I DEMAND JUSTICE. Truth

NZ Truth, Issue 71, 27 October 1906, Page 4

I DEMAND JUSTICE.

Truth

Published Eveby Satuedat Mobning at Lukes-lane, off Mannebs-stbeet, Wellington, New Zealand. subsobiption (m advance), 13s pee annum. SATUEDAY, OCTOBEE 27, 1906.

LET THE CROWN TAKE ACTION.

The jury system, like some , otjier systems handed down to us by our British forefathers, institutions for which they fought and bled, and m many cases died, is valuable and excellent. But like all human institutions it is not perfect. Trial by jury, as I have frequently had occasion to point out m the columns of "Truth," is greatly to be preferred to trial by Judge. Yet juries have made mistakes, and most ]\ serious and deeply deplorable mistakes. As a result of such mistakes, men have been deprived of property. of reputation, even of life itself, although these men were absolutely innocent. It is not, possible . to devise any institution of a quite, perfect character; and, there can be no disguising the fact that even so valuable a tribunal as a jury may be influenced by tern- j pbrary popular clamor against any i person whom it may suit Press pushes and cliquish coteries to seek to throw to the wolves. A jury is a democratic tribunal 1 : but democracies have made terrible mistakes, although democracies are the best of all forms of Government. It was a democracy that banished AristMes the Just. It was a democracy that poisoned Socrates— Socrates, who was not a good man, although he was a great man, and although the extraordinary nower of intellect of this man of genius enabled him to overcome the natural bent of his j nropensitiep. which he admitted to be essentially vicious. ■*■ ■ . ■• • ♦ ■ • ; . The latest failure of a jury to ar- | rive. at. a verdict justified by the evidence is of so serious a character [that I have no hesitation m declaring it a gross miscarriage of justice. [The case to .which I refer- is that wherein one Charles J. Haynes was charged with having published a criminal libel upon myself. I possess no feelings of a vindictive character with regard to Charles J. Haynes. I bear no animus against him. But he published m the paper of which -he is. (registered as the proprietor a series of the most monstrous accusations against me— accusations which, if they were true, would render me unfit to live m any community of civilised persons outside the walls of a prison. I was accused- of murder, of blackmailing, of inciting persons to commit crime, of fraudulently acquiring property, and. of other offences against the moral and legal codes of civilised nations. The law .was set m motion against Charles J. Haynes, and I entered the witness-box, declared myself guiltless of the charges made against me, and the Crown also Rut forward other witnesses who corroborated my evidence. The accused person Haynes, m his attempt to exculpate himself from the charge of having perpetrated upon me a cruel, odious and monstrous libel, also produced evidence. I ask the public to particularly peruse and carefuly consider the whole of the evidence m this case as published m "Truth," and then to -determine m their own minds whether a miscarriage of justice has not taken place. , The procedure adopted by the jury m returning its verdict, a form of procedure consented to by the Crown, was of a most unusual character. Instead of declaring Charles J. Haynes to be either guilty or innocent, or else failing to arrive at any decision whatever, the jury were permitted to say* not directly that Charles J. Haynes was innocent, but majorities of that jury were permitted to say that John Norton was guilty, of all the heinous crimes with which he was charged. Actually, nine out of twelve jurymen have declared that John Norton is guilty of fraud. Ten out of twelve have declared him a blackmailer. Nine out of twelve have declared him guilty of inciting to crime. And ten out of twelve have accused him of having fraudulently acquired the property of George Grohn, and of then having caused the death of this man Grohn. They thus have declared John Norton to be a felon of a peculiarly atrocious character. It is true that not all the jurymen believed him to be guilty of th6se crimes. It is true that two or three of the jurors appear to have believed him to be innocent. But the fact that & majority of nine or ten jurors have placed it upon record that they do "believe John Norton to be guilty of the crimes referred to creates a position of the gravest and most serious .character. For the man, whom these jurors accuse, has long held esteemed positions m the public life of this State. His fellow-citizens repeatedly elected him to Parliament and to various municipal positions. But, even were he only) a private citizen, it would not be either meet or just that John Norton, were he guilty of the crimes alleged against him by those jurors sworn to give a verdict according to the evidence, should go "unwhipt of justice." • « • Now I, John Norton, have no hesitation m pointing out to the Crown Law authorities their duty m this matter. Their duty is to put me on trial— not nominally, but actually, Let me face a jury, or juries, of my fellow-countrymen. Let me place before those juries the whole of the evidence that I am able to submit' to them. 1 demand this. A jury— or, not a jury, but a majority of those constituting: a jury— have inflicted upon me a great and grieVous wrong. Or. if it be contended that the jurors have not done this, then they have rendered a great public service by "oiritinir out that there exists m the [.midst of this community an unscrupulous criminal who has never met -with his just deserts. I declare ' myself innocent. I emphatically ' say

that a trial, or trials, with myself as the accused person,^ 1 will demonstrate my innocenoe ; and, m justice to myself and the rest of society, I ask that I be given that trial or those trials. Let justice be done although the heavens fall. Justice has not been done to me— so my enemies say, and 'so I say. although m a different sense from theirs. The fact of the matter is that I have had to meet with the misfortune that other public men have met with, although seldom m so severe and so acute a form, oJ: being sacrificed or pilloried at a moment of temporary hostility to me among the members 'of the class from which jurors are usually drawn. Nevertheless, I have faith m my ability, when I am put upon my trial, as I must be, to ' decisively demonstrate my innocence, with the result that I have no doubt as to my receiving from a fair and just jury a verdict of acquittal. • • * • I have asked the public to particularly and. perspicaciously peruse the evidence m the case m order that they may judge between me and my accusers, the nine or ten jurymen. I may, however, briefly refer to a few of the points m the evidence as il.lustrative of the monstrous injustice of the peculiar and unusual verdict that those jurymen returned. Nine jurymen declared that I became possessed of my interest m this newspaper by fraudulent means. Now let the reader read the report and see whether there is a tittle of evidence of anything of the sort. There is absolutely not one word of sworn testimony to 'the effect that 1 fraudulently acquired possession of this newspaper. On the contrary, there is the sworn testimony of its original proprietors that I did nothing of the sort. The jury decided that I had fraudulently appropriated the pro- i perty of Andrew Archibald Thompson. But Thompson himself had gone into the witness-box, and, m the most unequivocal manner, had 1 •stated, with all the deliberation and care for. which sagacious Scots are justly esteemed, that I had not only done nothing of the sort, but that my business transactions with him | had been open, fair, above-board, and just. Moreover, he had altio seated that so considerable was his esteem for me—me, whom, the majority of the jurymen accused of havii'l2: swindled him— that he was upon terms of intimate personal friendship with me. . Nine out of twelve jurymen also declared that I had fraudulently obtained possession of "Truth" newspaper from another of its original proprietors, Mr William Nicnolas Willis, Yet Mr Willis himself— this man whom the jurors alleged that I defrauded— went into the witness-box and swore that I did nothing of the sort ; 'but that he was very glad indeed to relieve himself of the respon^ i sibility of his proprietorship by sell- ! ing his interest to me. Moreover, j Mr Willis did not content himself with giving his own sworn testimony but he substantiated his evidence by the production of a document, duly and properly executed m accordance with all the forms of law, stating the terms of his sale of his interest to me, and proving that the sale actually had, taken place. As to the story told by Corlette, a man whom I had for years befriended, at considerable expense and loss to myself —as to the statement made by him that I attempted to intimidate Mr Willis, by threatening to reveal certain alleged land transaction* of his, this was most emphatically contradicted by Mr Willis ; and no attempt was made by the defence to produce Mr Philp, the person rjlegeu by Corlette to have given me the information which Corlette alleged that I had availed myself of to intimidate Mr Willis. Thus, the reader will see that as regards both the former pronrietors of "Truth"— as regards both Willis and Thompson— the evidence was that I had acquired my proprietorship of this newspaper by methods not only perfectly lawful, but r.oli even objected to m the slightest degree by those from whom this proprietorship was acquired. While there was thus emphatic oral and documentary proof of my having lawfully acquired possession of "Truth," there was absolutely no testimony,' either documentary or, from, .the witness-biox, to the effect tftat I liad been guilty of fraud m the acquirement of the proprietorship of "Truth." Yet nine jurors have taken it upon themselves to say, m spite of the evidence, that I am m possession of "Truth" newspaper by fraud ! • • • Now with regard to the accusations of blackmailing. Tl-.,j atiem Kiade to prove that I was guilty of blackmailing were ignominiously insipieht, and really proved to any person not blinded with bias that there was no blackmailing whatever. Take the case of Lassetter's advertisement. Here I was accused of blackmailing Lassetter because an attack upon the firm appeared m 1899, and an advertisement appeared four or live afterwards—in 1904 ! Really, if this were to be considered blackmailing, it would be about the most ludicrously lethargic and insipiently inadequate form of blackmailing that the human mind is capable of conceiving. Furthermore, the imputation that the firm of Lassetter and Company submitted to being blackmailed is an atrocious aspersion, utterly unwarranted, upon that honorable gentleman, Colonel Lassetter, as well as upon the other members of the firm of Lassetter and Company. With regard 1o the siMement that. I blackI mailed ■ -"Messrs Tooth and Company, all' the accused was able to prove

was that while an adverse comment upon Tooth and Co. appeared m June, 1896, no advertisement appeared until May, .iS97, wli.ich was nearly a • year after- the publication of the article containing adverse comment upon Tebth and Company. What is more, P stated m the witness-box that m the issue of "Truth. of Februaiy 5, 1899, nearly three years after the publication of the attack on Tooth and Co., a leading article appeared, attacking the entire tied-house system, and yet m the same - issue appeared Tooth and Company's advertisement. As to the Dr. McLaughlin's advertisement, the testimony of Daniels, himself tone of the witnesses for the defenjoe, was that the special rate charged by my Melbourne manager was higher than that for my ordinary individual issues, for the simple reason that, as was pointed out by my Melbourne, manager when accepting the advertisement, the advertisement was to appear, not m one newspaper, but m four of my newspapers. Thus it was shown that, as compared with the rate charged for one issue, the rate charged for the Dr. McLaughlin advertisement, which was to a.ppear m four .newspapers, was not high, but decidedly low. No attempt was made by the defence to show that possible advertisers had heen threatened by me, or by any of my agents or employees, or that anything whatever J.i.dibeendone that could possibly be regarded as having the faintest shadow of resemblance to blackmailing. If it be blackmailing to comment adversely upon any enterprise, the proprietors or promoters of which have money to pay .away m advertisements, then is the Press gagged indeed. Fpr it would be utterly impossible to expose any form of unfair trading, or sharp' practices, or even of downright swindling on the part of any gang of tricksters, shady syndicators, or soulless, systematic swindlers that happened, by criminal contrivances, to have grabbed gold enough to pay for the insertion of advertisements. So preposterous a position as this— that criticism of potential advertisers is blackmailing, which . is ' practically what the verdict of the jury amounts to— would render it utterly impossible for any newspaper whatever" to expose the gross abuses that grow up m any commercial community. Were such law as this m force %. other parts of the British Empire— were it enforced, say, mi n England itself— what ■would have become of such a publicist as the distinguished English public man, the late Henry Labouchere, who year after year, m the pages of his newspaper "Truth," exposed and, by his exposures, frequently, assisted tihe police m properly prisoning score's of shark-like 1 swindlers ? Not to go so far as England, what would become of our own newspapers— our own daily and weekly newspapers— if adverse comment on any corrupt, commercial coterie, capable of shelling out shekels, were to be declared blackmailing ? There can be not the least doubt that nearly every newspaper m New South Wales would soon have to seek purchasers m other, parts of the world for its printing, plant. • . . * . • As a matter of fact, there was no actual attempt made to prove blackmailing. No witness was brought forward to testify that any manuscript had' ever been shown to him and a promise made that it would not be published on the insertion of an advertisement. No witness was placed m the witness-box to testify 1 that he had ever been shown the proof of an adverse article. With regard to the, witness Hermann, who stated that he had been approached for an advertisement of his preposterous "pure gas" process of treating iron ore, and that upon the advertisement not being forthcoming his egregious enterprise was attacked, it was shown thatlsoth he and John Haynes had blundered as' to the identity of the person wno reported the proceedings at the gathering m Hermann's office, when a number of men assembled to listen to speeches and to drink champagne, the champagne benevolently and philanthropically provided by "Hebrew Hermann" himself. ' That this mistake was made was afterwards practically admitted upon oath by John Haynes, the father of the man accused of publishing the libel. Blackmailing ,! Well, this is about the most maleficent method of attempting to prove a charge of blackmailing that has ever been adopted m a court of law m this or any other part of the. British Empire. Yet upon such evidence as this ten jurymen out of twelve practically found me guilty of blackmailing. God pity their intellects ! God salve their consciences ! May they themselves never know what, it is tp be atrociously accused by reputable jurymen, placed upon their. oafh, of crimes of which they are quite innocent. ■•. • • Upon the word only of one Corlette, nine jurymen out of the twelve declared their belief that 1 had incited this man Corlette, formerly m my employment, but now m Haynes , to commit a crime. There was absolutely no corroborative evidence of Corlette's allegation, Susan Blackburn; whose name he mentioned, . bein* m an insane asylum,, while Detective Hinds, whose name he also mentioned m connection with this charge, has ceased to live. The cunning Corlette was careful to mention persons m connection with this charge who, being dead or insane, could not, of course; be called upon to give evidence. Yet upon the 1 unsupported testimony of this Corlette man, to whom I had found it impossible to give any further employment owing to his untrustworthy habits, nine jurymen' declare me guilty of inciting to crime. • • • Furthermore, upon the alleged evidence of "Duffy" Morris, I am declared by the same jurymen to be guilty of inciting Morris to crime. There was not the slightest corroboration of his alleged statement. In fact, when m the box and questioned by Haynes 1 counsel, he did actually refuse to make any statement whatever with regard to the allegation of my having incited him to crime. This is another instance of nine jurymen, sworn to give a verdict according to the facts and the facts alone, actually declaring me guilty af a crime, upon no testimony whatever. How much provocation would Ihese nine patriotic and conscientious jury I men require to return a verdict that

might result' m my being legally done to death ? Possibly none at all. Not even an allegation is required by them. A vague and shadowy insinuation is quite sufficient. Is this British justice—or is it lynch law ? * * • Ten jurymen out of twelve decided that I had fraudulently obtained possession of the property of George Grobn. This finding is another odious outrage upon reason, justice, and ordinary common sense. Not a solitary witness was put forward to attempt to prove this allegation. There was not the faintest tittle of evidence that he possessed property, or that after he left the commercial company (Beil, Grdhn, and Co.) of which he was a member he even possessed financial means of any sort whatever. Oh the contrary, there was my sworn testimony, that poor George Grohn had been my dependent—depending solely upon my purse during the last six or seven years of tiis life. As for the horrible allegation that I killed my friend, George Grohn, by striking him upon the head with a bottle, this rested entirely upon the statement of the fellow "Duffy" Morris, a man whom I had discarded from my service because I discovered that he had most shamelessly '' slandered my wife— that wife whom I am alleged to have cruelly ill-used, but who shares my connubial couch and, during the turmoil of the recent elections and the worry of the just-concluded criminal trial, has been my ardent ally, faithful helpmate, and truest friend, and has forgiven me for anything that I 'have done. The detestable "Dtifiy" Morris it was whose slanders brought about for me domestic infelicity, and when I discovered that they were slanders "Duffy" Morris ceased to be any longer m my service. The tes- • timony of "Duffy" Morris was contradicted by that of a reputable professional gentleman, possessing due skill as a practitioner of medicine, who testified that virohn had not, could not have, met his death, judging by his appearance after death, m the manner alleged by "Duffy" Morris. The ten jurors, however, believed the entirely uncorroborated testimony of the delectable "Duffy" Morris, while they disbelieved the evidence of a professional gentleman, of unblemished character, who gave expert testimony that contradicted "Duffy" Morris' evidence. Probably the testimony of the captain of a murderous push of horrific Floolisans would have had even greater weight with the ten jurymen than that of "Duffy" Morris— providing that it were against John Norton I would ask my readers— l would ask the public— to bear m minri that I was not m this case legally m the position of an accused person. Actually . I was accused: but my defence was m the hands, not of myself, but of the Crown. .And. consequently, not only was the whole of the testimony that could have Ijeen availed of on my behalf not utilised, but— l say this without a*nv desire Vo depreciate the efforts made by Mr Bavin as Crown counsel— far less effective use was made of the material m existence for my vindication than would have been the case had I been the person legally as well as actually accused. If I had had m my own hands the control, arrangement, and marshalling of the case against Charles J. Haynes, with perfect liberty to call the whole of the witnesses at my disposal, then an entirely different complexion would have been placed on the whole aspect of affairs. For instance, with regard to the charges of blactomailinr- I could have placed m the box all those advertisers whom I am alleged to have blackmailed. As regards the atrocious allegation that I brought* about by violence the death of George Grohn, whose untimely end I lamented more than any other man living, I could have brought from Broken Hill Sub- • Inspector Sautelle to prove that "Duffy" Morris made to him a statement that the death of George Grohn was not caused by violence. All these things— and many more things of similar purport and import —could have been produced by me if I had been, not even the plaintiff, but if I had been accused by the Crown of the crimes alleged against , me. • • V It should be mentioned, as showing the -unfairness of the jurors that--yielding to blind prejudice and uncontrollable bias— have sought-. to brand me as a\ cruel criminal, that some of them wished to give a verdict acquitting the accused— and thus practically against me— even before they', heard me, or any of my witnesses, utter a word m rebuttal of any of the atrocious allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors made against me by Charles J. Haynes and his witnesses. Indeed, they desired to do this— and thr6ugh the lips of the foreman of the jury— publicly intimated their wish to give a verdict for Haynes even before they had heard half— or, m fact, much less than half— the testimony upon which Charles J. Haynes sought to justify himself, for having made these atrocious allegations. Only one witness on behalf of Charles J, Haynes had entered the witness-box, and he had not finished his tale when the foreman announced that certain of 'the jurors did not wish to hear any more evidence— that is to say, that they desired to give a verdict for the accused Haynes. This, however, appeared to most people m court so monstrously and flagrantly unjust that even the Judge himself stated that it would be unfair to Mr Norton to stop the trial at that stage ; and, accordingly, Havnes was called upon to proceed with' his evidence. It is clear that some of the jurors— sworn, let it ,be borne m mind, to return a verdict according to the evidence— had determined, m disregard of the sacredness of the oath they had taken, to acquit Havnes, and thus to accuse Norton, before ever they had heard that evidence. This is the sort of justice, apparently, that such a man as John Norton niay expect from such jurors ! • « • I demand justice. Let the Crown take' action. Nine or ten jurymen have accused me of blackmailing, of fraudulent appropriating of property, of inciting to crime, and of having taken the life of, one of my fellowcreatures. I am not a blackmailer. I am not a swindler. I have never ■ incited any person to crime. 1 have never taken the life of any man, woiman, or child. Yet nine or ten of

my. fellow-citizens, m the capacity of sworn jurors, have declared that I have committed these offences. LET THE BODY OP GEORGE GROHN BE EXHUMED, mi n order that it may be seen whether upon . any part of his person there is any scar or any other mark of violence. Whatever expense this exhumation of Grohn's body may put the Crown to, I am willing to meet out of my own private purse. I demand the opportunity to prove my innocence. The Crown must give me this opportunity. It must give it, not merely for my sake, "but for the protection of society. For, if I am the ferocious felon I am alleged to be, then I am not fit to walk about the streets of any civilised city. I am not fit to be m- the company of civilised mcii and women. No man who may have offended me, or who may have incurred my enmity, is safe from me. If the allegations made by the jurors be true, then I am a desp_erately dangerous criminal. But I emphatically proclaim my innocence, and I claim the right to its decisive demonstration. I fearlessly await the outcome of the proceedings, or any proceedings, that the Crown may take, that the Crown ought to take, and that I challenge the Crown to take. I will not submit to being offered up as a sacrifice to baneful, bias and pernicious prejudice by any body of -men, even although" they be, —sworn jurymen. Men have before been the victims of a temporary outburst of mob fury— have before to-day gone to their death "with a melancholy meekness and a righteous resignation that was, perhaps, m some cases, particularly praiseworthy. But I am not a man of that sort. While I live I shall fight. I can prove my innocence. The opportunity must be given to me for this purpose. The Crown must give me that opportunity. It cannot do more— it cannot d 0 less. 1 JOHN NORTON. Sjydney, Oct. 6, 1906.