, Mr. Tetley, who was then considerably in our debt, executed a mortgage in our favour over his run of 6,000 acres, this mortgage was not registered, for which I cannot assign any reason. I did not see the mortgage from the time of signing it until the beginning of this year. We were not in the habit of taking mortgages until shortly before I left for England ; since my return all mortgages have been punctually registered. 1 did not^tell defendant I had purposely abstained from mentioning anything about this mortgage. Tho first mention of it was in December last, when I told defendant that I held a mortgage from Mr. Tetley in. 1862, another in 1866, which were renewed in 1868 in consequence of my retiring from the firm. I had perfect faith in Mr. Tetley, and never took a lien over his wool. I saw Mr. Tetley twice in England. Mr. Wharton was the only ono who brought out a letter of introduction to me. I did not advise defendant and his friends to lend their money to Mr. Tetley or to anyone, but to buy sheep and place them with Mr. Tefcley, who I strongly recommended to them. In 1864 Mr. Tetley's account was overdrawn to the ainountof £13,800, andin March, 1865, £10,143, after having £6,700 passed to his credit, money paid in on Mr. Tetley'saccount by Beaumont andhisfriends. If this £6,700 had not been paid in to Mr. Tetley's account, the overdraft would have been £17,000. His property was frequently valued tome at £20,000, in 1864, when he owned some 8,000 or 9,000 acres. I believe he gave 10s. per acre for some of ifc. In 1865, he had 25,000 sheep, of which he owned 7,000 ,• the remainder were rented. In March, 1866, Mr. Tetley owed us £19,878 ; and in March, 1867, £22,278, when he had 35,700 sheep, of which number he rented 25,000. Early in 3367, Mr. Wharton was in Wellington. I did not ask him if he expected auy more money from home. In July, 1867, £1,700 were sent to me, to bo placed to the credit of Messrs. Tetley and Wharton. This sum was afterwards passed to Mr. Tetley's sole credit, against which he drew £1,500. In March, 1868, when I retired from the firm, Mr. Tetley owed us £24,244, which I looked upon as a safe debt. After Mr. Tetley left in May, 1868, I discovered he had left an overdraft at the Bank of New Zealand of £11,000. In July, 1868, defendant was made aware of Mr. Tetley's position. I fully believed Mr. Tetley would return to New Zealand up to the end of last year. Defendant never charged me with not having told him Tetley was in our debt in 1865, nor that I must have known how totally unfit Mr. Tetley was to be entrusted with the care of young men and their money. What I did tell defendant, was this : That, when Mr. Tetley went home in 1862, he was slightly in our debt ; but such was his position with respect to property, that he could have taken his account to any other merchant in Wellington, and they would have taken it up immediately. In December last, on our way from Picton to Kekerangu, defendant did make certain charges with reference to the mortage of 1862, and to our money transactions in 1865, which I denied. Defendant also charged me with having purposely burdened the Kekeranga run with the expenses of the Awatere stations. I told him that these expenses had been reimbursed. When we arrived at Kekerangu, I told defendant I should not enter into anj arrangements -with him until he had retracted the charges he had made against me. I positively swear that I had mentioned the mortgage of 1862 to defendant over and over again. Defendant then wrote the letter of apology. I only showed defendant's letter to those persons who had heard of the charges made against me. After hearing Mr. Eyes' statement, I sent copies of defendants letter of apology, also defendant's letter, dated Tauranga, retracting that apology, to England. Re-examined by the Attorney-General : It was after Mr. Tetley leased Mr. Trolovo's run, in 1857 that our first business transactions with him took place. During tho term of tho lease, Mr. Tetley purchased the lease of the run and eighty acres of freehold. We advanced the money, and first took wool from him in 1859. From 1857 to 1866, we advanced Mr. Tetley the money for all his purchases, and supplied him with stores, &c, taking his wool in payment. In 1859, Mr. Tetley took a lease of the Richmond Brook Run for nine years, with 9,000 sheep, paying as rent for tho first year, £1,700, and £2,000 a year after that ; returning the same number of sheep at the end of tho term. In 1862, Mr. Tetley took a similar lease of Mr. Trolove's run for six years, paying £1,500 a year for the first three years, and £1,800 for the remainder of the term. Ho entered into a sim ilai* agreement for 1,000 sheep with Miss Hart, paying £125 a year j this last ngreement was renewed two days before he left for England. He also rented 615 sheep from Mr. Bell, which ho purchased in 1868 for £399 15s. We found the whole of the money for Mr. Tetley to enter into these transactions, and I believe, up to the end of 1865, we were his sole creditors, at which time he opened an account with the Bank of New Zealand, as he was entering into transactions which could not conveniently pass through oui'firm. The Court rose at five o'clock, and was adjourned until ten o'clock on Thursday morning. Thursday, November 25. The Court opened at ten o'clock. Re-examination of Mr. Levin continued by the Attorney-General :—: — Our usual charges were two and a-half per cent, on advances made during the year, and ten per cent, on balances clue at the end of the year. In October, 1862, before Mr. Tetley left for England, we took a mortgage from him over tho Kekerangu station of 8,000 or 9,000 acres, to cover tho overdraft due to our firm of £6,400. This mortgage was taken simply to provide against the event of any accident occurring to Mr. Tetley during his absence in England. During my absence in England Tetley's overdraft was reduced to £1,500, in consequence of our firm discounting some bills drawn in his favour for sheep bought from the Kekerangu station. I was justified iv giving Mr. Tetley such large credit whilst ho was in England through the increased value of his property, llr. Tetley had letters of credit on our correspondents for £1,500, aud when in England I gave furthor credit of £2,000. Mr. Tetley took his wife und family home with him, and on returning he was

at considerable outlay buying fencing wire, woolpresses, &c. I returned from England in 1564, Mr. Telley in 3863. Defendant pressed us to take his money. We said we did not want it, but would give him the current bank rate of interest, for it. I did not advise defendant to buy sheep from Tetley, but after it was proposed I did say I thought it was the best thing he could do. I gleaned from a letter of defendant's, dated the 10th. August, that Tetley was to give him and his friends £800 a-year for the use of their money. This letter, and one da-Jed 10th March, were tho only letters t received from defendant concerning tho investing of his own or his friends' money. Mr. Wharton authorized me to pass £1,700 from his and Tetley's joint account to Mr. Tetley's sole credit, against which Tetley drew £1,000 to pay the deposit on the purchase of tho Awatere property. This was in 1865. In 1867 we gave up Mr. Tetley's agency as far as the Awatere property was concerned, as his drafts on us were too heavy. In October, 1866, defendant, Garforth, and Wharton owed me £554, which was paid by Mr. Tetley. In May, 1868, Mr. Tetley left for England. Before leaving, he gave me a renewal of the mortgage, and a bill-of-sale over the sheep on the Kekerangu station. This was to cover £12,000, which, according to agreement, was at my disposal, and this was why the renewal was rendered necessary in 1868. Mr. Tetley was also indebted to the firm £12,000, which was to have been secured by a second mortgage. Levin and Co. have lost £15,000 by Tetley, the overdraft having increased, and personally I lost £6,030. Defendant and his friends could have had their sheep any time they chose, had they demanded them. I realized £9,000 for the Kekerangu station. I never saw any of Mr. Tetley' «j property until the end of 1868. I depended entirely upon hearsay. This closed the case for the plaintiff, the AttorneyGeneral reserving to himself the right of calling wit* nesses in reply. Mr. Conolly submitted that there was no case to go to tho jury. The declaration alleging that plaintiff was a merchant at the time the slander was uttered, and it had been clearly shown in evidence that at the time the slander was alleged to have been uttered by defendant plaintiff was not carrying on business, having sold off everything, and being on the eve of departure for England. His Honour having overruled this objection, Mr. Conolly opened tho defendant's case, and called Richard Beaumont, who being sworn, said : I first saw Mr. Tetley in Yorkshire, in 1864. I was introduced to him at my father's house, and it was through his representations I came out to New Zealand. We did not see much of each other until we sailed from England. I was accompanied by Mr. Garforth, Mr, Wharton, and Mr. Pulleine. A few days after our arrival I dined at Mr. Levin's house in company with Mr. Tetley. Mr. Wharton and Mr. Garforth came after dinner. The conversation was general. I am certain we did not talk over our business affairs, though the impression left on my mind was that I was a very fortunate young fellow to have such a man as Tetley to guide me, plaintiff obsering ho wished he had more friends like him. I believed it was on the 19th of January, 1865, 1 and my friends met Mr. Tetley by appointment at plaintiff's office, when Wharton, Garforth, and myself, produced our letters of credit, &c. Mine was simply a business letter, but Wharton and Garforth had letters of introduction to plaintiff. I saw the letters and I recognize those produced as the originals. After perusing our letters, plaintiff went out and returned with Mr. Tetley, and they both strongly advised us to invest our money at once, in such a manner that it would be available in two years' time, when we should have a little more experience. Plaintiff said, " Why don't you lend your money to Tetley ; you cannot do better ?" It was agreed that we should lend Tetley tho money. During a discusBion between plaintiff and Tetley, I heard Tetley say to plaintiff, " You know, Levin, it does not matter about the price of the sheep, whether you call it 23a. or £23 a piece ; it is merely a matter of form." I then wrote out a bill of exchange for £2,700, and from that time I considered I had lent Tetley my money. I cannot say if Garforth or Wharton drew their bills at the same time. Eventually it waß supposed we had bought 7,000 sheep of Mi*. Tetley, on terms, but they were never delivered. I never had an agreement of any kind with Mr. Tetley in this transaction. We got 12^ per cent, for our money, which wag paid by* Levin aud Co. until the end of 1566. After thab we were paid by cheque on the Bank of New Zealand. We all lived with Mr. Tetley for some months. The land at Kekerangu, was nearly all bought for ss. an acre. It was not uutil after Mr. Tetley's departure for England that I learned the true state of his affairs. The Manager of the Bank of New Zealand, at Blenheim, was the first to tell me how Tetley stood. The Bank of New Zealand seized the sheep by virtue of a bill of sale, and plaintiff foreclosed his mortgage. Plaintiff paid me £900 to settle a dispute about a bill of sale over some sheep. I also received £400, less sheriff's expenses, the residue of the money realized from the Bheep seized by the Bank. In December, 1868, 1 met plaintiff on Picton wharf, and refused to acknowledge him excepting on business affairs, and referred him to Mr. Conolly, to whose office he went. Plaintiff said I was under a wrong impression ; that Mr. Tetley would bo out by the next mail. I charged him with having induced me to lend my money to Mr. Tetley at a time when he was heavily in his (plaintiff's) debt. I complained of his having taken a mortgage over Tetley's property at Kekerangu just as he left for England, and that it was through supplying Mr. Tetley with money to appear in England in false colours that I had been induced to come out under his wing j that he (plaintiff) must have known, seeing the style of Mr. Tetley's living, and being aware of his means, tho probable result of such extravagance. I also charged him with burdening the Awatero property with the expenses of the Kekerangu station. Plaintiff said that at tho time we lent the money Tetley was only slightly in his debt, and that he had always considered the property amply sufficient to cover all demands. After these and further explanations, I wrote plaintiff a letter of apology. In January last, I inspected Tetley's accounts at Levin and Cos. offices, and then discovered, for tho first time, that Mr. Tetley had come out from England without any money, and that he really never had any of his own. When I was leaving the office plaintiff said, " Come, now, are you not satisfied you ought to give me a clean bill." I said I could not do that, as my first impressions were confirmed. Plaintiff asked me what I was going to do about tho matter. I told him I would show him lie could not do these sort of things with impunity. The nest day I went to Tauranga, and from there I wrote to plaintiff, retracting my apology, and demanding the return of my letter of apology. I recollect having a conversation with Mr. Eyes, in January last, which was substantially the same as Mr. Eyea gave in his evidence. Cross-examined by the Attorney- General : My first business conversation with plaintiff was at his office. I considered my money lent to Tetley from that date. I wrote the letter of March 10, by Tetley's dictation. I did not agree to leave my money with plaintiff at the current Bank rate. There was nothing said about the money between the time of lending it and my writing the letter of March 10, advising plaintiff how we had spent our money. It did not occur to me that I had already lent the money. We lent tho money for two years, but had not a written agreement. Plaintiff said : " You lend this money to Tetley, it is what we call in New Zealand a sheep investment." I know Mr. Ingles, but I rannot remember ever having had a conversation with him in reference to thU matter. I told Mr. Eyes I wanted to make public, that plaintiff had induced me to write a letter of apology under false pretences. I did not tell Mr. Eyes plaintiff had advised me to invest in sheep, but that he had advised me to lend the money to Tetley. I received apower-of-attorney from Mr. Tetley, to act for him during his absence, previously to my executing the deed of partnership between us. I and certain others havo been held liable for Tetley's debts. When I executed the partnership deed, I understood the property was unincumbered. In July, 1868, I executed a wool lien over tho clip from the Awatere property. From some act of mine the sheriff seized the sheep on the Kekeraugu station. On

my first arrival from England I, in conjunction with Messrs. Garforth and Wharton, stinted a small farm at Kaikoura. At the end of the first year we were in plaint iffs debt £554. Mr. Tetley paid this for us. Plaintiff did not mention tho mortgage of 1862 in Mr. Fhnrazyn'a or any other person's presence to me. My reason for addressing the letter writton from Tauranga to Levin and Co., instead of to plaintiff, was not because I thought he would destroy it and say nothing about it, but because I thought it was the proper way. I did not open Totley's box and examine his accounts until I was sure ho had absconded. I took no security, becauso I thought I had a share in all tho property. Tho Court adjourned at half-past five o'clock until ten o'clock on Friday. We are sorry we are unable to give the evidence taken yesterday, which closed about five o'clock. Mr. Conolly then addressed tho jury for tho defence in a most able speech, which occupied him an hour and a-quarter, when the Court adjourned for an hour. On resuming, the Attorney-General epoke on behalf of tho plaintiff for three hours, and tho charge of the Judge occupied an hour and a-quarter. The jury retired at half-past eleven, and at half-past two this morning they were dismissed by consent of both parties, thero being no chance of a verdict — one of the jury resolutely standing out for tho dofendant.