"MOKAU" JONES IN COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10427, 27 April 1897, Page 3

" MOKAU" JONES IN COURT.

PROSECUTION FOR LIBEL. [from our OWN correspondent.] London, March 20. Mr. Joshua Jones, of Mokau fame, has achieved one of his great objects in life at last, or at any rate is in the fair way to attain it, 1 need not enter into the details of his long dispute with a London firm of solicitors who originally acted for him in connection with ihe proposed sale of the Mokau estate. I have gone fully into that on former occasions. But since Mr. Jones' claims for the restoration of the property have apparently been finally disposed of by absolute foreclosure, he has embarked on a new career which promises to prove as fruitful in litigation and strife as the one which now appears to be closed. (he day last week Mr. Jones was formally served with a summons to appear at the West London Police Court, and answer a charge of criminally libelling Messrs. Flowers, Nussey, and Fellowes, solicitors, and Messrs. Hopkinsou Brothers, bankers, of Regent-street. The*case came on fur hearing last Wednesday afternoon at (he pokey little Court in West Kinaiugston, over which Mr. Lane, Q.C., presides so genially aud able. Mr. Joshua Joues, when called on, promptly put in his appearance, carrying a" enormous bundle of ducumeuts in one hand, and a huge bag, apparently crammed to the brim with similar cargo, in the other, However, as the sequel will show, the presence of all this documentary matter was a little too previous. His adversaries manifestly took a serious view of the case, for they were represented by no less distinguished a barrister than Air. C. P. Gill, Q.C., the eminent counsel. Without recapitulating the oft-told tale, I must for the sake of clearness, just point out at this stage the gist of the issue. Messrs. Flower, Nussoy, and Fellowvs alleged that when they originally advanced £1800 to clear off a second mortgage on the Mokau property they did so on Mr. Jones' assurance that the first mortgagee was a friend of his who would not call in the money, but that on the contrary, directly they paid off the second mortgage, the first was called in, and to savo their £1800 they were obliged to advance £7000 or £8000 more, in conjunction with Mr Hopkinsou, the other prosecutor, and buy in the whole property to avert the loss of what they had previously advanced. They assert further that they afforded Mr. Jones every opportunity up to June last to re-pur-chase his property, but he could not had the money. They elso organised a small syndicate to have the mineral value of the property!'ested, with the result that they were proli-asiomiily advised not to proceed further in the matter. Finally, as Mr. Jones remained unable to raise there-purchase money, they were obliged to foreclose on the estate, which was still in their hands aud for which they were unable to find a purchaser, and which they would gladly sell for the money they lr*d advanced, tho latter (including law coets) amounting to some £14,000. Mr. Gill stated further that the prosecutors had assisted Mr. Jones in vaiious ways with money out of their own pockets, even advancing him £11 to enable him to cable to New Zealand, while they had never received a single farthing from him in return. It was early in the present year that Mr. Jones began to open fire upon them by means of certain type-written circulars whioh he sent to various people with whom the prosecutors were associated, in business. These circulars accused the prosecutors of "perjury," " conspiracy," " fraud," and " dishonesty," and accompanying one which was sent to Mr. Leslie Walker, a general agent, was a manuscript letter, in which Mr. Joues alleged that Messrs. Flower, Nussey, and Fellowos, when they bought in the Mokau property, were acting as his solicitors; that having bought in the property on his behalf they "stuck to it" themselves; that the principal, interest, and costs had been offered to the prosecutors, but had been refused; and that they had adopted various malicious proceedings against the defendant, causing him to be made bankrupt, and ultimately ruining him and his family, breaking up a happy home, aud necessitating hit daughters going out as domestic servants. I need hardly say that no attempt was made by Mr. Jones to dispute the fact of" publication," this consisting in his having sent oat the circulars complained of—in tact, he evidently gloried in having done this, and in the opportunity ho hud thus obtained of making public the wrongs he considers himself to have sustained at the hands of the prosecutors. He appeared somewhat disappointed that he could net bring out his justification at that Court, but when Mr. Lane courteously pointed out to him that under the English law of libel, if publication were priina facie or admitted, the magistrate had no alternative but to send his case for trial before ajury. Mr. Jon«s bowed, and with equal politeness assented to the magistrate's view ot the law. But during the course of proviusr publication, the defendant managed to "spring" a very clever little surprise on the other side. Mr. Leslie Walker was in the witness-box, proving the receipt of the circulor complained of, and Mr. Jones in cross-examination asked him one or two questions with the evident object of fixing the precise time when the summons for libel was applied for. Mr. Gill objected to this as irrelevant, but Mr. Jones calmly insisted upon his right to press the questions, assuring the magistrate that he would show their relevance. When he got his answer, he suddenly, aud before the other side could step him, made a statement to the effect that he had already taken steps for the prosecution of Messrs. Flower, Nussey, and ?ellowes on the charges referred to in his circular, and that the evidence as to the times of their action showed that they had only taken these proceedings on learning of those already instituted or initiated by him. Mr. Gill realised the point secured by Mr. Jones. Ho sprang up with an indignant protest against the defendant being permitted to make statements of that kind, asserting roundly that Mr. Jones' object was simply to get them into the papers, aud so to prejudice the ease. Mr. (Jill referred to the experience of the Pall Mall Gazette in some former proceedings connected with Mr. Jones' affaire, when the editor whs brought up for contempt of Court, aud only esoapsd committal by making a full apology and paying the costs, through his having raehlyacceptedandcommeuted on statements made by the present defendant. Mr. Fellowee, the junior member of the prosecuting legal firm, and Mr. Hopkiueou, the banker who assisted in advancing the sum in question, R»ve formal evidence, both asserting that the statements in the alleged libel were "absolutely false," "a tissue of lies, and that there was "not a word of truth in them." Mr. Fellowes made his statements in a very quiet, matter-of-fact way, but Mr. Hopkinson spoke with a good deal of acerbity, and evidently under the influence of strong feeling. Committal for trial was of course inevitable, but the pronouncement was manifestly received with great glee by Mr. Jones, who managed to get an opportunity to state in a loud voice that when the case came before the jury ho would be prepared to prove absolutely the truth of every word he had stated in the alleged libels. The question of bail then came np, but the prosecution did not press for heavy bail, and Mr. Lane said that he considered it would be quite sufficient to take the defendant's own recognis »nces, remarking with a smile that he wat quite satisfied there was no likelihood ol his running away, ai it was easy to aei that he was eager to have the case gone into. To this Mr. Jones assented bo heartilj •nd rigorously as to elicit a general laugh.