CHARGE OF DEFAMATORY LIBEL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12272, 16 May 1903, Page 3

CHARGE OF DEFAMATORY LIBEL.

CONTINUATION OF RICHARDSON'S TRIAL. THE CASE PROCEEDS SLOWLY. EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE. INSPECTOR CULLEN AND MR. MOSS DAVIS CALLED. SCENES BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND ACCUSED. The trial of William Richardson on the two charges of publishing defamatory libels of William John Baker, the late licensee of the Alexandra Hotel, Chapel-street, which was commenced on Wednesday, was continued at the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Conolly and a jury of 12. The Hon. J. A. Tole conducted the prosecution, and accused conducted his own case.

THE LENGTH OF THE CASE. Before the case was resumed His Honor asked how long it was likely to last. Accused said he had decided to leave out a number of witnesses whom he had decided to call. He was anxious to shorten the case, but he wished to bring out the facts, as there was 12 months' imprisonment staring him in the face. Mr. Tole: You are always talking about 12 months. Accused: Yes, because I know that is the penalty. We all know it. His Honor: How long do you think the case will last? Accused: There is not the least chance of finishing to-day. His Honor: x presume that after the evidence is concluded you will address the jury? Accused: If Mr. Tole will agree not to do so I will not do so. Mr. Tole said he would consider this matter.

CONCLUSION OF BELL'S EVIDENCE

The cross-examination of William John Bell by Mr. Tole was then proceeded with. Witness, in answer to a question, said he did not admit writing the alleged libel. Mr. Tole: Will you swear that you did not write that? Witness said he declined to answer that question, or to say whether he had made an affidavit on the subject. He also declined to say whether a signature produced was his own. There was another "W. J. Bell" in Chapel-street. » Accused asked whether witness was bound to answer these questions. His Honor said that the witness being upon his trial was not bound to answer questions which might tend to incriminate himself. Witness, in answer to further questions, said he did very little work, as he was too ill to work. He had been in the office of Mr. Earl, solicitor, some seven years ago, and left through illness, and not through letter writing. He had a reference from Mr. Earl and also from another employer. Mr. Tole: Have you a reference from the bookmaker for whom you acted as clerk? Witness: I was never clerk to a bookmaker. I kept the books for a bookmaker. Accused (to Mr. Tole) : And I dare say you have acted as counsel for one. Mr. Tole: Did you make yourself ill through watching th 6 Alexandra Hotel? Witness : No. I have been suffering from chronic congestion of the throat. I watched the hotel for about twelve months in our own interests and the interests of the street. Mr. Tole: You have given us the name, of 28 women whom, you say, are of bad character? Witness: Yes; I have been noting them up for about 12 months. These people have a p-reat set on me for rooting them out. Witness, in answer to further questions, said that two of the women named had once lived in his mother's house, but they were given notice to quit. The women had only congregated about the hotel since Baker took the hotel. The previous licensee kept them pleat. Cle " THE JUDGE AND COUNSEL.

Witness was questioned by Mr. Tole as to the prosecution and conviction of his mother on a charge of being the owner of a house the tenants of which, used it as a brothel. Mr. Tole proceeded to question witness as to the remarks made by the magistrate in imposing a fine of £10. His Honor said this question was not revela nt. Mr. Tole: When I was presenting _my case. Your Honor, I was tied down strictly to the rules of evidence, but the accused was allowed to ramble about as he pleased, and was given the greatest latitude. Now, when I am asking questions I am stopped. , I do not say it offensively, but 1 must say, Your Honor, that this is unfair. His Honor (laughing): The accused has already said that lam biassed. Now, if both sides say I am biassed, it must show that I am fair. , Accused: Mr Tole is worse than I am. Mr. Tole: Accused does a thing, and when I do the same thing. I am stopped. Witness said the prosecution referred to was the result 'of a conspiracy got up in revenge for his action in clearing the street of undesirable characters. A CANDID CONFESSION. Mr. Tole: You have hitherto voted for the trade, have you not? . Witness • No; I have always voted against it since Mr. Richardson first came here Mr Tole produced a letter sent to Mr. Moss Davis last year, and asked witness if he had written it. Witness said he had written it. _ In the letter, which was read, witness had complained about the conduct of the Alexandra Hotel as interfering with the letting of his mother's houses in the same street. The letter said, "I have always, with several members of our family, voted for the trade at elections, but unless thingsdter we may be influenced the other way. Mr. Tole: Why did you write that it it was not true? . Witness: Because that is the only way to set an interview with a brewer. i Mr. Tole: It is false, then? Witness: It is false, yes. _ In answer to other questions witness said ho may have written to someone alleging that certain constables had been "squared in reference to the hotel. At Richardson s request he went to the liospital and elsewhere to ascertain the cause of the death of a woman whose name had been mentioned earlier in the case, and who was referred to in the alleged libel. In re-examining the witness accused asked a number of leading questions, to which Mr. Tole objected. , . „ Accused : " Oh, yes, I know it is all worm and gallwood" to you.

OTHER EVIDENCE. Frank Thornton said that on April 28 he went with some- friends to the Alexandra Hotel and called for drinks. They consumed the drinks. Accused: That being clone, what then.' Witness: We called for more. Accused: How long did you stay there? Witness: About 10 minutes. My friend then left me. I went up Chapel-street and suddenly received a clout on the back of the head. i was felled to the ground' and rendered partly unconscious. On coming round I reported the matter to a constable in Vic-toria-street, but got no satisfaction. I had a letter and some money in my pocket, and these were taken from me. His Honor: It is monstrous to suppose, let the hotel be conducted as badly as it may, that the landlord is to be held responsible because after a man leaves the hotel he is knocked down and robbed. Accused: I do not charge the hotelkeeper with robbery, but with having a set of undesirable people about his house. Witness said he had seen a number of women about the hotel, but he did not know their character. ANOTHEPv SCENE. Accused was proceeding tc ask some questions about what 'bad occurred after the alleged assault when His Honor said it was not evidence. Accused having reiterated some previous remarks as to Chapel-street methods. His Honor: You are not talking to me or to the jury, but to the crowd. ; Accused: Well, they are worth talking to. His Honor pointed out to the jury that it was then duty to put aside any statements which were not legal evidence. Accused made some answer about His Honor's remarks to the jury His Honor: I will not be answered. Sit down. I am telling the jury their duty. Accused: And so am I. You are telling them what is law and I am telling them what is equity. . His Honor: I don't believe you know what equity is. I suppose you think it means doing as you like? A BRIEF WITNESS. Jacob Bisaai, who said he was ".* P°«M; dresser and sometimes a san. cl man residing in Albert-street, sard he Q»WV resided in Chapel-street witthe bhndman previously referred to IJ» get drink a the Ale*an He Td de see h rßake k r £&£ this blind man into the hotel.

His Honor again ruled that certain questions were inadmissible, and said that the jury in such a case should treat the questions as if they had not heard them. Accused: That does not matter so long as the jury hears it. If they have any sense they will "acquit me after such evidence. _ Witness said ho had volunteered his evidence after the publication of the alleged libel, as he wished to see fair play. INSPECTOR CULLEN IN THE BOX. John Cullen, inspector .of police lor the Auckland district, was then called by the accused. He said he knew there was a number of prosecutions in reference to brothels in Chapel-street in July or August last. He did not know any of the parties prosecuted. He had had communications from one family seeking his assistance in regard, to the removal of brothels from Chapel-street. Accused asked witness to produce a letter from Mrs. Bell, bat His Honor ruled that this could not be produced. Any letters from Bell, the previous witness, could be produced. Accused said he particularly wanted to get this letter in. but His Honor said that letters from W. J. Bell only could be produced. The luncheon adjournment .vas taken at this stage, and on resuming the argument as to the admissibility of the letter from Mrs. Bell to the police was continued. It was stated by Inspector Cullen that a letter sont to Sergeant Hendry was in Wellington, and accused said that as he could not get this he wished to have Mrs. Bell's letter produced. His Honor said if Mrs. Bell was called as a witness the letter could be produced, but not otherwise. Any letters sent by W. J. Bell could be produced. Accused said that if he could not get Mrs. Bell's letter put in he did not want any produced. He wanted to get everything before the jury. His Honor said the jury had sworn to give its verdict according to the evidence, and if the accused o» the prosecution attempted to get in something which was not evidence the jury should disregard it. Accused: That would be law, not equity. His Honor: Don't keep on talking about equity. You do not know what it means. You seem to think it means to do as you please. Accused: No; that would be license, and there is too much of it.

Witness, in answer to accused, said Chapelstreet generally did not beai a very good reputation, but it had been improved since the brothel prosecutions. «, Accused: Do you not find it more difficult in proving licensing and brothel' prosecutions than in charges against private citizens? Witness: That depends upon the nature of the case. During the last few years we have bad a fair proportion of convictions in publichouse cases.

Accused: You had a sly-grog prosecution lately in which you went to special trouble, but which you lost. Does this not show that yon need the assistance of the* press in endeavouring to put down certain offences. Witness: We do not need the assistance of the press at all. In answer to Mr. Tole witness said Baker had never been prosecuted for any offence whilst he had been in the Alexandra Hotel. Witness had received no complaints as to the hotel ,except from the Bell family. After receiving these complaints he gave instructions to the sergeants to have the hotel placed under special surveillance. He had received no reports of an unfavourable character, although Baker was unaware that the house was receiving this attention. The reports justified him in saying that the hotel had been as well conducted during Baker's term as the general run of houses. The improvement of Chapel-street was noticeable after the prosecutions against brothelkeepers and against Mrs. Belt for allowing one- of hei tenanted houses to be used as a brothel. He had no report as to disorderly conduct near the hotel on Coronation Day. He had inquired into a complaint from Bell that a certain constable had been driving on a certain Sunday with Baker. He inquired into this, and found that at the time alleged the constable was in the barracks. He would strongly disapprove, as a matter of discipline, of a constable driving out with a publican. He would not consider Bell a reputable person to accept information from. Accused: Why not? Witness: Because of his surroundings and associates. He has been associated with bookmakers.

Accused: And don't the elite of Auckland go to races and mix up with bookmakers? You go yourself. Accused: Is there not a risk of police officers being removed from office if- they endeavour to carry out the licensing laws effectively, through the trade bringing pressure to bear on the Government?

Witness said he did not recollect any such case. He had not read the report of the Police Commission. Accused asked a question In regard to witness' former statement as to the conduct of the Alexandra Hotel. Witness said that if he had known anything against Baker's conduct of the hotel he would have done the same with him as he had done with others. When he had left one hotel he would have refused to recommend him for the license of another hotel. He had given Baker a recommendation for the license of the hotel at Avondale. The police did not receive any communication from Mrs. Bell till long aftei it was decided to take action in regard to the disreputable houses in Chapel-street and the collection of evidence had been commenced by the nolice. MR. MOSS DAVIS CALLED. Moss Davis stated that the Alexandra Hotel .was owned by his firm. On receiving a letter from W. J. Bell complaining of the conduct of the Alexandra Hotel, about a year ago, he sent for Baker, who denied the allegations made. Baker said he knew the letter was from Bell, and asked for it, but witness would not give it to him. Witness suggested that the letter be taken to the police, and Baker assented. Witness took the letter to Sub-Inspector Mitchell, who, after making inquiries, assured him that the assertions were without foundation. Under these circumstances witness did not reply to the letter, especially as a portion of it was couched in threatening terms. Accused: You are a magistrate, are you not?

Witness: Yes lam a J.P. Accused: And I suppose you sit on the Bench and send people to gaol who drink your beer? Witness said he understood lie had been called for the purpose of stating what he knew about the Alexandra. Hotel, and not to answer such questions as were now being asked by the "prisoner."

THE " PRISONER" HAS A GRIEVANCE. Accused: "Prisoner!" Not yet! His Honor: Yes, you are:; certainly. Accused: Your Honor would like me to be, I know. His Honor: You are a prisoner as soon as you surrender yourself to the Court for trial. Accused: I have been one for the last few nights, but it won't be for long. His Honor: You were allowed to come and go for about a week, but when the trial commenced that could, of course, not bo allowed. Accused: Well', at any rate, Your Honor, you might see that 1 have a clean bed to lie on. His Honor: I have nothing? to do with the gaol, and cannot order anything. Accused: Well, when 1 go up to-night, Your Honor, will you send a note to the gaoler asking him to give mo a good bed? His Honor: i have nothing to do with it.

SOME FURTHER QUESTIONS. The examination of witness was then continued. Accused: Would you like a hotel next door to your residence? Witness: There is one not far away. I live about six doors from the Grand Hotel.

Accused : But that is not like the Alexandra j Hotel. Would you "like a hotel like that I next door to your house? Witness: I do not, think I would after what I have beard in Court about the class of people in Chapel-street. Accused: Do you know the Ten Commandments? His Honor: You have no right to ask Such questions. You should treat every man with respect, even if his religion is not tho same as yours or mine. Accused: I have every respect for witness' religion, Your Honor. No one is more nonsectarian than I am. Accused asked some further questions on the subject, but His Honor said he would not allow such questions to be put. Accused made reference to the Premier, and asked witness: Did you subscribe to Mr. Seddon's testimonial? Witness: Yes; and lam proud of it. You arc not fit to blacken the Premier's boots. Accused: 01), am I not? Do you think I am fit to blacken yours? Later on accused asked witness if he knew that Solomon was supposed to be a wise

man. I have beard of Solomon, but I Witness: I have beard of Solomon, but 1 do not know whether he was wise. _ Accused: Well, you know his advice about strong drink, " Look thou not upon the wine when ir is red." etc.? , Witness: That was against the abuse, not Witness then asked a large number of questions which His Honor said were inadmissible, and would not be taken down, as they were only asked foi the purpose of insulting the witness. Accused persisted in treating Mr Davis as a hostile witness and crossexamining' him, although repeatedly told by His Honor not to do so. r 'Witness said that during the past iour ov five years the police surveillance in regard to hotels had been very strict. He was in every way satisfied with Baker's conduct of the house. At five minutes to five p.m. the Court adjourned till ten a.m. to-day.