THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 915, 13 September 1889, Page 21

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

LIBEL ACTION. BELLv. JELLICOE. Ths hearing of the action in. which Mr H. B. Bell, Crown Prosecutor, claims LoQOO damages from Mr E. G. Jellicoe, barrister and solicitor, for an alleged libel contained! in a statement by the defendant to' Loui3 Chemis during an interview at the Terrace Gaol, was commenced before Mr 3 ustice Richmond and a special jury of twelve in the Supreme Court yesterday morning week. Sir Robert Stout, with him Mr W. B. Edwards, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Jellicoe conducted his own defence.

The following special jury was empannelled Messrs A. G. Johnson (foreman), A. E. Bowden, O. Lancaster, x. G. Graham, S. C, Barraud, R. Hunter, W. M. Muir, W. .7. Gandy, A. McLeod, W. Halse, A. Campbell, H. Jackson. The statement of claim set forth That it was the duty of the plaintiff in hia office as Crown Solicitor to conduct the prosecution of Louis Chemis for tLs murder of Hawkings, both before the Resident Magistrate and also before the Supreme Court, and that the plaintiff did so conduct the prosecution. That on the 22nd July last the defendant falsely and maliciously published of and concerning the plaintiff in his office of Crown Solicitor, in the form of a narrative of a conversation had by the defendant with the said Louis Chemis, and purporting to be a report of the words uttered by the defendant to the said Louis Chemis in the course of such conversation, the words following, that is to say : “I have a mass of evidence telling in your favour. A large portion of that evidence was kept back by those who conducted the prosecution— your prosecution,” meaning thereby that he (the defendant) had a mass of evidence all telling in favour of the said Louis Chemis, on his trial for the murder of Hawkings, and that a large portion of such evidence was kept back and concealed by the plaintiff, acting in his said office of Crown Solicitor in the prosecution of the said Louis Chemis, with intent thereby to procure that the said Louis Chemis should be wrongfully convicted of a capital crime whereof he was innocent. In consequence of the premises the plaintiff has been and is greatly injured in his credit and reputation. As a further cause of action the plaintiff alleges that the defendant falsely and maliciously primed and published the words used at the interview in the gaol in the Evening Post and Evening Press of the 22nd July. The defendant in his pleadiDgs denied that he published maliciously or otherwise the words alleged in the statement of claim either with or without the innuendoes therein specified, and save as aforesaid denies specifically the several allegations in the aaid statement and claim, and also that the said words do not have the meaning which the plaintiff places upon them. As an alternative defence the defendant says that when the words were uttered he was a solicitor and counsel, and as such was engaged in advising Louis Chemis relative to the charge of which he had been convicted, and the alleged words were spoken (if at all) while he was engaged as such solicitor and counsel, without malice, and in the belief that they were true, and in the discharge of what he honestly considered to be his duty toward Chemis, and under such circumstances as to make them a privileged communication that the Government of New Zealand employed a shorthand writer to take a shorthand note of, and afterward to transcribe the said communication and privileged communication with Chemis,

Mid. the editors of the newspapers mentioned published within their discretion parts of the said official shorthand writer’s transcript ; and that 'if it be proved that the defendant published (which the defendant denies) the words complained of, the defendant says that the same are true in substance and in fact. In an amended statement of defence the defendant says —That the evidence referred to by the defendant in the words complained of by plaintiff consisted of the evidence of one John Holmes, jun., of Kaiwhara, tanner, a witness subpoenaed for the prosecution at the trial of Chemis, and discharged from attendance on second day of the trial. The nature of John Holmes’ evidence was to negative the existence of a motive on the part of Chemis for the commission of the alleged crime ; the evidence of Ellen Collins, of Kaiwhara, and of Minnie Flaws, of the same place, witnesses summoned for the prosecution and not called. The nature of their evidence negatived the suggestion of the prosecution, that Chemis usually delivered his milk bills on the l3t of the month, and that it was an extraordinary circumstance for him not to deliver his account to one Win. Durrell on the J3t June last. The evidence of Henry Crofton Blandford, that during the trial of Chemis he delivered to Detective Benjamin part of certain false whiskers, and to the police a pair of boots which had been previously found by Blandford amongst the scrub on the property of the late Thomas Hawkings. Mr Edwards read the pleadings and the issues which it had been decided to put before the jury. The issues were as follow :

1. Was it the duty of the plaintiff in his office of Crown Solicitor, to conduct the prosecution of Louis Chemi3 in tbe plaintiff’s statement of claim mentioned for the murder of Thomas Hawkings both Defora the Resident Magistrate and in the Supreme Court 2 2. Did ihe plaintiff 30 conduct the same prosecution 2. 3. Did the defendant on or about the 22ud July, 1889, publish of and concerning the plaintiff in the form of a narrative had by the defendant with the said Louis Chemis, and purporting to be a report of words uttered by defendant to the said Louis Chemis, in the course of such conversation the following words : “ I have a mass of evidence all telling in your favour. A large portion of that evidence was kept back by those who conducted the prosecution—your prosecution ? ”

4. Did the defendant, on the 22nd July, 18S9, print and publish, or cause to be printed and published, of and concerning the plaintiff in his said office of Crown Solicitor in all copies of the ft veiling Post newspaper, printed and published on the said 22nd day of July, 1889, in the form mentioned in the third issue ? 5. Has the said Evening Post newspaper a large-circulation in the Colony of Hew Zealand and especially in the City and Provincial District of Wellington 2

6. Did the defendant, on the said 22nd day of July, print and publish, or cause to be printed and published, of and concerning the plaintiff’ in his said office of Crown Solicitor in all the copies of the Evening Press newspaper, published on the said 22nd day of July, in the form mentioned in the third issue the words mentioned in the third issue 2

7. Has tho said Evening Press a large circulation in the Colony of New Zealand w,nd especially in the city and Provincial District of Wellington 2 8. Do the said words mentioned in the third, fourth, and sixth issues mean that tho defendant had a mass of evidence all telling in favour of the said Louis Chemis on his said trial for ihe murder ©f the said Thomas Hawkings, and that a large portion of Such evidence wa3 kept back find concealed by the plaintiff in his said office of Crown Solicitor in the prosecution. of the said Loui3 Chemis, with intent thereby to procure that tho said Louis Chemis should be wrongfully convicted of a capital crime, whereof he, the said Louis Chemis, was innocent 2 If not, what was the moaning of the said words 2 9. Did tho plaintiff on tho trial of the said Louis Chemis keep back and conceal the evidence of John Holmes, the junior, in the defendant’s amended statement of defence mentioned?

10. Did the plaintiff on the trial of the said Louis Chemis keep back and conceal the evidence of Ellen Collins in the defendant’s amended statement of defence meutioi ed ? 11. Did the plaintiff on the trial of tho said Louis Chemis keep back and conceal the evidence of Minnie Flaws in tho defendant’s amended statement of defence mentioned ? 12. Did the plaintiff on tho trial of the said Louis Chemis keep back and conceal tho evidence of Henry Crofton blandford in the defendant’s amended statement of defence mentioned ?

13. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover ?

Sir Robert Stout, in opening the case, said that it was intended to prove '.hat the meaning of the words used by del.uifendant in the interview at die g »ot was r.hat Mr Bell, as Crown Solid or, had kept back evidence which, if i- ha-i been disclosed, would have tended to acquit Chemis. Mr Jollieoe had applied to the Government for a copy of the notes taken by the official shorthand writer ac the interview, and they were sent, to him. but on the understanding that they were ,or his own information and not for pub-

lication. Mr Jellicoe acknowledged the receipt; of tho copy of the notes, and sent a reply to tho Government to the effect that ho would hand the copy of the note to the press if they applied for a copy ; and tho result was that a part of the note was published in tho two evening papers. They would prove, therefore, that Mr Jellicoe was the means of publishing the statement containing the libel. The only meaning that could be put upon those words was that he (Mr Bell), in conducting the case had kept back part of the evidence which would have been in favour of Chemis. Tho defendant denied publication, and also of the meaning put upon the words ; and there was also a plea of justification. A charge had been made against a public official in the conduct of his business, and if it was proved to be true it would not only unfit Mr Bell to act as Crown Prosecutor, but it would unfit him for the society of honest men. Ho did not know of any charge so grave as that against a man who deliborately kept back evidence in order that he might deprive a man of his life. He was not going io deal with the plea of justification, but he pointed out that the defendant would have to conclusively prove the justification. In concluding, he said the jury would simply have to say whether this foul charge against Mr Bell was true or false, and if they found it was false, seeing that the plea of justification had been entered, they would have to give sucli substantial damages as would prevent a repetition of such charges. Evidence was then given as follows :

Charles J. A. Haseldeu, undersecretary to the Justice Department, stated that the plaintiff held the position of Crown Solicitor for the district of Wellington. Witness produced the regulations regarding prosecutions on behalf of the Government. Mr Bell had conducted the prosecution of tho prisoner Louis Chemis. Tho defendant had conducted prosecutions on behalf of the Crown. The only case was that of Waring Taylor. Mr Jellicoe was not retained by the Crown, but he was paid by the Crown to conduct the prosecution. A letter which had been sent by Mr Jellicoe to the Minister of Justice referring to tlie Waring Taylor case w;i3 produced by the witness. By Mr Jellicoe : Thought it was Mr Bell who suggested that he should hunt up the correspondence in the Waring Taylor case. Mr Bell had asked him (witness) whether ho (Mr Jellicoe) had not used the words “conducting the prosecution ” in one of his letters. On the previous day Sir Robert Stout had interviewed witness at his office, and he asked whether Mr Jellicoe had used the words mentioned in the correspondence, and witness said yes. The Crown had paid for the prosecution of Waring Taylor, and Mr Jellicoe had conducted it at the request of Mr Arundel. Had assisted in getting together tho material for a prosecution when he was clerk in the Jus'ice Department. Had seen a printed copy of thenotes of the interview at the Terrace Gaol between Mr Jellicoe and Chemis. They were laid on the table of the House of Representatives with the papers in connection with the Chemis case, and from that time they were open to the public. Believed that a portion of the statements in the papers was eliminated ; had seen it stated in the papers. It was a custom to supply the press with copies of Parliamentary papers. R. S. Hawkins, editor of the Evening Press, deposed that the paper produced was the issue of the Prer-s of the 22nd J uly. The copy of the shorthand notes of tlie interview between Mr Jellicoe and Chemi3 at the gaol, published under the heading, “ An Open Interview at the Gaol,” was obtained from Mr Jellicoe. Witness asked Mr Jellicoe on tbe morning of the 22nd if he would let him have the notes, and leave it to his (witness’) discretion whether he published them or not. Ran over the notes, and then took them to the sub editor." Witness handed two of the sheets to him saying that if they were to publish anything ho did not think they should publish more than those two sheets. . Mr Jellicoe told witness, when ho asked for the notes, that ho had received a letter from the Government stating that, they were riot to be published. The Press was aware that the notes had been taken. By Mr Jellicoe : Had discussed in the paper the impropriety of the Government sending a shorthand reporter to the cells. When Mr Jellicoe gave him the copy of thenotes on the Monday morning he made no request that witness should publish them, tn>r did he express a wish that he should do so. Mr J i llioi.se had rio knowledge of what, he (witness) was going to publish of them. Tins two pages witness handed to the sub-editor contained tho statement published. On tho Monday Mr Gibbons, of the Evening Post, asked for the notes, and either witness or the aub-ediior informed him 'hat they were only going to puhlish the first two pages of them. . Hud since received a c<>py of tbe papers laid on the table of the House which contained a copy of the note of the interview. By Sir R .hurt Stout : Did not remember whether Mr Gibbons said ho was authorised to get tho copy of the notes. E. T. 0 Liion, editor of the Evening Post, stated chat the newspaper produced was a copy of the issue of the Poet of the 22ad of July, which contained some correspondence between the Government and the defendant, and notes of the interview betwi-n Mr Jellicoe and Chemis at the Terraco Gaol. A copy of , the notes of the interview were obtained

from Mr Jellicoe by one of the reporters on witness’ instructions. By Mr Jellicoe : Was aware of the contents of the notes before they were published. It never struck him that they had any reflection upon Mr BjlL Had he 'bought so he probably would nob lime published them. He did not see anything libellous in the statement-, or he would not have allowed them to go into the papers. By Sir Robert Stout: Thought the statement in the notes referred in a loose way to tho police. He thought . the term “ conducting the prosecution ” referred in a general way to those who were getting up the evidence. In a technical sense, the Crown Prosecutor of course was tho person who conducted the prosecution. Had he been a stranger to Mr Bell, ami been able to divest himself of the surroundings of the case, he would have thought that tlie words referred to the counsel for the prosecution. J. R. Gibbons, reporter on the staff of the Evening Post, gave evidence to obtaining a copy of the notes of the interview at the gaol, which was published in the Po3t on the 22-.nl July from tho Evening Press office. Witness went to Mr Jellicoe for a copy of the no'os, and he stated that he had sent a copy to tho Evening Press, and he sent witness to get them. By Mr JellicoeT When Mr Jellicoe told him that he hal sent his copy to the Press, witness asked if he could see it, and Mr Jellicoe said he had no objection.

George McLean, M.L.C , stated that he had seen the papers containing a copy of the interview between Mr Jellicoe and the prisoner Chemis at the Terrace Gaol. Had seen the statement, containing the alleged libel, and his impression was that it referred to Mr Bell as prosecuting counsel, and he understood that he.(Mr Bell) had kept away evidenco in order to get a conviction. By Mr Jellicoe : Hid communicated his impression to Sir Robert Stout and many' other persons. Was a personal friend of Mr Bell and his family 7. Walter Scott Reid, Solicitor-General, deposed that he had not seen a copy of tho Evening Press on the 22nd July, bub had seen a copy of the Evening Post: He had read the notes of an interview between Mr Jellicoe and Chemis, and took the reference to be to the person who had conducted the prosecution of Chemis. The; meaning he attached to the words was that counsel for the prosecution had knowingly kept back a mass of evidence in favour of the prisoner. The only inference witness could draw from the words was that the evidence hud been kept back with a view to prejudice the prisoner’s ca3e. Mr Jellicoe : Do 1 understand yon to assume that counsel who conduct the prosecution of a man charged with murder are the persons who collect the evidence 2 Witness : No. Cross-examination continued : Witness thought it was the duty of the police to collect the evidence. Under the regulations produced a solicitor could conduct a prosecution in the Magistrate’s Court, but it would not be his duty to collect the evidence. That v.'on)d bo the duty l of the police. Witness had not conducted a police prosecution for about 16 years. In a charge of murder the policeman who laid the information should technically be the prosecutor. Was not prepared to say that every 7 murder prosecution in the Magistrate’s Court in this Colony had been conducted by a solicitor. The police conducted the cases in some instances. Would not say that Mr Bell was specially appointed counsel in tho Chemis case. By Sir Robert Stout : In Rules 4 and 5 it was laid down that a solicitor might appear before a coroner or a Justice of the Peace. By the rules a solicitor was also allowed to come in and take the case out of the hands of the police. The words in the rules “conducting the prosecution,” he took to mean that the solicitor was to see that the case was in a fit state ; that the offence was properly charged ; that ho was’t.o examine tho depositions and instruct the police under the regulations. Witness had never heard of the police conducting a case in the Supreme Court. Tin: Court then, at 1.10, adjourned till 2. On the Court resuming at 2, Mr Hawkins, editor of tho Evening Press, made an explanation. Ho said that he, witness, took the sole responsibility, arid he wished to express his deer) regret that lio should have been placed in such a disagreeable position. John Duthie, Mayor of Wellington, deposed that, ne had read in the Press, of tho 22nd July 7, the notes of an interview between Mr Jellicoe and Chcinis. Head the report on the evening that the paper was published. Assumed Mr Jellicoe to mean that evidence in the prisoner’s favour had been kept back. Understood Mr Jellicoe to mean that Mr Bell had kept back evidence. Cross-examined by Mr Jellicoe : Witness was vice president of the Wellington Club, and Mr Bell was als > a member. Witness one day remarked to Mr Bell that it was a pity he had laid an i'-fermati-m against Mr Jellicoe. Told Mr Ball lie did riot think 'he prosecution was worth while. Would swear that he had never spoken to any person on the street about this action. 'Mr Edwards had first talked to him about coming to give evidence a few days ago in his own office, and nob in tlie Club, as suggested by Mr Jellicoe. By Sir Robert Stout : 1 Knew that Mr Bell had conductsd the case in tho Magistrate’s Court, and also in the Supreme Court.

James Lockie, builder and con 7 racier,of Wellington, deposed that he was f.nsinau of the jury on the inquest on the body of Hawkings. Had read the notes <4 the

interview bet ween Mr Jellicoe and Chemis, and w«3 of opinion at the time that Mr Jellicoe meant thar. evidence had been kept back. He thought the words r> furred to Mr Bell. Cross-examined by Mr Jellicoe : Witness thought at. first, that Inspector Thompson was also referred t<*. Thought that Mr Bet! was referred io by Mr Juliicm*.

YV. H. Levin deposed that he was a cousin of the plaintiff. Hid read tho notes between defendant *nd Chemis as • hey appeared in both the evening papers. His impression was that Mr 801 l was meant and that Mr Jellicoe also meant that Mr Bell had kept back evidence. Cross examined by Mr Jellicoe : Did not visit the Club very frequently. Had never discussed the matter with Mr Duthie. By Sir Robert Stout : When he read the notes of the interview ho observed to Mr Bell that a very serious charge had vbeen made against, him, and Mr Bell replied that ho intended to take proceedings against Mr Jellicoe. W. H Quick, solicitor, deposed that ho had read in the Rost the notes of an interview between defendant and Cherni”. His impression was after he had read the notes that it referred to Mr Bell and Mr M. Richmond. Cross-examined by Mr Jellicoe : Witness had never conducted a prosecution, but his late partner in Wanganui (Mr Perham) had, and he (witness) had been associated with him. Reexamined : He thought that the words complained of referred to Mr Bell and Mr M. Richmond, but certainly to Mr Bell. Mr Jellicoe : I suppose that means another case for LSOOO damages. A nice beginning. Sir Robert Stout thou called Mr T. W. Hislop for cross examination. Examined by Mr Jellicoe, the witness said that he was a barrister. Mr Jellicoe : Are you a Minister of the Crown ? Witness : I am, Mr Jellicoe. You seem to be rather doubtful on that point. (Laughter ) In reply to further questions, the witness said that he had received the shorthand notes of an interview between defendant and Chemis. Had not had a long conversation with Mr Bell about the case. Believed the documents produced had been laid on the table of the House. Sir Robert Stout said that would close the case for the prosecution for the present. They would of course reserve the right to call evidence, if necessary, in rebuttal as to the justification. Mr Jellicoe stated that ho would not address the jury until the end of the evidence. Ho then called evidence as follows :

John N. Wilson, M.L.C., and solicitor, residing at Napier, stated that when he read tho words used in tho interview by Mr Jellicoe, he did not think they referred to Mr Bell. He undoubtedly thought they referred to the police. Was anything but an intimate friend of Mr Jellicoo’s. Cross-examined : Was aware that the police did not conduct cases in the Supreme Court. Some people might think that the statement referred to the Crown Solicitor, while others would think it referred to the police. The statement might have meant that the evidence was kept back by the police. He did not think Mr Bell was the person who would keep back any evidence, and that no doubt had some influence on his.mind.

Robert Pharazyn, M.L.C., stated that he should understand on reading the words used in the interview that they referred to the police. He certainly did not think that they referred to Mr Bell. Was an intimate friend of Mr Bell’s. By Sir Robt. Stout : He read the words as generally applying to the police.. He understood the production of the evidence would come from the police. The Crown only conducted the prosecution in a technical sense. Ho would be surprised to hear that anyone could suggest that Mr Bell had kept back evidence. The reason why he had read the words in the sense he had stated was because he did not think ary professional man would be capable of such au action. To bis Honor : It was quite possible that one class of people would put one meaning on the words, and another class would put a different meaning on them. I' com all he had heard he would take it that tho public at large would understand that the words referred to the police. T _ Patrick Buckley, solicitor and M.E.C., stated that he thought the words were capable of the interpretation put upon them as referring to the police. He would think Mr Bell utterly incapable of such an action as keeping back evidence in a prisoner’s favour. Tlie ordinary interpretation of th H words would be that they referred to the police, but fie thought, on looking at them now, that they were capable of-being interpreted as meaning the Crown Solicitor. T. K. Macdonald stated that, in Ins opinion, the words referred to oho police. He never dreamt that they applied to Mr Bell. Cross-examined : If the words weie dissected carefully they were capable of 'he interpretation that they referred to the Crown Solicitor who conducted the prosecution. By Mr Jellicoe : He had read the words in a general sense. The impression he had formed of the interpretation of the words was, he believed, a general one. Frederick Fraiiklyn, broker, stated that he had formed the impression on reading the words that they referred to the police. Was slightly acquainted with Mr Jellicoe, but he was quite capable of giving an independent opinion. Crossexamined : Tho words might be capable of the interpretation that they referred to those who conducted tne prosecution

iu the Supreme Court. By Mr Jellicoe : He still had the opinion that the words referred to the police. Captain Barclay, clerk in tho Native office, stated that he had edited a newspaper for about three years. He should say that the words used in the interview at the gaol referred to the police. By Sir Robert Stout : Did not see how the words could refer to Mr Bell. Ho understood that tho police conducted the. prosecution. Even if Mr B;U had conducted the case in the Resident Magistrate’s Court and Supreme Court, lie did not think the words referred to him. He understood that the word “ those ” referred to the police, and lie could nob see how that word could be applied to Mr Bel). He believed the police conducted the case iu the Resident Magistrate Court. Ho did not think that the words referred to tho Supreme CourtHad seen two policemen conduct one case at Tauranga. (Laughter.) He understood that tlie words meant that evidence had been suppressed in the Police Court. Thomas McDonnell, J.P., and Lieuten-ant-Colonel.in theColoniul Service, stated that when he read the words lie considered that they referred to the police. It never entered his inirid that they could refer to Mr Bell. By Sir Robert Stout : If he had thought anything about it, lie would have come to the conclusion that no professional man would have been capable of such an tiction as keeping back evidence. He understood that the words meant that the police had suppressed evidence,;! ~lt was possible to read the words as- referring to Mr Bell and Mr Richmond. By Mr Jellicoe : He still had tlie same opinion that the words referred to tho police. At thi3 stage -the further hearing of the case was adjourned until next morning at 10. o’clock.

THE CASE WITHDRAWN. The libel action was resumed on Friday. W. F. Roydhouse, part proprietor of the Evening Press, gave evidence as to receiving from Mr Hawkins, the editor, on the 22nd July, a manuscript copy of the notes of an interview between Mr Jellicoe and Chemis, and to the subsequent . publishing of them. Cross examined by Sir R. Stout : Did not think at the time that the paragraph complained of referred to Mr Bell, but new thought so.' The witness, replying to further questions, said lie did not see Mr Bell on the day after the publication, but saw him on the night the statement was published (July 22nd); he saw that gentleman at the Opera House. Mr Bell expressed himself displeased at the publication. Mr Bell said that he considered the paragraph referred to him (Mr Bed), but said he had not made up his mind as to what course he should take. Mr Jellicoe asked the witness if he had not recently stated to tbe editor of the paper that up to, that time he did nut think the words referred to Mr Bell. He wished for an answer, a 3 he proposed to call the editor to contradict tho witness. Sir Robert Stout objected. It was a most extraordinary thing to cali a witness and then attempt to prove that he had committed perjury. Mr Jellicoe said it was nothing of the kind.

His Honor, after a short argument, said the witness coulc not be regarded, as hostile, and he ruled that the question could not be put. Henry Fred. Allen, manager for Charles Stewart and Co., of Melbourne, gave evidence to the effect that when lie read the notes of the interview in the newspapers he thought the words used by Mr Jellicoe referred to the police, and he still had that opinion. Charles Mclntyre, baker, also stated that in his opinion the words referred to the police. By Sir Robert Stout : This was the first time he had expressed tlie opinion. Neither Mr Jellicoe nor any of his clerks had interviewed him about the matter. Ho knew that Messrs Bell and Richmond were conducting the prosecution on behalf of the police. He understood that evidence had been kept back from Mr Bell by the police. Be did not for a moment think that Mr Bell wouid have kept back evidence. If it was shown to him that affidavits had been forwarded to the Government by Mr Jellicoe stating that evidence had been kept back by Mr Bell, it might alter his opinion as to the words used by Mr Jellicoe in the interview. Phenix Briggs, bootmaker, staled that fie had thought that, the words referred to the police. Ci’oss-exauiined i general sense the words might be taken as applying to Mr Bell and Mr Richmond, who he knew had conducted the prosecution in the Supreme Court. Charles Frederick Worth, retired plasterer, thought that the words referred to the police. Cross-examined : Understood it was a charge against everyone connected with the prosecution. Charles E. Glascodine, an English solicitor, stated that he was .present at the interview between Chemis and Mr Jellicoe at the gaol. Mr Jellicoe asked the witness if there was any break in the conversation at the opening of the interview, but Sir Robert Stout objected, as the evidence was not relevant. They were not there to test the accuracy of the shorthand note. His Honor ruled that the evidence could not be given. The witness, continuing, gave evidence asßo Mr Gibbons coming to Mr Jellicoe’s office for the notes, and the latter telling hint

that they were at the Press office, and he would have no objection to his looking at them. In cross-examination the witness said he was sure Mr Jellicoe did not tell Mr Gibbons that if there was any difficulty about getting the notes he would telephone to the Press office. D. G. A, Cooper, Registrar of the Supreme Court, produced the indictment upon which Chemis was tried and convicted. The names of John Holmes and John Holmes, jun., were on the back of the indictment. , Mr Tucker’s name was not there. Did not remember issuing a subpoena for John Holmes, jun. To the best of his recollection John Holmes, jun., was paid for attending at the trial, but lie did not know for how many days. Witness produced the original information against Chemis, and the depositions in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Also produced the exhibits iu the perjury cases.

John Holmes, jun.*, tanner, residing at Kaiwhara, stated that he was subpoenaed by the prosecution to give evidence at the trial of Chemis. Just after the Court adjourned on the second day witness came into Court, and asked Mr Bell if he intended to call witness’ father, and he believed that he (Mr Bell) replied, “ No, I will not call him, but perhaps Mr Bunny might want him.” Then he said, “Bet’s see, Holmes, what did Chemis say to you ? Didn’t Chemis tell you Hawkings wanted to get him out of the gully ? ” and witness replied, “ No.” Mr Bell then asked what Chemis had said to him, and witness told him that he had met Chemis at the Rainbow Hotel on the Saturday before the murder, and he asked Chemis how his case was getting on, and he replied, “ I don’t think I will hear any more about it, as I see Hawkings has got his cows on the ground.” Mr Bell then said, “Is that all Chemis said to you, Holmes 1 ” and witness replied, “Yes.” He (Mr Bell) then said, “You can take it from mo I - shall not call you.” Mr Bell told him that if he came on the following day he would not be paid. The statement he had made to Mr Bell was true—every word of it. Was paid either about three weeks or a month afterward. Remembered seeing Mr Jellicoe at Mrs Chemis’ house on the Wednesday evening after the conviction of Chemis. Subsequently signed an affidavit which was sent to the Government. By Sir Robert Stout: His father had been subpoenaed at the Resident Magistrate’s Court in mistake for witness. His father had asked him to ask Mr Bell if he would be wauted, as it would be inconvenient for both of them to be away from their work. Had not made a statement to anyone about his evidence, and did not know why he had been called as a witness. Did not remember having a conversation with Detective Campbell about. Chemis in the early part of June. Had told Campbell what he had stated to Mr Bell some time in June. Would not swear that ho had told Campbell that Chemis had told him “that Hawkings was trying to got him out of the gully and pnt his brother-in-law, Bowden, on it. When he had the conversation with Chemis at the hotel the latter did nob mention Bowden’s name. When he told Mr Bell what Chemis had said to him, he (Mr Bell) said he would discharge him, but his father would have to come. Was called before the Grand Jury. Did not see Mr Bunny or Mr Devine. Ho may have told Mrs Chemi3 of the conversation he had had with her husband before the conviction, but he did not think he bad.

Wm. H. Warren, land broker and shorthand writer, deposed that he had taken a shorthand note of the evidence given By a witness named John Tucker. Mr Jellicoe asked the witness what that evidence was, but an objection was raised by Sir Robert Stout 1 , and his Honor ruled that the evidence was not relevant.

The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On resuming at 2 o’clock, Mr Jellicoe said the next witness would be the defendant. He then went into the box and proceeded to give his evidence. He stated that on the 16th of July he received instructions from Mrs Chemi3 to act for her husband, he previously being convicted by the Crown of murder and under sentence of death. At her request he wont to the gaol and saw Chemis, and he confirmed the instructions as far as a condemned prisoner could instruct. In consequence of what then took place, witnessput himself in communication with the Minister for Justice, in order that he might obtain a private interview with the prisoner. He applied for a private interview, and it was ultimately arranged that he should be allowed to see Chemis on the evening of Thursday, the 18th. On the previous evening, Wednesday, the I7tb, he was out at Kaiwhara, and there met a number of witnesses, who gave him their statements. He found at prisoner’s house in a drawer, which the police said they had searched, a number of articles, including a powderflask, gun-caps, wads and wad-cutter. He found on reference to the Judge’s notes and reports of evidence in the newspapers that the police had denied that these articles were at Chemis’ house at the time they searched it on June Ist. A number of witnesses, to his mind, established the fact that the police had withheld these articles, and that the articles themselves tended to prove Chemis’ innocence. He found on reference to the depositions taken in the Magistrate’s Court that although the police at the trial had said they left no articles in the drawers such as he had described, Detective Campbell

swore in the Magistrate’s Court that he did see some dynamite caps, and to use his words, “other appliances.” Witness at once brought away the drawer with its contents. Before leaving, Mr Holmes, junr., a perfect stranger to witness—in fact, the witnesses were all strangers to him— gate him his statement, which he,, reduced to writing. Mrs Collins gave witness her state* ment, and Mrs Flaws also gave him her statement. He honestly believed the evidence he had obtained—evidence consisting of articles and statements made to him by these people—and, as a lawyer, he was satisfied that that evidence and these articles tended to establish Chemis’ innocence. On the following evening he had an interview with Chemis at the gaol. He had only seen the man once before, and that at the gaol. He knew he was a foreigner. He was not certain ho could understand English perfectly, and he explained himself in a manner which he thought he (Chemis) would best understand. There was a shorthand writer there appointed by the Government, and before any conversation took place, the shorthand writer informed him he had instructions from the Minister to furnish him with a' copy of tho notes. He might say that he strongly protested against the conduct of the Minister in acting as he did. He believed he used the words contained in the shorthand writer’s notes, with the exception of the last two words. He did not think he used the words “ your prosecution ” after he had referred to the prosecution. Tho next day he was applied to by every newspaper reporter in the town to inspect the notes. They had ascertained through Government that the interview had taken place, and that it had been reported, and that a copy of the notes had been promised him. He thought he was met at nearly every streec corner—wherever they could get a chance to get hold of him. He remembered informing Mr Hawkins on the Sunday morning that ho bad on the previous evening received from the Government a transcript of the notes. On the following morning Mr Hawkins came to witness and asked him if he would lend him the copy of the notes. Ho (Hawkins) was aware of the correspondence in reference to these notes, and of . a letter from Mr Waldegrave, the Minister’s private secretary, indicating that tho notes were not for publication. Witness said he bad no objection to lending him the notes. Witness did not ask him to publish them or any part of them, and he was not aware that he was going to publish any part. What he thought at the time was that he was going to deal with the manuscript in some article which he was going to write. Beyond lending the notes to Mr Hawkins he certainly had never published the manuscript. On going to the office on Monday he wrote to Mr Waldegrave in reply to his letter, repudiating his right to impose a condition against publication. He certainly never asked Mr Gibbons of the Post to publish any portion of the shorthand writer’s notes. He was positively not aware of anything of the kind until he found the report iu the newspapers. Mr Gibbons came to him about 1.30 p.m. on Monday, and asked if ho would let him look at the notes. Witness said hehad not got them ; had lent them to Mr Hawkins. Mr Gibbons asked if he had any objection to his going round to look at them, and witness replied “ no.” Whatever was published by the Press and by the Post was published in the exercise of their absolute discretion. On the Wednesday following was served with a writ for LSOOO by Mr Martin, solicitor for Mr Bell, without any previous communication. At the, interview with Chemis he referred to the words complained of, and the articles which he had discovered at Chemis’ house, and which had’ not been produced by the police, and the other statements made to him by the several witnesses. Mr Bell was certainly not in witness’ mind at the time he was speaking to Chemis. He did not read the shorthand writer’s notes before lending them to Mr Hawkins, and it did not occur to him that these notes contained anything which could be said to be a reflection on Mr Bell or Mr Richmond. He had heard it stated by one or two witnesses called for the plaintiff that they attributed the words which he used to Chemis, and which were afterward published by the newspapers, to Mr Bell. He certainly regretted to hear that any person should have attributed these words to Mr Bell. Continuing, Mr Jellicoe said, “I go further, sir, and I say that I regret that I could have used any language that any one could have imagined did apply to Mr Bell. The words in the sense in which they were used by mo certainly were never intended to apply to him.” Sir R. Stout: Do I understand you to say you regret the language you used should have been applied to Mr Bell ? Mr Jellicoe : By anyone, certainly. Sir Robert Stout : Your Honor, can I speak to the witness for a moment ? After a.few minutes’consultation with the witness, Sir R. Stout said : I may state, your Honor, that Mr Jellicoe has withdrawn the plea of justification, and expresses regret at having pleaded it, and on his agreeing to pay all costs such as I may fix, and on Mr Bell going into the witness box to explain the position in reference to Tucker and others, we have agreed to withdraw the case. Mr Jellicoe left the witne33-box and resumed his seat at the table. He said : I can hardly be considered to be standing at the Bar, because I am the defendant j

in person. I repeat wffiafc I have just stated in the box : I had nd intention of casting the slightest reflection on Mr Bell or Mr Richmond, for at the time I uttered the words to Chemis what I referred to i 3 the matter I have already mentioned. I say I used these words honestly, believing what I said to be true so far as I have explained myself on them and in the honest performance of my duty to a man who was then under sentence of death. I ought to say from my seat at the bar, as well a 3 in the witnessbox, especially as Sir Robert Stout seems to desire it, I regret that any words of mine,- or any language of mine, should Have been imagined by any person to apply to Mr Bell. Of course, I am not responsible for the imaginings of other persons, but I regret any person should have imagined anything of the kind. Of course, the plea of justification I propose to withdraw. I never'have made a charge against Mr Bell. His Honor: Then you accept the terms announced by Sir Robert Stout ?

Mr Jellicoe : Yes. Sir Robert Stout asked that Mr Bell should be placed in the witness-box, in order that he might make an explanation.

Mr Bell then entered the box and stated that he had been Crown Solicitor for many years. . f Sir Robert -Stout : As Crown solicitor, you had the conduct of the prosecution of the Chemis case.

Mr Bell : Yes. May I bo allowed to explain the moment the Crown solicitor is put in charge of a case whether, after taking all evidence in-.the Magistrate’s Court, or before that, ho becomes solely responsible for the conduct of the case, and entirely responsible for everything that is done. It is .quite a mistake that the Crown solicitor conducts all cases in Court. Sir Robert Stout : Now as to the witness Tucker.' When did you know of the evidence he was to give. Mr Bell : The day before he was called. Sir Robert Stout : Did you inform Mr Bunny. Mr Bell : The moment the paper was placed in my hands I handed it to Mr Devine, tho only counsel for the defence then present. Mr Bunny came in shortly afterward and asked for the loan of the police report. 1 handed it to him, and he took it down into the cell and handed it to Chemis. On the same night my clerk handed a copy of the deposition to Mr Bunny, and that deposition is now in young Mr Bunny’s possession, and would have been produced if the case had gone on. The reason the name was not on the back of the indictment was because I did not know of the evidence until some days after the indictment had been prepared. Sir R. Stout : As to Mr Holmes, he has stated that you saw him in court. Mr Bell : Everything Holmes stated is quite true except as to one point. He says I saw him iu the evening. I saw him, I believe, at the adjournment, not at the clos.e of the day. Sir R. Stout : Did you tell Mr Bunny of Holmes being here.

Mr Bell : Yes. Mr Holmes, sen., was called by mistake in the police court, and he had asked him a question as to whether he had had a conversation with Chemis. It appeared that he had not. Mr Bunny proceeded to cross-examine him with regard to Mr Hawking 3 being of a quarrelsome disposition, making evidence out of his witness, quite properly. The whole of Holmes’ evidence in the Police Court l was brought out by Mr Bunny on cross-ex-amination. Then Mr Bunny asked me what it, was that young Holmes was to say. Witness handed him the police report of . Holmes’ (junior) evidence, which contained the statement about Bowden. In tho Supreme Court young Holmes came to witness and asked him whether he could let him or his father go because it was very inconvenient for bath of them to be together in Court. Witness could not let his father go because Mr Bunny might want to have on record his evidence with regard to the quarrelsome disposition r.f -Hawkings. Witness had heard that Holmes, junior, would, no longer say anything with regard to Chemis having said Hawkings wanted to get him out and put Bowden in, and so he (witness) put the question to him. It then became clear that he (Holmes) could give no evidence that ho (Mr Bell) could lead, and so he said he could go. Witness then went into the Court, and in the presence of Mr Richmond he told Mr Bunny what he had done in regard to Holmes, and said he would bring him back if he (Mr Bunny) wanted him. Sir li. Stout said that reference had been made to two women witnesses—Mrs Flaws and Mrs Collins—and he understood their evidence was simply to show the time Chemis gave his milk bills. Mr Bell said it was not quite that. A witness named Durrell had said that Chemis’ milk bills were delivered on the Ist of the month, and that on this occasion his bill was not delivered until the 3rd. The suggestion was that Chemis was busy on the, night of the 31st. Seeing that it was unfair to rely upon Durrell’s evidence upon that point, witness called upon the police to got the evidence of fjjother customers of Chemis. Mrs Cook was one of them that was called. She said Chemis delivered his bills usually on the third of the month, and several others corroborated her statement. He told Mr Bunny lie would accept the evidence of Mrs Cook as to

Chemis’ practice. Ho put Mrs Cook’s name on the back of the indictment, and asked her no questions himself. When she was called he made the statement that several people made the Same statement as she did as to practice. He made no point of this item of evi* dence, and he deliberately rose in the Supreme Court and admitted that several others would make the same statement as she did, and liß tendered her for crossexamination.

Sir Robert Stout : Some reference has been made to a man named Blandford about some false whiskers. Do you know anything about that 1

Mr Bell : I can't be sure. I think something was said. You must remember there were a number of mares* nest. The miner’s right—there was a great deal of trouble in tracing the ownership of that. I think somebody in the course of the trial—l think it was Inspector Thomson—did tell me that a pair of false whiskers had been discovered. I asked a question about it, and I was told that it was a strip of hide without any hairs to it. Sir Robert Stout: As to the new evidence that you got ? Mr Bell : In this case, as in every other case I have been engaged in, the moment any evidence against the prisoner comes to my knowledge I not only informed the other counsel of it, but furnished them with a written copy of it, and no one knows it better than the learned counsel (meaning Mr Jellicoe). I may say further that there was a letter in Mr Bunny’s possession with reference to the evidence of a man named Joseph who had seen another man running on the hills that night. The letter in Mr Bunny’s covers a written statement of Joseph, and states that as at present advised I could not call that evidence, but t had sub* psenaed Joseph, and held him in readidess for cross-examination. A statement was made by Mr Bunny in the Court, which was reported in all the newspapers, that from first to last I had given him every possible assistance. May I add, sir, I would not have brought any action if any charge had been made against myself. It seemed to mo that the administration of justice was attacked in my name, and I was bound to show the way in which justice was administered. Nothing would induce'me to bring an action for libel against my own name. Mr Edwards here produced the whiskers found by Blandford. (The whiskers consisted of a thin strip of hide, about six inches long.) The production of the article caused considerable merriment in Court.

Mr Jellicoe : They may have been in the Cabinet room. (Laughter.) Sir Robert Stout asked that the jury should be withdrawn.

Mr Jellicoe said that before the case was withdrawn he wished to say that he was misinformed when he referred to Mr Roydhouse having stated to Mr Hawkins anything different to what he had said in his evidence that morning. In discharging tho jury his Honor expressed his satisfaction at the interest taken by the public in the administration of justice. He was sure it was satisfactory to the whole of their fellow citizens to see that the administration of justice, in tho person of Mr Bell, had been fully vindicated. In concluding, his Honor said : Sitting here, I dare say that there never has been in this country, and I pray to God there nover will be, cause to suspect for one moment that the administration of justice is not conducted in this Court so as to give every possible legal right to the unfortunate men who stand here to answer for their liberty, or it may be their lives. Gentlemen, you are discharged. The Court then adjourned.

An Insurance Case. —Tn the action Baldwin v. Mutual Assurance Company of Victoria (heard last week in Napier before his Honor the Chief Justice and a special jury) brought to recover moneys payable under a policy on the life of the plaintiff’s son, an important question was decided. The Company defended the action on the ground, of concealment of material facts. Mr Lascelles, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated that he intended to show that the defendant’s canvasser was aware that one of the questions put to the assured had not been correctly answered. Mr Downie Stejvart, who appeared for the Company, objected, as tho canvasser had no authority to waive truthful answers, and that the plaintiff could not avail herself of a fraud to which the assured had been a party. His Honor concurred, and said that no company could be bound by any representations of its canvassing agents contrary to the Company’s expressed conditions of insurance as contained in their printed forms of proposals. Such agents were utterly irresponsible persons, and insurers must take care to see that they fully answered the questions, as every question asked by an insurance company which might affect the risk of insurance was material. After a long trial judgment was given for the Company, leaving the plaintiff to move to set it aside.