SUPREME COURT.—CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Monday, 18th March. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Williams and a Special Jury.) ALLEGED LIBEL.-REGINA V. GEORGE JONES,

North Otago Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 1842, 22 March 1878, Page 1 (Supplement)

SUPREME COURT.— CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Monday, 18th March. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Williams and a Special Jury.) ALLEGED LIBEL.- REGINA Y. GEORGE JONES,

> Tho trial of this cause was commenced to day. The defendant, George Jones, Junior publisher and proiirlotor of tho Oamaru JSvenint Moil, was indicted for that ho did, on Angus 18th, publish nu alleged libol concerning M: Y. A. Whitakcr. -Mr B. 0. Haggitt prose anted ; Mr W. 1,. Iteos, with him Mr T. W Hislop, for tho dofondant, who ploadod "No Guilty." Tho following were •worn us the Jury :- A. Mercer (foreman), Jauios Finch, Jame Davidson, Robert f&. Raymond, James Mar Hhall, Thomas J. Leary, J. H. Morrison, Wm Htraehan, Edward Gillow, Charles Morrison Job Wain, and Thomas Burfc. The Crown Prosecutor : May it pleoso youi Honour and gentlemon of tho Jury. The de fondant in tho printer. publishor, and proprletoi of a newspaper published in Oamaru, and oallec tho Evening Mad. Ho is ohargod with having upon the 13th of August lost year written and published a falno, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libol concerning Ircderick Whitaker, who »t that timo >vas AttorneyGeneral of this Colony. Gentlemen of the Jury, I liaTe to ask you, in entering upon your duties in this caao of inquiring into the oharge whioh is mode against the defendant, to dismiss from your minds anything you may have hoard or read concerning anything that may have taken place outside this Court Doforc to-day. Ido this beoatiso I have noticed, from day to day lately, artiolcs in one of the daily paper* in thU City, which I am sure all livinu in Dunedtn must havo seen— articles which are, in my opinion, calculated seriously to projudico the fair trial of the issues which you are now about to try. lam now about to call His Honour's attontion to an avtielo in this morning's paper, which I havo no hesitation in characterising ai a most unfair one for any newspaper to publish on the morning of the day of ft trial coming on, an artiole wliich ii calculated to seriously projudioo the case, which to full of misstatomonts, and whioh display* a spirit that is certainly not creditablo to any paper claiming for itself tho position of the leading journal in a city. Hlb Honour t Mr Haggitt, ia it worth whilo to go into this artiole ? Do not your remark* tend to do more harm than good by bringing the articles more prominontly under notice? Ought not the Jury to be simply cautioned to put away from their consideration anything they may have seen in the papers? If tho artfoleH in question are calculated to prejudice the trial of the coho thore is a specific remedy if you choose to adopt it. Tho Crown Prosecutor : If, your Honour, I were addressing an ordinary Jury, bucli aa id usually empannelled to try a criminal case, I might have some hesitation, but I havo confidence in tho good sense of a special Jury that they will Bee that articles, winter in tho spirit in which those articles are, ought not to influ ence them at all. I call attention to thin particular artiole in order that your Honour may, when you como to ohargo tho Jury, direct them that they ought not to bo influenced by mich artiolei as these ; and that tho tondenoy of such articles is to unfairly prejudico the trial. Now, I ought to assume, and do assume, knowing that this articlo la published in and throughout Dunedin, that all the Jury ompan* nellcd to try this case aro rollout in Dunedin, and that probably nine out of the twolvo havo read this morning's article. Therefore it is necessary, I think, that something should be naid in reference to it, in order to prevent Hit Honour : I think attention should bo called to it as littlo as possible. The Jury ought niinply to tako no notice of it or of any other article. Tho Crown Prosecutor : This is tho only use I propose to make of it •. to simply call your Honour's attention to it. I propoio to ask you to rood it, if you havo not already done so, and having seen the tendency of it, to read it to the Jury whon charging them, and to tako notice of it, in case it should have the effect, which I am afraid it would otherwiso have, of prejudicing the fair trial of this indictment. 1 do not proposo to mako any motion in respect to this artiole, although a gross contempt of Court has been committed In publishing such An article. If this had been a civil ooso I certainly should havo considered it my duty to bring tho matter before your Honour in that way ; but as your Honour is here to-day for the trial of other matters, I just draw attention to it, and ask your Honour to take caro in the trial of this case that the minds of the Jury are not prejudiced by reason of it. Gontlomon, it is in consequence of this and similar articles whicli have appeared from day to day in the papers that I ask you in coming to the performance of your duties to-day to baniuh from your mlndi altogether anything you may havo heard, seen, or read outside of this Court j that you will recollect tho oath you have just taken —to " well and truly try tho issues raised between our Sovereign Lndy tho Queen and tho prisoner at tho bar, and a true deliverance make according to the evidence, bo help you God." According to the evidence you hear hero to-day mind you, and not according to anything you may have heard outside the Court. Now. before going into the matters charged in this libel, I will explain to you what a libel is defined to be. There are differer-t classes of libel, as blasphemous ami seditious libels, Ac; but tho libel you havo to deal with, which is one upon a private individual, is defined to be a malicious defamation of an individual made publio by printing or writing, or it may be by signs or pictures, in order to provoke that individual to wrath and expose Him to publio hatred, contempt, or ridicule. You will notice that I said it malicious defamation, In case anything should turn in any of your minds about that I will explain to you the sense in whioh it Is used in that definition :—: — Malicious defamation consists in tho intention of the person charging it doing a particular mischief ; and in libel, as in all other cases, what a person intends must bo inferred from what ho does. So here, if a person publish an article, the very termi of which tend to scandalise, degrade, and Injure another, tho intention of the person so acting as to produce tli at result must be inferred, without any a other proof, from the artiole itself In which the defamation is contained. In a case of libel it U for tho Jury to say whether the article complained of is libellous or not. In order to enable tho Jury to do so, it is the duty of tho learned Juugo who presides at tho trial to tell tho Jury what the legal definition of a libel is ; and it is for the Jury to say whether tho writing or printing before them comes within the definition so laid down to them by the Judge. [The learned counsel hero read the articlo complained of. explaining that there were parts of it in respect to which it had been found necessary to attach innuendos, the meaning of which would, however, bo clear to persons reading tho artiole with any degree of care ; but the greater part of tho artlolo sufficiently spoke for itself to indicate tho object and intention tho writer must havo had in publishing it at oven tho most cursory reading. The writer of the articlo professed to givo an account learned from authentic sources of the circumstance* which gave birth to tho Nativo Land Bill of last session.] So that tho effect of this article must havo been this : to lead every person who read it to tho conclusion that tho writer of the articlo had, previous to printing it, satisfied himself that tho account whioh is hero given of tho transactions which tho articlo professes to deal with was a full, true, and particular account of tho in utters the articles professed to apeak of. No other conclusion, I submit to you, could bo put upon that statement. Then comes a series of details professing to be a full, truo, and particular account of these land transactions, in which there is not ono word of tiuth. Now, tho effect, I need hardly point <>ut to you, of the chnrgea herein contamod, in elective- entirely of tho first part of tho aiticlo upon which tho iimuondoen aio framed, w simply this: to charge Mr Whitaker as Attornoy-Uoneral with having mado corrupt use <>f the powers of hiu office of AttorneyGeneral to forward his own personal ends and tho personal interests of somo friends of his own. A grosser charge th.-.i tliiH could not, I venture to say, bo nuulo n«ainst any publio man. That being the charge, tho defendant has pleaded to it u plea of "not guilty." Tho onus is, therefore, thrown upon tho prosecution of proving tho publication of the libel by ths defendant. Iho learned counsel heio detailed how tho Printers KegiHtration Act of 18H8 enabled this to bo done.] Tho only thing that remain! W tho question of tho meaning of this artlolo. With regard to that, ovldenco'will be laid bqfore you, from persona who havo read the article, that tho paragraphs whioh have been selected and innuendoes attached to nr« capablo of bearing, and in tho minds of these people do bear, tho interpretation which, by means of theso innuendoes, aro put upon them, It it not necessary that even tho whole of these innuendoes should bo proved. Without the innuondoes at nil, if you aro satisfied, that that )iart of the article, to whioh 'no' innuendoes aro attached, contains libellous matter, it is competent to you to put your own interpretation upon that, and finding that tho uitlclo fc llbelloiif It i coin id Ihe dJomluit, Thai, (

gentlemen, n all I think it necessary to May to you in this, the first instance. I have only to add this : Mr Whitaker, the prosecutor, is bore himself. I purpose putting him iuto the box, but 1 shall not prove anything by his mourns except that ho held the office of AttorneyGeneral. I put him into the box in order that my lr arnod friend may put to him any questions that he may legally do. Tho following evidence was then given :— Colin M'Kenzie Gordon: I am DeputyRegistrivr of tho Supremo Court. I produce tho affidavit sworn to by tho defendant on tho occasion of tho registration of tlio Ectnlwj Mail. llichard Dignan : 1 urn clerk of the Customs at Oaniaru. I know the defendant, who U proprietor of the Xveniu<) Mail howupai>er. He hoH an oflico In Tyne Htreet, Oamaru. I purchased this paper at that olHco. TJie title of tho paper is Kvtninn Mail. It purports to bo printed by Georgo Jones. John Edward Denniston, barrister and solid* tor of the Supremo Court, practising in Dunedin •' My attention has boon directed to an article in tho Oamaru Evening Mail. With referenco to tho pauago in the article; " that hideous thing of which, the Attorney-General is the parent," £ should think it meant that Mr Whitaker introduced And fathered tho Bill in tho House. With regard to the alleged swindle I would think it meant that Mr Whitaker hud introduced tho Bill fox* tho apparent purpose of legitimately soiling the Native landii, but was really intended to enable some Auckland speculators, afterwards mentioned as Mr Whitakor and his friends, to obtain the lands in an unfair '■ and objectionable manner. I think it would stand stronger phraseology. I should say "dishonest manner." With regard to the other passage, regarding the enrichment of tho Attornoy-Genoral and his colleague*, I would take it to mean that the Attorney-General and his colleagues had previously enriched themselves at tno expense of the Colony by unfairly dealing In Natlvo lands, and that tho Bill wan introduced with the intention of still further enabling them to do it. I tako tho paragraph commencing "Tho pcrdon"to menu that the Auckland land ring— that is, Mr Whitaker and hu friends mentioned in tho articlo — that they had some dirty work to do connected with laud speculation, arid that they selected an agent whom they know was doing ouch work, na shown in the part commencing, "If tho Aot wero allowed to pas 3 and tho swindle we have just exposed wore perpetrated." I see that the article alloctes that Mr Whitakor did tho dirty work. To Mr Roes : I think tho whole- description of what Mr Brissonden Is alleged in thia articlo to havo dono in re Moon fuys that ho did dirty work. I think tho expression " furthor onrloh " means further enrich at tho expenso of [ the Colony. I think tho expression ns to how Mr Whitaker enriched himself is to be gathered from tho rost of the article. Tho s\\ indie was to havo been completed by tho passing of th<» Act. Commencing with tho part referring to Mr UriHsondon's relations witii Moon, it shows the initiation of the awindlo by compelling a man to part with land. I tako that part to moan that Mr Whitakor, as ono of tho clique, would have provontod Moon from getting a title in tho Natlvo Lands Court, The whole article infers a swindle. I am merely giving my opinion after reading tho article as a plain citizen. I know nothing of tho operations of tho Nativo Lands Court — not in the least. With regard to lands being detained by lawful means and afterwards termed a swindle, I have not heard of that here. I should be surprised to hear it. To Mr Haggitt : I have not heard any legal transaction* liore termed swindles, It might bo so in (Auckland. With regard to tho expressions that Mr Whitaker would bo enabled to obtain ono estate 300 miles square anil his probability of being ablo, as Attorney-General, to pass tho Bill, I think that they allege the swindlo. Mr Ilaggitt inquired whether it was necessary to call any nioro witnesses to prove tho innuendoes. His Honour did not think it necessary, as tho Jury wero perfectly competent to read the Article. Frederick Whitaker, barrister and solicitor, practising in Auckland : In August. 1877, I held the ofHco of Attoriicy-Goncril. From September, 1870, to, I think, Octobor, 1877, I held the olHco of Attorney-General, I havo read tho articlo in the Oamaru Mail of tho 13th August. It refers to mo. I introduced into tho Assembly a Bill to amend the law relating to Natlvo lands. It it entitled " A Bill to Amend and Consolidate the Lavr relating to Nativo Lands." Cross-examined by Mr ltees— Did you assist Mr Haggttt in drawing tip the demurrer pleas ? Wore you present in tho Court when application was mado to Mr Haggitt to allow such a plea to bo put in as woidd ultimately bring tho whole facto into issue? — To which plea do you refer ? I moan the last occasion ?— I was in Court. You heard Mr Haggltt state that he would not consent ?— I did. I presume that you know that under the plea of not guilty he cannot put tho truth or othorwise i of the matters charged in issue ?— I do know it. I may take it for granted that you are sorry that that cannot be done?— l am sorry ami disappointed that I cannot go into them. I thought so ?— You thought quito right. You yourself wished that tho matter should go before tho Court in order that all the facts should bo put?— l cimo down for tho express purnoso to give evidence upon all questions you might think fit to put to me. Did you or not advise Mr llaj,'gilt to allow tho whole of the matters to bo put iv issue ? — I declined to givo Mr Hasgitt any advico whatever. Ho did not take my opinion, and if ho asked he would not havo got it. Did yon not toll Mr Ilaggitt that you wero anxious that all thoso matters should come out ?— I told Mr Haggitt that tho prosecution was earned out by the Hou.se of Representatives, and that tho matter wan in hi* discretion. I did give an opinion on a matter of law as to whother your ploas were good or bad, and I at onco pronounced that t.hcy wero bad. When did you tell Mr Haggitt that ho wai acting for tho House of Representatives ?—? — Upon tho ocoision of our first interview. Did you not hear him when ho mado a statement in this Court tho other day in reference to tills matter ?— I do not recollect his statement in reference to it. Do you Hot remember hearing Mr Ilaggitt state that the matter oamo into his hands in the ordinary courae ? — I did not. • Mr Haggitt : No, nor no oue else. Mr Roes : Thoy wero made in all the paper.-*. Mr Haggitt : Nothing of the sort. Examination resumed. Do you know Mr Thomas liussoll ?— I do. He has been your partner for many a year? He has been, 'As a matter of fact, have not you and Mr Russell, both together and separately, been engaged largely during past yours in purchasing lands?— l do not know in regard to largely. Mr Russell and myself are partners only in the profession of the law. We aro not partners generally. There aro transactions exclusive of law transactions iv whioh wo havo been engaged, and these transactions aro laud transactions. One of these tranactions was iv reference to the Piako Swamp ?— lt was. Mr Haggitt : I submit that wo havo nothing whatever to do with these matters. As farns I can see, these questions have not much bearing upon tho case. I apprehend what wo have to enquire into Ih, whether or not the defendant printed and published this article. My friond must con line hinibolf to questions bearing upon that point, Mr Rees : The principal question to go to tho Jury is not that of printing and publishing, but that of malice. His Honour: If it contains defamatory matter, does not that show that it is malicious. Can any evidence bo adduced to show tho contrary ? Is not the presumption an immutable one that it in malicious, unions you can show that there was some oxcuse for publication ? Mr Rees : Tho surrounding circumstances may be token Into consideration. He then proceeded to quote authorities in mippoit of his contention, and referred to tho introduction of tho Nativo Lands Bill into Parliament ? His Honour : Can you argue in any way that there is privilege attaching to this article ? Mr Iteeat Yes; this is a newspaper comment upon a matter of public notoiioty, and of tho miblio exigency of tho introduction of a new Bill. It would be absolutely right under a plea of not guilty to put tho question as excluding tho right of the Crown to inuintaiu the action,, and showing that tho facts of tho case rebut tho inference of malice, In all cases of this sort malice must bo shown from tho document itself, vi from extrinsic facts. I wish to show to tiio Jury that tho whole oircum* Stances negative tho righ6 of tho Crown to maintain the action and negative malico. Ido not wish to ask question-) as to tho truth or falsehood of tho matter, but to negative tho inference of malice. His Honour : In order to dp that yon would have to shbw,that this artlcfo is in the nature of a comment on tho Native Lands Bill. Mr Ucch : Yes ; the article will speak for itBOlf. Hta Hon. .vi : If (he article (.■nnlnini n M.ilrmcut of fat ( , and i- not meiciy a comment,

cm you show mo any <\uo in which privilege attaches to such a statement ? , ' Mr Kooi ; Yes ; every aiticle contain) moie or lorfH a statement of faots. In mnny p.iip«, the f.iots aio not true. Hh Honour: Must thcro not be a b.i-i-i of fact m )<>n which to comment? Can a in.vi frame liis facts, and then comment upon th"in ' Must 1106 the ntatemcnls licro bo takou as tintrue for the purpose of, argument ? SHupposhi'-f a libel charges a man occupying a public position with h.niug embezzled public money, and makes a serios of comments upon tliat. The libeller pleads not guilty ; smrcly, umhr circumstances of that kind, the charge of cmho/ilcment must be taken an untrii". Mi* lleca : No comments could bo given there. 1 His Honour: It must bo taken na untrue. You could not justify that under a plea of not guilty upon the ground of fair comment. A direct statement of fact under a plea of not guilty must bo taknn as untrue, find therefore comment* upon such statement of facts could not bo privileged. Mr Ilees : Your lfonour will overturn tho wholo of tho cases. His Honour : That U the question ; do 1? You cannot plead the truth und?r a plea of not guilty — you must plead justification. Mr Roes then said that ho would go through tho decisions on the point. Having done ho, Ilia Honour stud that roporta of tho proceeding in courts of justice and comments upon such proceedings were epecmlly privileged. Mr Uee* : You then divide them into classes. His Honour : There must be n basis of admitted facts upon which to framo your comments. Mr Rees : Tho introduction of this Bill into the House of Assembly Hi < Honour : Anything in connection with Mr WhUaker's introduction of that Bill is a fair subject for cross-examination. Mr ltec. : There is no. special privilege la regard to tho cases to which your Honour rcten, except that it it the custom of tho law of tho land. Tho iulroduotion o{ tho Bill is n fact, and all tho circumstances which surround its inUoduotion is a biibiect of commeut. His Honour : There 1 quite agrco with you. I apprehend that thw question was objected to as something which had nothing to do with the Native Land* Bill. Mr Ilees : I wished to ask Mr Whitakcr this question— -Waa ho engaged in land transactions in Auckland, and was one of thct>o in roferonce to tha J'iako Swamp ? Mr Maggtlt: I object to that question, and I submit that my friend has 110 right to ask such a question. What is tho issue raised ? 1 submit that it i 3 simply whether this libel was published or not. Any question wnich does not tend to the elucidation of tint enquiry is irrelevant. His Honour : I think that tho i*suo may tako a wiilcr raugo than s that. It might be said, might it not, that part of tho libellous matter may bo jutitiiied upon tho ground of ita being a comment on the Nativo Lands Bill, and Ah Whitakur's connection with that Bill ? Mr Haggitt : Not under a plea of not guilt\ . His Honour : Tho defonco of a fair comment rises tinder a plea of not guilty. Mr Haggitt : I submit not, your. Honour. The cases go to show that a bona fide belief on the pvi t ol tho defendant of the existence of the facts upon which he comments is not justiHablc. His Honour: Tho cases aro contradictory. MrHiggitt: A public wiiter has no business to comment upon facts which ho assumes to be ti tie, and has reason to assume to bo true, unless tho facts are bo. That clearly sh >\VB that a fair common t upon what a writer assumes to be facts, and oannot (provo to no f net j, c vnnot hi allowed to be givon in evicl nco in a case of this kind. Tho cue which I have quoted show.s that the foundation of comment must bo facta, and as facts cannot be justified except under a plea of justification, therefore theio i« not tho loivst foundation for making any enquiry whatever into an alleged statement of fact). His Honour: Mr Ilees is willing to leave alone th it part of tho articlo which U a direct atatemont of facts, but says that tho other pat t of the articlo may bo justified as being a fail comment upon tho Nativo Lauds Bill, and ought pioperly bo published. Mr HiggiU: It is the foundation of tho right of fair comment that tho facts themselves exist. Ilia Honour: There must be a basis of fact to X" upon. Mr 1 laggitt : It must bo proved. What I am c jijl ending is that it is no defenco to au action for libel that tho defendant acted upon tho faith of current reports if such reports pro\o fatae. Mr Kees; I submit that I nm entitled to ask any question the answer to which would tend to negative malice, or tho inforenco of malice. Such evidence would bo admissible. Mr J laggitt: Ailha\o already contended, these questions aro inadmissible. My fiiend has painted an cxtraordinaiy picture of the position in which ho is in with a pica of not guilty. If the defendant has not had a proper plea piepared, he cannot complain. It is a-i extraordinary proposition that wo should b« called upon to answer an allegation of which we h.vvfl not received any notice. I submit, in the first placo, that there is no privilege attaching to a publication of this kind. My friend has mado a niistako in chainctcrising the libel as being one upon the Attorney-General. I say that it is a direct personal attack upon Mr whitakcr as an individual, irrespective of his oIKco at Attorney-General, and deals with matters which took placo before he held that position. Tho articlo alleged, in so many words, that his object in taking office was to carry out the>o nthuious objects which ho had cuteicd into when ho was Attorney - General. So iv is clear _ that it is a libol upon him as an individual, and not in AttorneyGeneral. The other grounds upon which my learned fiiend goes 11 that the matter is one of privilege, as tho articlo is wiittcu regarding the Nalivo Lands Bill. I submit that the only fact which my friond is entitled to enquito into on thiri point is whether such a J'.ill was introduced or not. On these grounds T submit that this clasi of evidence is inadmissible. His Honour, after referring to the conflicting nature of tho decisions in regard to the point raised, said that it seemed to ln'm that tho defendant in this caso might say that tho pnrt of this articlo which dvl # consist of a statement of facts consisted of a fair comment on tho Native Lands Bill, and upon Mr Whitaker's action in connection with that Bill. In order to justify its being a fair continent, tho defendant, he thought, might give in evidence tho public acts of Mr Whitaker— that was, acts dono by him in his capacity of Attorney -General, nn'd therefore faiily tho subject of criticism. Ho may also give evidence of what took placo during the debates in tho Houso of Representatives, because comments on debates were also tho subject of privilege Evidence might bo given to that extent, but no further. Ho did not think that ho would bo justified in admitting evidence concerning any transactions of Mr Whitaker's except thoso which by virtuo of liia public office woio tho subject of public ciiticism. If this lMiiko Swamp onqiury related to matter outside of Mr Whitaker's official capacity ns Attorney-General, then ho did not think that the evidence was admissible. He would bo sorry to prejudice tho defendant by tho exclusion of any cvidenco which should be admitted, ami would therefore reserve the point. t'rosri-OMimiualiuu was lenunied by Mr Reos. Did you, v. bun u member of the House of Representatives, enter into a contract with the Government for tho purchase of this l'iako Swamp '' — No. Did you get (he (•••mvcj'.vuce whilo you were a member? - Ye*, but that is a very different thing from a oonti.ict, Was not the original oontmct very much altered '(— Not that I recollect. Were they not varied ?— ln what way vaiicil? Other land put in ? -No. Was the aro.v made different ? — Certainly not. Wivs not the contract completed after you were a member of tho Houso?-- Yes. Whilo the House waa sitting? — Yos, it wan completed by the issue of the (frown grant whilo tho Hou«o w.ut sitting. 1 think that it was while tho House was sitting. You made no contract after you becamo a member of tho Houho?— No; I think that everything was piior to that. While yon were a niembor of tho House of Representatives and Attorney-General, were you engaged in any negotiations w itli the late Gn\einniontiu reference to Home exchanges of Nativo lands ?— Not Native lands. I was in negotiation with them in icfcicnce to tho exchange of Homo land to which I had been entitled for 20 yevrj, L woa iv tieaty to givo up this land for otheis. Tho whole of this subject wna enquired into by the Hoiine, ns you remember a Committee sat upon the Waitoa laud transaction. Did yon dtaft tho proposed Nati\c Lands Bill v— l did, It you wish to know the circumstances under which it was prepaied, I iviu ready to toll you. You were not j>reHont i.t tho Police Court in Weihuffton when Jones was committed fiutrial ?— Yes I was. The cirounmtaneos \vcvc as follows :-- 1 wont down to tho Police Court. It w.m crowded, and I wont into an ndjncent loom, nnd lrqucßtrd the down rm.ocntur <>i the Jnspeilot of Volili to 1 all me, if lequircd

I win not called. I did not hero anything Wlfioh yrivis stated by tho Crown Prolocutor. The Native Lands Bill was prcpired in thi« way : I'ortain principle* were laid ddtfrt which I uih to o.vrry out, nud wlion I went to Auckland I had hut little timo to spare, and tho IMU was drawn fiom day to day as time afforded. Tho manuscript was transmitted to tho printer, and Homo of it I got back and some I did not. What I did get back was put in the waste paper basket. Tho liill was printed, and I took it up to Wellington, where it was considered by the Government olanso by clause. J then took it back to Auckland and had it drafted. That in tho history of the Native Lands Bill. Tho whole thing extended probably over two months. Do you know tho persons who purchased tho Piako Swamp ?— I do. Who were they? - Mr Russell, Mr Chailcs laylor, Mr Murdoch, Captain Steele. Wore you present when the vote was carried for tho prosecution of Jone.s ?— I was. Did you voto for it ?- -I did. I first of nil requested the House not to taka tho prosecution up, but to allow myself to arrango the matter with Jonds. That was refused ; then I voted. Did you Hot withdraw your motion in favour of Mr Gisborne's ?— I bohevd I did. The ground alleged for tho House not dealing with the matter was that tho whole facts should be got out in tho Supremo Court as to their truth or otherwise ?— By whom ? By you ?— I do not recollect that. Did you hear a statement made in the House that this was a Ministerial question ?— I did not hear that. < Mr Haggitt naked was tho Court to enquire into everything which took place in tho House. Mr Hoes : My answer is that this is a public matter, and affecting public interest, and theroforo tho Com t and Jury have the right to know what took placo as to tho method of the prosecution. Mr Haggitt : Tho Jury have nothing to do with how the case came before tho Court. Tho Juiy should not bo troubled with what took pLico hi the llouso in reference to tho prosecution. Tho objection was not sustained, and the cross-examination was reemmed. You were present and voted during tho debato ? — I was present during nearly all tho dobate, and I think that I voted. Do you know whother it was mado a Government question ?— -I do not roinembor anything being said about its being mado a Government question. I repudiated that it should bo made a party question. I had nothing to do with making it a party question, and I do not bolievo thnt it was. A discussion then ensued as to whether Mr Rees should be permitted to read from Han-' sanli and it was ruled that to do 80 was inadmissible. Examination resumed : Do you remember an action against tho pi inter and publisher of tho Waka Maori while you were a member of tho Government ?— Yes, it was about tho timo I left tho Government. Do you remember petitions coining in against tho BUI ?-Yes; and for it. When ? — Representations came from Natives in different parts of the country, pointing out two or three objections to tho Bill, otherwise expressing approval. Do you remomber about 1200 Maoris objecting to it ?— I do not know how many. I remember one of the Maori membors referring to it in his speech. Do you remember a Bill introduced into tho Legislative Council in reference to the Waitoa lands?— l do. That was tho purchase you mado from tho Government?— lt was to carry out an arrangement mado with tho Government, That Bill was thrown out?— lt was, upon the third reading. That was before I was in the Government, and before tho House was dissolved. Mr Rees j Were you acting in several other matters for other gentlemen in relation to Native lands, and their rights and interest in them ? Mr Haggitt objected, and said that he would bo quite at his mend's moroy if these questions were allowed to be put. His Honour rulect that the question was not admissible. The cross-examination was then continued. Do you remember while you were in the Ministry a bill being brought in indemnifying Ministers for any penalty which they might have incurred in regard to the Disqualification Act?- Yea. It was brought in by the Ministers ?—lt? — It was. At the timo you were in treaty with the Government for this Waitoa land, do you know whether any other person claimed to have an interest in it?— Ye s; Captain Beadon. Tn answer to Mr Haggitt, tho witness said : In reference to Captain Beadon'n olaim, I was employed by the Governor of the Colony in 1812 or 1843 to see if anything could be made pf it. I had nothing to do With the matter, as it was a question between tho Captain and the Government. The wholo subject of the Waitoa lan Is was enquired into by the Houso of Kepret>cntatives, and tho report was that the mutter was fair, and that the transaction ought to 1)3 carried out, and that I was entitled to compensation because that had not been done. Mr Haggitt then put in the formal documents, and tho case for the prosecution closed. Mr Rees : I ,do not propose to call any evidence. Mr Haggitt said that this gave him tho opportunity of addressing tho Jury now, but as he could not possibly anticipate what his learned friend was going to say, the opportunity was of very little use to him. However, tho duties the Jury had to perform were of a very simple character. They had Biraply to lind whether the defendant was or was not responsible for tho publication of this article, and whether the article was or was not such an attack upon Mr Whitaker ns to deserve the designation of libellous. As far as necessary proof on tho part of tho Crown establishing these facts was concerned, that proof was before them. They would have an opportunity of seeing tho articlo for themselves, and they would s.iy whether that articlo was or was not a grossly malicious attack upon Mr Whitakor in connection with several transactions to which that article relates, and more especially in the prosecutior of his duties as a member of tho Government. The only answer to that case which had been suggested so far was this— that tho article itself was not malicious, inasmuch as it was a fair account of transactions with which Mr Whitakor was connected in his public character. One of these transactions related to the Piako Swamp, and Mi 1 Whitaker luu]j stilted that iip to the time the contract wan j made he was not a member of the House at all. The contract was made and completed before he was connected with the Government in nn official capacity, and all that was done subsequently was that tho money that was agreed to J>e paid was paid, and the contract was finished. Tins transaction did not in any way refer to the Native lands at all. With regard to some lands in the Waitoa district proposed to bo exchanged with Mr Whitaker by the Government, this was in 1833 or 1834. The transaction wont before the Committee of the Houso of Representatives, and their report was this— "that the exchange of the lands proposed to be given to Mr Whitaker appears to have been a judicious transaction on the part of the Government and should bo completed without loss of timo. That through tho delay, Mr Whilakcr has been subjected to loss, and that the Government should take immediate steps to settle such loss." Now, these two transactions only hud been referred to. Ho hml no doubt thnt tho defendant's counsel would say that it was himl -upon the defendant that lie should bo heie to-day tied down to the plea otf not guilty, and th.»b attempts would bo made to blacken the prosecutor because he had been mixed up with transactions with tho Native*. His learned friend had no ground of complaint on that anno at all, Tho law allows a remedy for that, ihe law allows tho truth of tho transaction to bo given in evidenco before tho Jury if the defendant plead the truth in the way required by law. There was no difficulty about the matter at all if it was only properly gone about. Thero was very littlo difficulty in framing a pl«a of justification before a Jury, and yet his learned friend complained of him because, on behalf of tho Crown, ho did not submit to pleas tint were not framed according to law, and which did not involve tho matter complained of. Thcro was no real prejudice to the defendant. He (Mr Haggitt) would simply satisfy himself by telling the Jury that hod tho defendant been able to justify these charges the law pi ovidedthe means forhisso doi ng, and the most ciilion was not responsible if the defendant did not choose to avail himself of the means which tho law provided, so that there vas no haulship upon him with respect to that matter at nil. There was no question Biero of the libeity of the Press. Thero was no question that the Press, was justified in publishing anything that it could justify of Iho public note of^ public men. Ho releired to the uufiolnef a libel was likoly to do. Consideration of this | article had takon np a consideinhle amount of the timo of our representatives in Parliament, of our Judges, ana of the Jury V own time. They were to judgo "for themselves whether tho nature, of the artiwlo was to subject Mr Whitaker to the contempt of every right minded person. They hlioulcl not notice what any newspaper of tho yJlaco might publish in tho interests <>f a fellow journalist. He muchidod bv icnii (idiuj; thq Juiy of the u.itli they had. taken,

Mr Jlt>u>. .suitl that tlio i oui »rks which Mi Haggitt h.vl made a* to the ni.uiner in whicl he (Air Ucph) intended to addiess the Jury, Were to sonio extent correct and to some extenl mc >i i uft. Witli regtrd to the W niton and l J iako trans lotions, he intro luwd them in c-rdei to show that Mr Whitaker as a public man and whilo a im-mber of tha Assembly was aotuallj de.vlinif with the Crovurmnint, ami completed transactions with the Government of which lie w.m a number, na to tho exchange to him and other gentlemen of the public lands. As to the plea of justification having been struck out, tho Attorney-General (Mr Whitaker) promised that all the factrt should bo cmiuired into for the purpose of clearing himself of imputations. When the case came to trial, he found that tho whole of tho evidence could not be put on trial, arid yet ill tha llinso of Representatives and in tho vitncvi-bov to - dny, Mr WliiUker appeared to be very anxious to h.ivo these matins bi ought out. But he appeared to agree w ith tho demurrer, bo as to deny to the country a;i opportunity of testing whether tho statements m.vde by the defendant wero true or false. Now, ho should ask them to look at tho Native Land Hill, 1877. Mr Haggitt objected to the Bill being put in as evidence. Mr Rees : You a<jkod questions concerning the Bill. Mr Haggitt : I did »u»t. Mr Rees : I am not awnro whether it U the practice of this Court to give the lie direct. I am not in tho habit of beinpr contradicted in this way. It is noi, tho piaetice in other Courts. His Honour : Mr Haggitt mentioned that ho did not ask questions concerning this particular Bill. Mr lieos suggested that Mr Haggitt should read "Taylor on Evidence." Mr Haggitt: t take that in the spirit in which it is ottered. Mr Rees : In arguing a matter of law I don't think that ono member of the Bar should seek to aft in a derisive manner to tho other. I hope that my learned friend will not interrupt. # Mrllaggitt : 1 shall intuirupt when I consider it my duty to do so, His Honour suggested that tho Hill should be allowed to go in as evidence. Mr llaggifct : Tho Bill is not in evidence. My learned friend has no right to comment upon it. Mr Rees : I havo never hoard of such an objection. I have load a good many trials, hut I never heard of such on objection being taken. His Honour : Tho Bill should have been produced in evidence. The Court will take a judicial note of Iho Native Lands Bill, but you liave no right to comment upon it. It can hardly affoct tho matter one way or another whether you do or not. Mr if aggitt has takon the objection, and as a matter of law I am bound to supiwrt it. Mr Reos said tint after what had taken place, he would not insult the member.) of the Jury by thinking that a conviction could CMRUO. Mr Haggitt : I ask your Honour whether it is right for my learned friend to make a comment on what your Honour has held to be well founded in law. His Honour mentioned that lie was making a note, and did not hoar the remark of Mr Rees. Mr Ha-'gitt submitted that it was not the practice of the Court to allow a repetition of anything which hail been decided to be inadmissible. Mr Rees : I shall not answer the remarks which havo been made, your Honour. I presum' that I am to bo subjected to interrii<)l>ious all through. liii Honour said that unless thero were serious grounds for an interruption, Mr Rees should not be interrupted. Mr Haggitt : Having called attention to the matter, and having hoard your Honour's opinion, I shall make no further comment at 'ill. His Honour : I did not moan that at all. What I meant is that Mr Rees should not be interrupted, unless there is really somo glare reason for doing to. __ And if in a minor case an objection of this kind might ba fairly urged, tho Court cannot, I think, draw a rigid line in all cases. In some casfs, greater latitude must be allowed than in other*. It is very difficult to draw the line, but 1 don't see my way to intcrfero so far. If you see Mr Rees gravely exceeding the limits of counsel, I might ask you to call my attention to it, but only on grave reasons. Mr Haggitt : I did consider it a gravo i » ason for interruption, as matters not introduced in evidence weiti being spoken to. His HiM'iur : That has been disposed of. Mr Haggitt : That is tho very point. I shall now siv tint my learned friend can proceed to as '„"if, length as ho pleases without th* slight -I interruption from me. I shall lcavo it t > y ny: Honour. Mr H-Mi then commented upon the btron;,' feoliu;; which tho Nativo Lands Bill caused amon:< the Native*. There were such imp »rl« ant iufrn-edts involved in the Bill that fair and re;is>) riblo comment upon it wai necessary for thop'ib'ic tfojd. Tho Bill greatly affected the NativtM. The verdict of the Jury under existing chcuuistancos would not determine the truth or falsehood of a single charjjo against Mr Whi'aker. Defending the liberty of the Press, he (.tlr Reo 3) said that persons at a distance who read tho roports of tho proceedings of the House of Representatives during the past few years, must come to tho eonclmion that our representatives are » set of unmitigated rascals. Tho object of the article was to stop the passing of tlie Bill, which would be dangerous to tho public welfare. He contended that tho article was not libellous at all. Mr Jones had rendered good scryioo to the country by assisting to stop tho passing of the Native Lands Act, 1877. The freedom of the Press was growing, and reports coming from the Press should be privileged unless actual malice was shown. Theso matters should be brought before the proper tribunal of public opinion. In the name of the Native raee — in tho name of tho public welfare — in the name of public justice, and iv the name of the freedom of the Press and our Sublio institutions — ho asked a verdict for the efondant, His Honour then bummed up, and in doing so, reminded tho Jury that they wero not to be influenced by anything which they had read in the newspapers. Ho explained to them tho law of libel, and read through tho article, ami drew their attention to the statements which it contained, and to tho innuondos put upon these statements by the Crown. At 7.15 tho Jury returned into Court. The Registrar : Have you agreed upon your verdict, gentlemen ? The Foreman : We hay». Tho Registrar : How say you gentlemen, is the defendant guilty, or not guilty ! Tho Foreman : Not guilty. His Honour : Tho defendant is discharged. The Court was then adjourned.