WHITAKER V. JONES-A VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XV, Issue 5097, 19 March 1878, Page 3

WHITAKER V. JONES-A VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL.

[By Electric Telegraph.] [press agency.] Dpnedin, Tuesday. AT the criminal session of the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr. Justice Williams and a special jury, the case Regina v. George Jones, for libel, was called on. The following were the special jury :—Messrs. T. L. Leary, G. Morrison, B, S. Raymond, J. Marshall, G. Davidson, A. Mercer, J. Fuel), J. Waiu, T. Burt, C. Morrison, E. Gillon. and W. Strachan. Messrs. W. L. Rees, of Napier, and Hislop, of Oamaru, appeared for the defendant; Mr. B C. Haggitt for the prosecution. After the Crown Prosecutor had opened the case, evidence was taken, but only of a formal character, as no evidence of justification was admissible. The following is the evidence : — Colin-McKenzie Gordon deposed : 1 am - Deputy-Registrar of the Supreme Court. I produce nn affidavit sworn to by defendant, on the occasion of the registration of the Evening Vail newspaper. I purchased the paper at that office. The title of the paper la the ficcning Mail. It purports to be printed by George Joueo. John Edward Denneston, barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court, practising at Dunedin, deposed: My attention being directed to an article in the Oamaru Evening Mail, with reference to the passage in the article, "That hideous thing of which the Attorney General is the parent," I should think it meant that Mr. Whitaker introduced and fathered the Bill in the House. With regard to the alleged swindle, I would think it meant that Mr. Whitaker had introduced the Bill for the apparent purpose of legitimately selling native lands, but was really intended to enable some Aucklam speculators, afterwards mentioned as Whitaker and his friends, to obtaiu lands in an unfair and objectionable manner. J think it ■would stand stronger phraseology. I should say " Dishonest manner." With regard to other passages regarding the enrichment of the Attorney-General and colleagues, I would take it to mean that the Attorney-General and his colleagues had previously enriched themselves at the expense of the colony, by unfairly dealing in native lands, and that the Bill was introduced with the intention of still further enabling them to do it. I take the paragraph commencing "The person," to mean tli.it the Auckland land ring, that is, Whitaker and friends, mentioned in the article, that they had some dirty work to do connected with land speculations, and that they selected an agent whom they kuew was doing such work, as shown in the part commencing " If the Act were allowed to pass, and the swindle we have just exposed were perpe trated." I see that the article alleges that Mr. Whitaker did the dirty work. To Mr. Kees: I think the whole description of what Britsenden is alleged in tins article to hare d.ue in re Moou says that he did dirty work. I think the expression "further enrich'' meaus furlhsr enrich.it the expense of the colony. 1 think the expression as to how Mr. Whitaker enriched himself is to be gathered from the rest of the article. The swindle was to have been completed by the passing of the Act. Commencing with the part referring to Brissenden's relations with Moon, it shows the initiation of a swindle by compelling a man to part with land. I take that part to mean that Mr. Whitaker, as one of the clique, would have prevented Moon from getting a title in the Native Lands Court. The whole article infers a swindle. lam merely giving my opinion, after reading the article, as a plain citizen. 1 know nothing of the operations of the Xative Lands Court. With regard to lands being obtained by unlawful means and afterwards termed a swindle, I have not heard of that here. 1 should be surprised to hear it. To Mr. Uaggitt : I have not heard any legal transactions here termed swindles. It might be so in Auckland. With regard to the expressions that Mr. Whitaker would be able to obtain one estate 300 miles square, and his probability of being able, as At-torney-Generel, to piss the Bill. I think that they allege a swindle. Frederick Whitaker, barrister and solicitor practising in Auckland, deposed: In August, 1877, I held the office of Attorney-General. I held the office of Attorney General from September, 1576, to, I think, to October, 1577. I have read the article in the Oamaru Mail of the 13th August. It refers to me. I introduced into the Assembly a bill to amend the law relating to native lands. It is entitled, " A bill to amend and consoldate the law relating to native lands." To Mr. Reei : I assisted Mr. Haggitt in working the demurred points. I gave him my opinion. I exercised no discretion. There were three occasions where pleas were put in. I heard on the last occasion Mr. Haggitt gay he would not consent to allow Other pleas. I know under the plea of " not guilty" that Mr. Jones cannot put in evidence to the truth of the alleged libel. lam sorry for that because I came down here for the express purpose of giving evidence, and to answer any questions you may put to me. I did not adrise Mr. Hajrgitt on that point. He did not ask my advice. When I came down here, I told Mr. Haggitt that he was acting on the part of the blouse of Representatives. When I saw the pleas, I saw immediately that they were bad. I know Mr. Thomas Russell. He is, and has been, my patron for many years. Mr. Russell and I are partners only in law business. We are not partners generally. We have entered into land transactions outside the partnership during the past few years. One of these transactions was in relation to the purchase of the Piako Swamp. After I became a member of the House, I did not enter into the Government for the purchase of the Piako Swamp. I paid the money afterwards. The original transaction was not varied. Other laud was not put in, and the area was not varied. I think the money waa paid in July, when the House was sitting. 1 have not made anj contract with the Government since I was elected a member of the House. I asked to exchange some land which I purchased from a European under the Land Claims Settlement Act. I was under treaty with the Government to take other land in exchange, but it was not carried out. That ■was before I became a member of the House. The whole transaction is in print. I remember a committee sitting on the Waitoa land transactions. I drafted the Native Lands Bill. I was in Wellington when Mr. Jones was committed for trial. I was at the Police Court, but 1 was not called as a witness. The Native Land Bill was considered before I went to Auckland, and the principles were laid down. I went to Auckland and prepared the draft. Altogether, the drafting and printing of the bill extended ovur two months. I took it down to Wellington, and went over it word by word, and some of it was altered to suit the views of the other members of the Government. In the purchase of the Piako Swamp I had as partners Mr. Russell, Mr. Charles Taylor, Mr. Murdoch, and Captain Steele. I was present and voted when the prosecution of M r, Jones was determined on by the Assembly. At first I requested the House to allow me to arrange the matter with Mr. Jones. The House would not agree, and I voted. I asked the House to allow the whole of the circumstances to be inquired into. 1 certainly repudiated making it a paity question. It was made a Government question. I said more than once during the discussion that it should not be made a party question. Captain Morris was the Government whip. I remember the case against the Waka Maori. A bill was introduced to the Upper House to complete an arrangement I made with the Government in reference to the Waitoa land, and it was thrown out on the third reading. This was in 1875. I reniember a bill being brought in while I was in the Ministry, indemnifying Ministers from any penalties they may have incurred under the Disqualification Act. It wns brought in by the Ministers. I waa previously acting for Captain Beadon in 1842 or Mr. Hagett: Do you wish to offer any explanation with regard to these land transactions ? Witness : Yes; in reference to the transaction with regard to Captain Beadon, 1 have simply to say that many years ago I was employed by. the Governor, Mr. Shortland, to inquire into this claim of Beadon's, and see if anything could be made of it. Aa far as Captaiu Beadon is concerned I had nothing to do with his claim beyond specifying land to be given in exchange. Mr. llaggitt: Will the Native Lands Act nave the effect of influencing these transactions ?

Mr. Reee objected to the question, but his Honor overruled the objection. Witness : The Native Act could not apply to any of the transactions. With regard to the Waitoa business, the whole subject was inquired into by a committee of the House of Representatives. They reported that the transaction was a fair one, and that I was entitled to compensation because the Government did not carry it out. Mr. Haggitt pnt in the affi davit and the newspaper. Mr. Kees : I do not propose to call any evidence. Counsel then addressed the Court, Mr. Rees making an address of three hoim. After the judge had summed up, the jury retired, and after balf-an-hour's deliberation, brought in a Terdict of "Not guilty." Accused was discharged.