THE STATE TRIAL

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 584, 16 March 1878, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE STATE TRIAL

SUPREME COURT.

ATONDAT, IIXH MaKCH.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice "Waiiams.) of privilege case, in which Mr GeorpJunea, Jan., proprietor and editor of the Oamara Mail, had been summoned to the bar of the House of Representatives for an alleged breach of the privileges of the House, came before the Supreme Court ra the form of m. criminal prosecution for libeL Mr Jones, when at the barof the House, having refused to withdraw hia allegations, and having demanded an enquiry into the truth of them, the House had refnsed the enquiry, and had discharged Mr Jones, and ordered the Attorney-General to prosecute hun in the Supreme Court, the costs of the prosecation being defrayed from the Colonial Treasury. TOE JUST.

The following gentlemen were empannelled to serve aa the Special Jury:—Messrs Edward GiUow, Thomas S. Leary, James Marshall, A. Mercer, Charles Morrison. Geo. Morrison, R. S. Raymond, Jame* Davidson, Wtn. Strachan. Job Wain, James Finch, and Thomas Burt.—Wm. Royse was fined £5 5s for non-attendance.

The charge against George Jones, Jan., of the Oamara Mail, for baring published a false and malicious libel against Frederick Whitaker, the late Attorney-General, was called on, and the defendant appeared for trial.

MrHaggitt, the Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case for the prosecution, and Messrs W. I*. Rees and Hislop for the defence.

an agent who was equal to any dirty busines; (meaning thereby that the said Fredericl Whitaker was one of a number of person: resident in the then Province and now Pro vincial District of Auckland known as th< Auckland Land Speculating Ring, and thai lie was knowingly and designedly a party t< She employment as agent for himself anc ;he said persons of a person who was capabh if and intended by him and the said persons :o perform and carry out dishonest and dis. :reditable transactions) made a proposal t< illow to take them in as partuers, in whicl ase they would supply the ways anc neans. Failing his consent to this augges lion, they (meaning the said Fredericl SVhitaker and the said other persons) signi ied their intention of subjecting him tc lire opposition. They (meaning the Baic Frederick Whitaker and the said othei persons) represented to him the power thej possessed of being able to prevent the pas sage of the block through the Native Land Court, and said that they would use thai power to the fullest extent in case of hii noncompliance with their request. Moon thinking he could manage single-handed rejected their offers of assistance, and ii order to prepare himself for a determiner resistance, he took into partnership anothe: Pakeha-Maori (Major Drummond Hav), wh< at once essayed to become aM.H. K. In this however, he was disappointed. Negotiation: then proceeded vigorously. A considerabli sum of money was spent, and at length th< amount realised for his wife's land (7s 6c per acre) gave out. Moon thereupon pro ceeded to Auckland to raise more capital He applied in vain for assistance from thi banks of that city, and then repaired t< Wellington for the same purpose, where hi met with no better success. On his returi to Waikato he found that bis partner Hai had taken into partnership the agent of thi " ring" (meaning the said Frederick Whi taker and the said other persons) before re ferred to, a man of the name of Brissenden Moon, who was ignorant of the man Brisseu den's connection with the "ring" (meanint the said Frederick Whitaker and the saic other persons), ratified Bay's action. Bns sendeu, as might have been expected, wai not long in indncing Hay to sell his interes] to him (or rather the ring) (meaning the saic Frederick Whitaker and the said othei persons) for a small consideration, and thi: arrant schemer then turned bis attention t< manipulating Moon, who had by this tim< discovered that Brissenden was the agen' for Whitaker and Co. (meaning the saic Frederick Whitaker and the said other per sons), and in receipt of a high salary and a considerable sum of money t( enable him to successfully manoeuvre witl the Natives. He requested Moon to par! with his interest in the transaction, am offered him a salary of £SOO a year to see thi sale completed, knowing that he (Moon was so mixed np with the Natives in varum: ways tint he could facilitate the obtaining o their signatures to the transfer. Moon await de-ilmed, an 1 Brissenden remarked th' powerful interest would be brought to bea to prevent his obtaining the ratification o the Native Lands act, and said tint hi would strongly advise Mo n to proceed_a once to Auckland to arrange the matter *?itl his principals (the "Ring"), meaning'thi Svtd Fredk. Whitiker and the said othe: pens ms, failing u hieh he would be a ruinec ir»ri Mo .n was still and incurret the disp'e-uure !>nd opposition of the Whit aker clique (meining the siid Frelericl Wliitaker ;-nd the said persons). Bris ?enden se-. to work, most energetically t( che -kmate Moon, and after having for month travelled from Auckland to Cambri Ige on ai a"ero"e about twice a week, held conference: with 'the Natives, and expended a heap o bribe money, negotiations were stopper tlirough the adoption by Parliament ot tin present Act, taking out of the hands of pri *atc indivi uals the power of directlj with the Natives. The Honourable F. A Whitaker (mciiiog the s>id Fredk. Whit aker) was not 3fc that time a member of thi Ministry, and we have no donbt that he re greited tint greatly. Since then, however inspired with extraordinary patriotism am zeal for the good of the Colony, he (meaning the said Frclk. Whitaker) consented to tJki office, •nd «>w holds the lucrative positior of A't-miev-General. tie (nieuiiug the saiil Frcdk. Wliitiker) will th>r fore novr be able to serve hi* country and biir.solf at the samt time. Hi-s siUry will enable him to find funds for the completion of his great land scheme, which will reievc the .Natives of 200,00 C acres of their superfluous land, whilst it will keep out in the cold a nuaHcr o f pettifog gers uh > woul i 1 c sit .-tied frith five • r ten th nan I ca:h, tor whi h thc\- are willing and anxious to pay V" Htl, ' s insteai o\ yer are Bris«m itn, i> c nsideri tion of good service rendered tin (i:»can?n-4 the said r'rcdk Whraktr and the s ;i 1 o'her pcrwns). was fonn I a Guvernment " bit'et," ami to his lan i-pinvhasmg ability the Col'-ny i< in Irbce 1 for t:ie acquirement of hu-iilretU o: thou«nnd< of acrea of the "ri hj" >e!low day lan Is wlreh abound nonh of Aucklan I. We p>c ume that it was when th-; 10-i ion wusFecur d fur him that hf was not in any way to iuwr- i-rc with the mis nbly po..r and it-important estates that the lynx eye* of the Afrnrncy-Orn-r 1 (in<ai:ini the ianl Frsik. Whitaktr) lud" h s n for himself and fii nd», frr it was a mat er for common 1- - at the time that Bri-i----senden (who was piid so nm han aero for his purchase*) was obtaining quantity re-gardle-s of quality. Brissenden. formerly agent for the Auckland Laud Sharks' Government, land purchaser, and main Utor of th Q . Oliienuri min-r-.' >i i >ht.-', i> now enti'ely thr>v»n ovtrb-jard, and is Inspector of Streets and Pavements in the City of Auckland, without salary. We have >:on •■ into detail becinse of the import mce of the matter. The only nwn in the H use who cares about having .toy thing to do with the Bill (meaning the said Bdl to pre pared and intended to be introduced as aforesaid) is the Attorney-General (meaning the said Frederick Whitaker) All respectable men h*v» repudiated connection therewith ; »nd the o.ily inducement Mr Whitaker [meaning the said Frederick Whitaker) has for fighting for so unpopular a measure, the Dnly cons ilation he has is the hope that he may be succe*»ful in making it law and vqjiring by its aid one estate 300 miles iquare, and how many more goodness only know™. If theActwereallowedtopass, ami the iwinil-3 we have just exposed were perpe:rat"d, it would bs high time that prompt neasurcs weio taken by the people to tmdo ;ho mischief. Such men, with all their boast >f promoting colonization, arc a curse to the lonntry. Who is there, with, say with the Sank of New Zealand at their backs, could lot perform the same service ? He, the iaid Jeorge Jones, then well knowing the said lofamatory libel to be falae, to the great lamagp, scandal, and dipgrace of the said Frederick Whitaker, to the evil example of dl others*" in the like case offending, and igainat the peace of ou.* Lady the tjueen, her 7rown snd dignity.

George Jones, of tbe Oamara Mail, was then charged with having published a false and malicious libel against Frederick Whitaker, the late Attorney General, on the 13th of August, 1877. The indictment was as follows :—That George Jones, of Oamara, journalist, contriving and unlawfully, wickedly and maliciously intending to injure, vilify, and prejudice one Frederick Whitaker, and to deprive him of his good name, fame, credit, and reputation, and to bring hhn into public contempt, scandal, infamy, and disgrace, on the 13th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1577, unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously did write and publish, and cause and procure to be written and published, a false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel, containing divers false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory matter* and thinps of and concerning the said Frederick Whitaker, who. on the day and year aforesaid, held and filled the office of Attorney-General for the Colony of New Zealand, and of and concerning his connection with a certain Bill then already prepared and intended and about to be introduced by the said Frederick Whitaker in the House of Representatives of the said Colony of New Zealand, intituled " An Act to amend and consolidate the Law relative to the Native Ltnds Courc," the said libel being in the words and figures following, that is to say:—That hideous thing of which the Attorney-General {meaning the said Frederick Whitaker) is the parent (meaning that the said Frederick Whitaker was the £thor and framer) honoured with the iitle JPihe Native Landa Bill (meaning the aaia"3ul so prepared and intended and about to be introduced by the said Frederick Whitaker in tlte said House of Representatives) will be brought forward for consideration in the House (meaning the said House ot Representatives) to-morrow. It has os tensibly for its object the facilitating of the legitimate settlement of the Native lands, but m actually intended as an instrument to enable a few Auckland speculators to work another swindle (meaning thereby that V whilst the said Bill was apparently a public measure, having for its avowed object to encourage fair, legitimate, and honest transactions in and dealings with and settlementupon lands held by the aboriginal papulation of the Colony of New Zealand, its real and actual object and intention was to enable the said Frederick Whitaker and a limited number of persons, who were the friends of an 1 were connected in business with the said Frederick Whitaker, to carry out nefarious and fraudulent arrangements, to the prejudice of the said aboriginal population, and of the inhabitants generally of the said Colony). The measure has not a friend, with the exception of those whom it wonld specialty benefit, throughout the length and brcvlth of the Colour ; and this is not surprising. I*s correct designation should be a "Bill to further enrich, at the expense of the Colony, the AttorneyGenoral and hi* colleagues in land speculations (meaning thereby that the said Frederick Whitaker had been, by means of land speculations fran intently and dishonestly entered into by him in connection with oth'-r persons, enriched at the expense of the inhabitants ri tbe said Colony, and that the sairt Frederick Whitakar, in intr du-.-ing the sad Bill in the said House of Rep-esentatives, w;is taking advantage of his position a« A ttornev-General and a membf r of the said House of Uepre->entattve» *o endeavour to get a measure passed in order to enable b-ni-sei f and other persons acting in conjunction with him by fraudulent, and dishonest means to fnrther enrich themselvss at the expense of the Native and JEuropean races in the said Colony). Tha following account of the circumstances that gave birth to the Native Lands Bill (meaning the said Bill so prepared and intended to he introduced by the said Frederick Whitaker as af .rcsaid), gleaned from authentic sources shontd prove interesting to our readers. In the year 1870, or thereabouts, a Pakeha-Maori named Moon obtained a bloc* of land 8000 acres in extent, from the Natives. He subsequently sold this block for the sum of £4OO. The land is exceedingly rich in quality, and worth at least at the pre ent time £S per acre. The low price at which he procured »t was the result of the facilities offered by the Native Lands Act in force at the time of the purchase, and of hi«_ knowledge how to work tbe Natives. Knowing that there was a large tract of country, consisting of some 200,000 acres, but a few miles from Cambridge, which, by a judicious system of finessing, might be procured, he set to work with the small sum realised from the sale of the S0"0 acre block to off' ct its pnrchase. He paid a deposit of £2OO to the Natives, and spent the remaining £2OO in the preliminary surveys necessitated by the Act, and to enable him to take the purshase into the Native Liuds Court. His funds having run iowj it became a question of either raising more capital or of ab indoning the purchase. In those darn the acquire ment of immense blocks of land was au eaay matter, and it was not l»n.? before he d>»covered (Mother means of raising the wind. His wifejPfc* * native belonging to » Piakn Jtf be. He oa her behalf, claimed a blook of rich land (ab/»nt 7000 acres) in that district His application was successful, and he immediately sold this estate, with the exception of 500 acres, and with the proceeds he once more attempted the completion of the (peat scheme W'lch would make him a millionaire. In the interim a report had reached Auckland that Moon was not unlikely r» be Micrwsfnl in negotiating the purchase of the block, and the person wu-> i» now honoured «rttb the title of the Honourable F. A. Whitaker, Ksqnire, At-torney-General of the Coloov of New Zealand, bat then only plain F. A. Whitaker j (nteaninKtheaaMJrVrederick Whitaker) or the i A lc "fii o |"tbroa|b

Mr Uses, for the defendant, pleaded "Not guilty," and for a further plea on behalf of the defendant pleaded—" That the alleged defamatory libel and matters charged against the said George Jones in the said indictment as written and published by him, the said George Junes, of and concerning the said F. Whitaker. are true in substance and in fact, for that during a long series of years—to wit, from 1870 to 1877—tie said F. Whitaker has been from time to time engaged, sometimes for himself, rometimes as the ageufc or solicitor of others, and sometimes for kimsell and others, in obt.tiniugaDsi in attempt. |

ing to obtain Native lands and waste lands of the Crown illegally and by means of fraud, to the great detriment of the Crown and of the Native proprietors, and of the other inhabitants of the Colony, particulars of some of which are as follows :—(1 ) The purchase of the Piako Swamp from the Government. (2 ) Exchange of Waitoa land. (3.) The purchase of a coalfield of nearly 10,000 acres in the Waikato district. (4.) The obtaining of the Hunga flunga and Waibenkiki blocks in the said Thames district, and the transactions set out in the alleged libel. And the said George Jones, jun., further saith that it was for the public benefit that the said alleged defamatory libel and the matters charged in and by the said indictment as written and published of and concerning the said Frederick Whitaker should be written and published, because the passing of the said Act would have been in the first place greatly prejudicial to the settlement of E-iro-paans on the lauds of this Colony, and in the second place it would have injured the natives by giving their lands over to capitalists, and in many instances of rendering them paupers and thereby dangerous and burdensome to the other inhabitants of Mew Zealand, and by giving arbitrary and inordinate powers to the Chief Judge of the Native Lands Board, and by this and by other unjust and arbitrary provisions it would have had, if passed, a tendency to lead to a destructive Native war, whereby and by reason whereof it was and is to the public benefit that all and every the said alleged defamatory libel and matters charged in and by the said indictment should bs published. And this the said George Jones in reedy to verify, wherefore he prays judgment, and that by the Court here he may be dismissed and discharged from the said premises in the said indictment above specified. His Honor : That plea is, I suppose, under Lord Campbell's Act. Does it justify the truth of the matters contained in this particular libel ?

with the statute before the Court couldreceive it at all. if the plea complied with the statut°, or professed on the face of it (which this did not), then he should meet it by demurrer, but, in the meantime, he submitted that he ought not to be driven to meet it by demurrer. He objected to the document in its present shape, because it was a nullity so far as th* greater part of it, and amounted to this, that whilst the prosecutor complained of one libel that had been published, tbt defendant said generally, " I justify that and a lot of other libels wliich I now give you notice of." His Honor: So far as I understand, Mr Haggitt, it went to this: it partially justifies the alleged libel, particularly that part of the alleged libel which Charges Mr Whitaker with being a member of a " ring," and then alleged it was for the .public benefit it should be published, and gave the reason why it was for the public benefit. Is not that so ! Mr Rees : Yes :

Mr Rees : It says they are true in this, j and then enumerates certain things which are the principal matters contained in the 1 b-1 itself, especially the charge asto Mr Whitaker being part of the land ring. I take it that will be the principal matter on which the prosecution will base its charge before the Court. —(Mr Haggitt : Oh dear, no ; not at all.) I sdiall hear vt hat my le irned friend for the Crown has to say, if he demurs to the plea. It says these matters are true in this, and sets out in what they are true : That Mr Whitaker has been from time to time, sometimes for himself, sometimes as agent f<.r others, and sometimes as agent for himself and others, engaged in obtainin" or attempting to olitiin Native lauds and waste lands of the Crown illegally ;uid by me;ui3 of fraud, t> the great detriment of the Crown and of the other inhabitants of the Colony. The libel is set out as a false, scandalous, and malicious and defamatory libel against Frederick Whitaker, in connection with a. certain bill, the real and actual object and intention of which it alleged was to tnible the said Frederick Whitaker t5 carey out certain nefarious and fradulent arrangements. That is one of the particulars set out, which the defendant declares himself ready to verify, and on which he asks the judgment of the Court, The next iunuendois, " meaning thereby that the said Frederick Whitaker had bean enriched at the expense of the inhabitants ot the Colony."

Mr Haggitt: Ido not know whether this is an answer to your Honor, or whether it is argument. His Honor : It was an answer, I think. Mr Hsggitt: I object to that plea being received eutirely. It is no plea at all. His Honor : I wished to have an explanation of what the plea was intended to be, and I think I see now, Air Rees, what it is intended to be.

Mr Itees: I might go through the other innuendoes, and I think it would be shown, though ire have not followed exactly the words, the whole spirit and meaning of all the alleged innuendoes is met and justified in the second plea, and verification, offered in evidence.

Mr Hagsdtt: I have to submit, your Honor, tint this plea is such a document as cannot be received at all. It is no idea whatever. It is no answer whatever to the indictment. His Honor: Is it not a partial answer?

Mr Hajfgitt : A partial answer is no answer. Assunriw it b) bo partial, it should not be received, bee rose it has been decided it i-i not n s'iffic ent plea to a criminal i barge of ibel to justfy tome of the i-tate-mentf; the who eo f them must be just'tie I. However, my objection to tliis plea i-t that whde it fai s to justify th-j 'i hello is matter or the who'e of the Ji ellous matter containe I in th- 1 . lndictiieut, it oh the other hand rliirge-i th<s i>ros cutor wth a number of tb/injs which he has not previous y been charged with, an 1 unlerttkei to ju*ti y th-!-e—in fact, it ten 1< rs issue o i new matter which may or may not be libellous wh ch th-j prosocut >r doi.x not h r •. < cmphiiu o-. Now, as far as the right to i-lewl sn ha plea as th s is < on'crnO'l, your Honor knows be r ore t-c Imj cr-al >tatute (! and 7 Vi tori >, chapt r ol>, such a plea as thi-t w,n not adiirssibUat all. It was slid I eforc- thU rbe grater the truth the grater libel, and there'ore a piea of jusv.h' at on was not a 1ni'tted, and the pUa of jiistifbat-on under the statute cai on'y be taken in the manner an 1 S'il>je:t to the r str ct on j . I will read to ymr Honor the exai-t worls of tlie statute :—" To cntt'e the dcfen-lant to give evidence of tie triith of the matters ch«n»ed as a rii-fence to th-j indictment <r information, it shall be iieui-a sarv for the ilefendm-, iu pie tiling to suih iud'cbmS'it or mfo'mttiort, to allege the tra b. of such mattir-. charged in the uiraner now r quir-dm plsading. justification of an •action for defamation, and further, to allege that it was for the pub ie benefit such mat ters charg ;d should be made public-, and the pirtieular matters, and the grounds upon which they should be published, to whiih plea the prostitution shall be at liberty to generally deny the whole of them." I submit, under the terms of the statute, it is absolutely necessary, in a plea of this nature, that the particular facts which the defendant undertakes to prove should bo distinctly alleged, showing how the publ cation of these facts was for the public b netit. The only part of this plea that couid be held to Le Jin answ«r to the indictment at all, is that portion of it which alleges in general fc>:rnw that the matters contained in the libel are true, but a general plea of justification could not be admissible. Your Honor will have mticed that the words of the Act are, "to allege the truth of such matters charged in the manner now required in pleading an action f.-r defamation, ' that is, in the manner required at the time of the passing of that' statute, and, although since the Common L»w Procedure Act, which has b°en held sufficient in some case* to plead justification in general tarm.*, where the charge in the libel is specific, yet it is only under the Common Law Procedure Act that can be don?, and this statute was passed before the Common Law Procedure Act.

His Honor : Yon say the plea ought not t" be received. That is to siy, you move that the plea be struck out, bfcmse, I take it, it is open for the other side to place th:s on the record if they choose, an 1 it is for you to rnjve to Strike it out—the proper course is, 1 think, on demurrer. Mr IJaggitt submitted that the plea could not be. received. A plea was only admissible under tlte sfcatate, and it must comply

Mr Haggitt: Not as I understand it. His Honor : And I understand you also to say, Mr Haggitt, that a plea under the statmfce ought to Bet out reasons why it was for the public benefit the libel should be pub lished, but this appeared to me to set out the reasons. I thought that was on» objection to it. Does it require the reason for publication should be sec out ? Mr Haggitt: Yes. It is perfectly clear that this plea does not even attempt to justify -the whole of the matters contained in th« libel. It leaves really the matter of which we complain entirely untouched. His Honor: That occurred to me, Mr Haggit, that it left a good part of the libel untouched ; but is that a ground for not receiving the plea, or of demurrer? Mr Haggttt: It is a ground of demurr. r. His Honor : It struck me, if the plea was defective, that was where it was defective, in not containing an answer to the whole libel. . . t , Mr Haggitt: A-nd also in bnugingmother matters. The plea is drected to matters not contained in the libel. The first of these is the purchase of the Piako Swamp, not from the Natives at all, but from the Government; and it goes on to allege a lot of other transactions, no reference to which is made in the libel, and then in a few general worJa professes to cover the libel and the transactions set out in the alleged libel. What I submit to your Honor is, that the plea of justification must state in distinct and positive terms the specific facta whieh defendant undertakes to prove, in such a way as to enable the prosecutor to know .what sort of a case he has to meet. The plea, in point of fact, must be a special plea, setting out the of the matters relied on for justification. His Honu thought that the objection to the plea should be raised by demurrer. Mr Haggitt: I havo no objection to d«mur. ; I shall deal candidly with the Court, an 4 will say this: If I do demur, and if. your Honor is against me on the demurer, then I should have to aak leave to " plead over "; | that is all.

His Honor : It is in the discretion of the Court to give you leave to "plead over." Mr Haggitt: It is only because. I do not think I should be forced to the necessity of asking leave to plead over that I take this course of asking the Court to disallow the plea. His Honor : Can you find any instance in which a Court has quashed the plea in a criminal case, on motion, except a plea on general issue. Mr Haggitt: No, your Honor, I have not been able to do so. His Honor : I think if they, chose to put in a plea of that kind that you should meet it by detmimr. Mr Haggitt : "Very well, your Honor. Mr Rees : I should like jto say that the application made on behalf of the prosecution by my learned friend is an application mver heard of in a Court before. His Honor : I h*ve decided the application.

Mr Kees : Yes, your Honor ; but not on the point to which I wish to refer —that the Court should refuse to accept the plea, and that it should be quashed. I apprehend the Court cuild not refuse to acjept the plea, and that it would have no juris>icti<->n to decide if the plea was not befor* the Court. I have no objection to amend in one or two points. Your Hoivr will set that they distinctly meet the different innnendos set out by the Crown, and pleas are specially for i'lnuendos. His Honor : That would ari-e on de murrci". Mr jtees ssi 1 he wished to r iisc the actual facts on the dv-mnrr-jr, and that the iunuenilos should bespecialiy'traversedand the matt- rs which made thein true specified. His Honor: It is for you to nuke yeur pica as you choo<e. I understand you to ask leave to amuil before the demurr r is put in ?

Mr Res : Ye?, your Honor. I would ask leave to withdraw that plea, and to put in the same subject-matter more in conformity with the actual and settled method of pleadings in relation to such a plea. I have the plea ready, your Honor, which I would a.-k to put in. The only difficulty which arises, which is one the Court must see, and I have no doubt it will be pretty prominently before the Court is, what part is charged as libellous and what is not ? His Honor: The whole document is charged as libellous, that is clear. The Bting of the libel appears to me tuleribly cltrar in the charge tnat Mr Whitaker prostituted his position in the Assembly for the purple of his private em's. That is what 1 expect they say the sting of it is. Mr Ha<:<:i"t-: The portion of it we most p .rticu arlJ object to comme.noea with these words :—" The following ace uint 01 the oi-» cuimtanoes that gave birth to the Native Lund? 8.11, gleaned from authentic sourcts, will doubtless prcrc interesting to our reader;.'' Mr Kees then substituted the following lea in place of the on; piivio isly read, and handed it inti the Court:—" The said George Jones, jun., having heard the indictment, pleads as follows—lst. that he is not guilty ; 2nd, and as a further plea, to so much of the indictment as alleges tb.it the said George Jon?s published the following allege I d«ramatory m itters, namely—lst. I that the Native Lands Court B.JJ, 1577 had ostensibly for its obj ct the facilitating the legitimate settkment of the Native; lands, but wa3 actually intended as an iusruinent to enable a few Auckland speculators to ' work' another swindle ; 2cd, that the measure had not a friend, except those whom it would benefit, throughout the length and breadth of th« Colony, ani that this was not surprising. It* correct designation should have been, a Bill to further enrich, at tho expense of the Colony, the AttorneyGeneral and his colleagues in land speculatiou. And so ctuch of the libel as alleges the connection of the said Frederick Whitaker ■with the Auckland Land Sp<cnlating Rin,,', and so much of the alleged libel as states the only man in the Hous-i who carad to ] have any c Minection with that Bill was the I said F. Whitaker, and tint all r soect.ble mea had repudiat d connection w;th tk •■ said Hill, and that the only inducement the said. F. Whitaker had for fighting for so unpopular a me isure, the only consolation he had was the hops that be might be sucecessfu! in making it law, and acquiring by its aid an est t= of 300 mihs square, and how many more pondness only kno*s; ari/i that if the Act were allowed to pass, and the swindle perpetrated, it wwld be time thai

prompt measures were taken by the peopli to undo the mischief. Such men, witl all their boast of promoting colonisation •Wr re a curse to the country. The said Georgi Jones pleads that such alleged defamaton matters a.s written and published by him an true in substance, and that he puts in evi dence the following particulars iu proo thereoi :—lst. That the Native Courts Bill 1877, was a Bill which, if passed into law would have afforded to speculators ready t< use any unfair means great facilities fo; acquiring Native lands in large areas, anc that speculators connected with F. Whitikei in business, and sometimes called the "Auck land Lind Speculating .Ring," intended, i the Bill had passed into law, to take advan tage of its proceedings for the purpose o acquiring large areas of land. 2nd. Tha from the year IS7O to the present time, th< Raid F. Whitaker has from time to time beet engaged, sometimes himself, sometimes foi himself and others, sometimes as an agent 01 solicitor for others, in obtaining and attempt ing to obtain Native lands and waste lands o the Crowti illegally, and by means of fraud t( the Crown, of the Native proprietors, and o inhabitants of New Zealand, as well as other of her Majesty's subjects elsewhere, intend ing to migrate to New Zealand, particular of some of which transactions are as follows —lst. The purchase of the Piako Swami from the Government of New Zealand. 2nd The exchange of the Waitoa lands for i claim which the said F. Whitaker allegee he had upon certain Native lands, and mad< between the Government and the said F Whitaker. 3rd. The purchase of a coalfielc of nearly 10,000 acres of land in the Waikati district. 4th. The obtaining of the Hung: Hunga Waikuikiki blocks in the Thames, ant the transactions set forth in the alleged libel sth. That when the Native Lands Court Bil was distributed among the members of th House of Kepresentatives, all those member conversant with Native affairs, who were ii no way interested in the acquirement o Native lands, and who were desirous to se< them managed honestly and fairly for th benefit of tbe inhabitants generally of Nevi Zealand, whether they were usually support era of the Ministry of which the said F Whitaker was a member or not, refused U support the said Government in carrying th< said Bill, and the members of the said Go vernment themselves, through the Premier, intimated their willingness to abandon the measure, but the said F. Whitaker was most unwilling that this should be done, anc only agreed to the same being abandoned ■when he saw there was no prospect of carry ing it, and that the obtaining from th' aboriginal Native population of New Zea land by speculators of large areas of hint had proved baneful to the Cobmy, and tc the lat« Province of Auckland iu particular and that there existed no public necessity for the passing of the said Bill, and no pub lie advantage would have been obtainer therefrom ; and tbe said George Jones furthe sa\B that it was for the public benefit tha the alleged defamatory matters aforesaid, a written and puhl shed by him of and con cerning the said Whitaker, were written au< published because it was expedient that th members of the Houses of Parliament, am the public generally, should be made as full' aware as possible of the. manner in whiol Native and other lan<?s had dealt with and how they might in future if the sail Bill had passed into law be dealt with, ant to show that the said Bill should not hi paised, because the passing of the said Bil would have been greatly prejudicial to th settlement of the lands held by the Native proprietors, would have injured the Native: by soon placiog their lands in the hands o speculators, and in mauy instances so render ing the Natives paupers, and therefore dan gerous and troublesome to the other inhabit ants of the Colony. It would have, by giv ing arbitrary and inordinate powers to th< Chief Judge of the Native Lands Court, ren dered settlement of titles less satisfactory and so shaken the confidence of the Nativi mind in the decisions of the Native Court and therefore of their treatment by the Go vernment of the Colony, and by this and iti other arbitrary and unjust provisions it wouli have had a tendancy to lead to a Native out break, whereby, and by reason thereof, al and every, the said alleged defamatory matters so pUaded by him this plea shouk be published, and this the said George Jone: is ready to verify ; and as to all the remainde of the alleged libel the said George Jone aays that he is not guilty, wherefore he pray judgment and th.it by this Court here hi may be dismissed and discharged from th laid premis >.s in the said indictment abovi ■.ppciried. The rarned at 1130 a.m. unti I p.m. for the argument of the demurrer, and ihe jurors were discharged until 10 a.m. or ihe following day. . The defendant was about to leave the "Jourt, when Mr W.itt, the Sheriff, remarked hat Mr Jones hid given himself into the mstody of tlii Court, and was no longer en >art.

There -was nothing to hold him up to scorn. That was the part that was left unanswered. Where it accused Mr Whitaker of wrong, that was the pirt he propoaed to verify. He submitted that the part that was left unanswered was not libel —could not be held to be libel. The sting was in the part which was answered, that Mr Whitaker was a member of the land-sharking ring. He quoted an authority to show that it was only necessary that the material parts need be just'tied. With regard to the second point, beheld that sufficient information was given in order to | prepare him to meet the charges made against him in the justification ;_ at the same time the Couro could not from general statements have disclosed to it enough to go before a jury for a justification. As to the third point, he did not see that the plea introduced new inattsrs. The article must be taken as a whole. They were general charges oE libels. Alt.-,r further argumeut, His Honor roltd that the defendant ought to set out not only the land speculations, but to show they were unfair and fraudulent. Mr Rees said he should take at once his Honor's decision on a question of that sort with reference to the fourth point, that it was not for the public benelit. That seemed to be a mere argument, because there had been weighty rea ons for publishing it, as the Native Linds Bill was in Mr Whitaker's charge. In relation, then, to the first point, : he submitted that it did not contain l'bel ; in the second, there was quite enough to «n . to the Court. As to the fourth point, he did i not think it needed argumeut. Mr Haggitt haviog briefly referred t? the 1 objections raised by Mr R'.'es, His Honor announced that he would give I his decision on the demurrer to-day. : The Court rose at 5.15.

Mr Rees said he did not know whether it would be ntc ssary for the defendant';) bail to be enlarged, or whether, having appeared to answer a misdemeanour, further bond was necessary.

Mr Higi:itfc said he would be content to accept the assurance of Mr llees that the defendant would appear when called upon, and the Court acquiesced.

The Court resumed at 2 p.m , when counsel proceeded to argue the demurrer raised by the prosecutor to the defendant's second plea. Mr Haggitt said he had to snluirt tint the pleaoftha defendant substituted for the former one was worse even thaa th-s farmer ple.a. The grounds of argument which he- pripos«d to take weie as follows :—lst. That the plea does not cover the whole libel—that it does not even profess to do so ; 2-id. That it dots not specify what are the special charges in the libel the defendant is prepared to justify, and does not, set out in the manner required by 6 and 7 'Vietom, o. 96, thi facts by reason whereof the publication and alleged libel were justified; 3rd. That whilst professing to justify some portions of the libellous article, it introduces other matters against th-: prosecutor not CHmplained of in the indict ment, and seeks to justify the libel charged by accusing thu prcsecu'or (if other transactions, in which it is alleged generally that ho actid illegally and fraudulently ; 4th. That the plea, which does not sufficiently set out any particular' facts by reason whereof it was for the public benefit that the matters charg-d in the indictment should be published. The Crown Prosecutor then proceeded to argue on the above grounds, and quoted authorities in suppoit of them.

Mr Eees, in replying, said his learned I frieud urged that the plea did not cover the whole libel, but he (Mr Rec?) submitted that the part unc >vered by the plea wns not a libel at all. and there was nothing, taking it strictly, which could be called libellous, and it was Ihe diet* of the Judge that it must be clearly showD tho part left uncovered did cnntrln libel in itself. There was no libel in the latter part. In fact, the prosecution was hardly able to fix upon any part of it as being libellous, but they said the whole to a libel. It was simply a transaction for the purchase of Native lands through the instrumentality of Brisssnden or Moon, fo that if there was j any libel-it was against Brisssnden, not I against Mr Whitaker. It did rot say that Mr Whitaker attempted to abuse, to che it anjbody, or t» take advantage of anybody.

Tuksday, March 12th. (Before His Honor J'.istiee Williams. 1 THE OAirAlir JIAIti LIBKI, CASE.

The case against George Jones, the publisher and proprietor of the Oainaru Mail, for having published a false and malicious libel against Frederick Whitaker. late Attorney-General, again came before the Court. Mr Haggitt appeared to conduct the prosecution, and Messrs llees and Mislop for the defence.

His Honor delivered judgment on thedemnrrei, which had been argued on the previous clay, as follows :—ln this case I think that the demurrer must be allowed, and principally on the second ground that was taken by Mr Haggitt—that it does not specify with sufficient particularity the charges that the defendant is prepared to justify, and that therefore it does not comply with the statute under whbh it is pleaded. The statute enacts that it shall be necessary for the in pleading to any such indictment or information, to allege the truth of such matters charged,in the manner now required in pleading justification to au action for defamation. The I statute was brought into operation in New Zealand in lti-tl, before cur present rules of practice and procedure came into operation, and therefore the mode in which the justification must be pleaded must be decided by the law as it existed before those rules came into operation. That is to say, the justification must be pleaded according to the old Common Law rulesof pleading. What those Common Law rules are appears very clearly in the case of J. Alison v. Stewart, tbeleading caseou thesubjeet, and in the notes to that case iu Smith's Leading Cases. The learned editor of Smith's Leading cases, Mr John William Smith, says :—" The rule which required certiinty of pleading was enforced v.'ith peculiar strictness with reference to the case of justification of actions of slander or libel. If a man propagates a charge derogatory of another man's character, he is /triuicfttnie to be considered a lort fcn-inr.'" And in Hickenbottom v. Leach, cited iu the case, Baron Alderson observes that the plea should state the charge with the same precision as in an indictment. It is abundantly clear, looking at the present plea, that it does not comply with the old Common Law rules. Certainly, in pleading, it does not show the prosecutor with sufficient precision the charges which he has to meet; and particularly it charges him with fraudulent acts, but does not set forth in what way those acts are fraudulent. The plea is pleaded by virtue of statute, and if the statute requires it to he pleaded in a particular way, and as it has not been pleaded in that particular way, therefore the plea is bad on general demurrer. His Honor also traversed the other grounds raised by demurrer, but gave his decision upon the one above specified—that the plea was not sufficiently ceituki, and did not comply with the terms of the statu o, and therefore the demurrer must be allowed. Having decided the demurrer on that particular ground, . there is no absolute necessity to allude to the [ other grounds taken by Air Haggitt in supp nt of the demurrer, but perhaps it may be as w,|] to do so. Taking the third ground, Air Haggitt. objected that, while professing to justify some portions of the libel, tuo plea introduced other 1 matter, and sought to justify bv charging the prosecutor with other matters not complained , of in the libel; and he alluded more particularly to the mention in the plea of some land trans- ] actions in connection with the I'iako Swamp. 1 But in the indictment the innuendo is laid as : follows. The libel states, referrii.g to tne Native Lands Bill:—" Its correct designation : should be a ' Bill to further euricli, at the [ expense of the Colony, the Alt irney General and his colleagues in land speculations'(meaning \ thereby that the said Frederick Whitaker had been, by means of laud speculations fraudtidiileutly and dishonestly entered into by liini ' in connection with other persons, enriched at ! the expense of the inhabitants of the said Colony, and that the said Frederick Wbitaker, in introducing the said Bid in the said blouse of Representatives, was taking advantage of his position as Attorney-General and a. mem | ber of the said House of Representatives tol endeavour to get a measure passed in order to enable himself and other persons acting in conduction with him by fraudulent aud dishonest means to further enrich themselves at the expense of _ the Native 1 and European races iu the said Colony)." That is the interpretation _ that the prosecution put upon the libel, and the> defendant has a perfect right in his plea to adopt that interpretation, and to say " you) have fraudulently and dishonestly enriched' yourself at the expense of the other inhabitants' of the Colony by means of laud speculations,; and you have by one particular instance—the Piako Swamp—so fr-iuduleutly enriched yourselves." Therefore I do not thiuk the plea is objectionable in alluding to these matters, because the defendant alludes to them in jus'.ificition of the interpretation that the prosecutor himself has placed upon the libel. As to Mr Haggith's fourth objection—"that the plea does not sufficiently set out any particular facts by reason whereof it was for the benefit of the public, that the matters therein should be published"—l am inclined to think that the particular facts areinartilicially stated iu the plea ; but it is is quite clear if the defendant is ablo to prove the other parts of the plea—to prove the justilicitior.—that it would be very easy for him indeed to set out the particlar fact-i by reason whereof it was for the. public benefit that the matters charged should be published, because if it were a fact that the allegations in the plea were true, it would be peifectly clear that the publication was for the benefit of the public, and it would be very easy to invent and state reasons why it would be for the public benefit. The fl.st objection taken by Mr Haggitt was the one with which I had the I greatest difficulty -"that the plea does not cover the whole libel"—and I am not quite clear as to whether the plea in its present uhape does cover the whole libel or not. From the way the plea is proved it is rather difficult to-make out whether i; does or not. My view of the point is somewhat as' follows : That the relation of the negotiations for the purchase of the 2000 acres may not in itself be libellous, but it is intimately connected with the other parts of the alleged libel, and so intimately connected that I do not see how it can he dissevered from it. The alleged libel, as I read it, states that negotiations have _ been entered into for the purchase of a pi*ipular . blpck of land ; that those negotiations bad been j

put a stop to liv the Native Lands Act: and that Mr Whitaker promoted a Hill to alter tlie Act, chiefly in older that ho mj.ght «mit.v on I this particular transaction. Now the statement of the details of the negotiation dots not appear to me to be in itselt libellous, ami it would not, I apprehend, be necessary to jnslily as true the dotails of the negotiation in st.it.'d in the libel ; but it seems to nits that it would be iiece.-sary to allege anil to prove that Mr Whitaker had in view the purchase of this particular block, and that his aoLion in part wan taken with the special view of enabling him to obtain this particular block. I think- it would be necessary to allego and prove that, because that appears to me what in ell'ect the libel charges Mr Whitaker with doing, _ and the justification must h*. «i extensive in its tonus with the libel itself. That is my view on the first point raised by Mr Hut, as I have said, the principal reasons for allowing the. demurrer are upon the second point raised by Mr H'aggitt, that the plea is not sumeiently certain,"ami does not comply with the terini of the statement. For those reasons the demnrrjr

to the statement must be allowed. Mr llees asked leave to plead over. lie said although two pleas had been nominally debated, only one plea had been put in, and the plea had been handed to Mr \Vhitaker wheu Attorney-Ceneral. some seven or month* si nee : and counsel for the defence, certainly understood if a demurrer was to be state.l they should have some notice of it, in order to look more strictly to the tuohiualities of the plea that they had prepared only to -ive in sub •tunc*. He would state after the aryuiueiim yesterday with reference to the Court, lumvi'tainly concurred with the opinion of the Court as to the second branch of the demurrer. _ Hut inasmuch as the matter was one of publSe importance, and was essential to the detern iinu„' of the ijuestions at issue between the Crown and the defendant, he would ask leavo to plead over. Mr H«wi,'itt did not oppose the application, but remarked that as soon as the plea had been put in yesterday it was objected to, and his learned'friend, Mr Uees, who was not prepared to ojnteml that the objections were not sustainable, had in fact another plea cut and dried, which certainly did not look as if he had been taken by surprise. His Honor said : It is very unfortunate that the defendant was not :iO'nij,'::ed a Inn;,' time

sin«e, so that wo might have )i:nl_ nil these questions and discussions before bringing flic ,)ury here, because it seems to mu that the plea that ought to appear on tin* record in answer to this indictment is not a plea that can be drawn np iu live minutes or livo hours. It will have probably t-i be exceedingly lengthy, exceedingly carefully framed, audit woiihUje it pity to have another plea demurred. I think, especially, ;ls the Crown does not oppose, you are certainly entitled to plead over; because, if decided against the defeudant, it is at his own risk, and the Court must take it into consideration in awarding any punishment. The only question is what time yov. should have to plead it. It in about the most difficult operation in pV-iidii-g that could well be taken, b*ea::sc you have l,i go rot on p'esont rules, but nn the common rules of pleading-(.V.r iters: Yes; an obsolete practice)—and you wo.dd require a goo.l ,!t'.d of care and time to put the plea in proper shape. Mr llees said he was sorry this hail ocrnrred.

The plea had been hii-st.il v prepaid. His Honor: I do not think that there is ■■>•<:; Wame to be attributed to cither party. It in.iy he the practice of the Com I. is in fault, bavin:.: the defendant arraigne.l. and then the plea, ami demurrer put in at nisi /iWn.s in-tend ui pinceeding as with a civil action. Mr'llees: 1 think if we had today, vvu should put in to-moirow innming such a. pirn as we would either stand or fall upon, iam sorry the time of tin* J-irv must be taken up, hut I trust they will not, think it is through any negligence or thing of that sort. 11 the i'..mi. will adjourn till to-morrow morning, 1 will undertake to produce a plea upon which wu will either stand or fall. His Honor : The matter was discus : "il yesterday. The libel does not appear to nir l» be divisible. Lveu if in n. criminal i-iim:. the same rule of pleading justification applies at. in a civil action ; Mint is to say, if there are distinct charges, the plea of justification wonhl only be good supposing it justifies, the wlmlo of the libellous matter.

Mr Haggitt asked that one of the .1 iiryincii Mr C-eorge Morrison —should be relieved I'i'-hi his duties, on the ground of ill hedth, and ilia Mr John H. Morrison should be substituted Mr llees offered no objection, and his Jloiiu assented.

His Honor: I can see it quite possible, if Ihe plea is put in to-morrow and the demurrer in heard on the plea, more difficult ii'.id ni< o quotums may arise, and ther. 1 may deem it my duty to take time to consider, and it is by no means absolutely certain that the case will u« on on Thursday ; but tlie gentlemen of die Jury will he good enough to attend on Tlnirnday morning unless they hear to the cnntraiy. The Court thon adjourned at ll>.:>0 until 10 o'clock this mornimr.

Wednkiiuy, 13th M.vhii. (Before his Honor A'r .lustico Williams.)

THE OAMA'.'P MAli o.l*l-;. His Honor took hi seat at 10 oMocl-. Counsel for the prosecution, Mr I>. C, Haggitt; for the do c nee, Moi-ura I Ices ar.d His 1 -op. Mr Rees having o i the previous day «litained leave to ente- new pleas, HulnniUwl the following to the Court : (1) That the defendant is iiof guilty : lib :ni'l for a further plea in this behalf as I, > l'i" writing and publishing of the said nlle-ol defamatory matter and libel, to wit "Tad hideous thing of which the Attorney G-eerai is the parent, honoured with the title . f (!■•■ Native Lands Bill, will be brought forward u l , cuniideratiou in the House to morrow. II has (rteusibly for its object the I'arilifating of the legitimate settlement <l' lln Native lam Is, but is actually intended n' au instrument to enable a, few Andland speculators to work another swindle/ The said George Jones says that the .-aim: '■ true in substance and in fact, and that li-f"i' the composing and publishing or "i the said supposed libel the said F. Whitaker, as Attoirey-Ceneral in the Colony of .\e»' Zealand, introduced into the House i» Representatives afo'-esaid as a public, ui'* sure the Bill before mentioned, which hail b-en drawn up by him, and which t * ill if n: i into law would have afforded >.o upi-cula'«r-ready to use dishonest or unfair means ere:i'. facilities for acq Hiring Native hinds in large at'r.' ; to the detriment of the legitimate scttkmenl"i lands held by the aboriginal inlnibiliuil' of New Zealand, and that speculators coimed*' in business with the said J''. Whitaker, aid sometimes called the Auckland Laud Spec.ulal' ing Ring, with the knowledge and consent "I the said Frederick Whitaker, in tended if ].!>» Bill passed to take advantage of its provM* l for the mirpose of acquiring by uafair nc-'iu' large tracts of land ; and that the said Rill u'- 1 ' drawn by the said F. Whitaker in the iitaii"-' aud form iu which it was so iutrodiieeil * aforesaid into the said House of Iteprcscntalie' for the purpose of enabling such spcctihit"' to canv out their intentions aforesaid, an that from the year IK7O to the tin of the publishing of the said libel the said F. Whitaker had, fr"« time to time, been enriched at the expensec the Colony, and of the aboriginal ulij other inhabitants of New Ze: 11" 1 ' through land speculations illegally, fi"' dulently. and dishonestly entered in''' to wit—P'.ako Swamp. (I ) That on the LTtf day of February, 1875, the said F. Whitull' knowingly, fraudulently, md dishonestly It tending to enrich himself at the expense of to; inhabitants of the Colony of New Zealand, |>n vately, and without any notice being give" ll required by the law, and us hereinafter v 0 tioned, did cuter into a fraudulent, and ty honest, ami illegal agreement with one I>W" Pollen, then being a member of the MiiiM'B for the Colony of New Zealand, and then »fl ing on behalf of the said Ministry, fortoM sale a* an inadequate price, by the Ministry, to him, the said F. Wl)itak«M of a certain large piece or parcel of land in Waikato district, in the Province, and Provincial district, of Auckland, such landn having being previously suiveyeu for the P U !H pose* of pale, but estimated to contain 85,000 acreß of land, and known as the Swamp, which had been confiscated to "M

Crown, and the purchase money for which would be reTenn"., disposable by the General vssemHy of 'New Zealand, such .>jrrement for tha <ale fc jt being made in accordance with, but |n contrm-nti'.n of, tfc-- regulations for the then lime 'iciuj n fore* referee e to the sale of tlie juid l.in I, t*ie *i*id regulators providing that tic said U"(t nhotJc «-r!y be soidby public auction, »f>r «r v«-v and afterdne notice ofauch intended «& by public auction being hy the, Commissioner >luly appointed in such behalf togethe- with the numbers, _ localities, amonntß of acrw»ge. and upset price of the sections to be i ?fr-' (or sale, in the Jtew Zealand Governme' ■ Gazette, for a period of not l eiw than tr > 'u.nth, :.or more than three months, before th- '.«y of intended pale. (2.) That on th& neon*? )g October, 1873, the w i(l Frederick Wbi'ca.&>.\ knowingly, fraudulently, and dishoiiiatly intending to enrich bimgelf at the expense of tt« Colony of New Zealand (Daniel Pollen then b* in 0 the Commissioner cf the Waikato lands in the Colony of New Zealand duly appointed nr.der the land regulations then in force affecting the same), made ar. application to the CommfsHioner in the words and figures following" Application No. 495. Special rural land, Waikato. Auckland, 2nd October. I«7X Sir—l hereby apply for lot >*o. IBS, "Waikato, being coal field in the pariah of Pepepe, containing 9580 acre*, and tender in payment therefor L369310s. —I have, 4c., I- Whitaker, Anckland, Solicitor." Although no block of such land containing 1)580 acres mentioned in the said application had previously been put up for sale by public auction in the manner required by law, and theregula tions duly made and then in force in that behalf affecting the said fond* at an upset price of LSffiM !•"« ; and the said Daniel Pollen, as gnch Commissioner as aforesaid, knowingly, illegally, dishunestly, and fraudulently, to the detriment of the inhabitants generally of New Zealand, consented and agreed to_ the said application of the said Frederick Whitaker, and a Crown grant wm prepared and ligned to the said Frederick Wbitaker and one ITiomas Knssell, Jamei _ Wil liamson, James M'Kelvie. and Wm. Aitken, whereby the said piece or parcel of land was in contravention of the said regulations illegally, dishonestly, and fraudulently acquired by the said Frederick Whitaker, on account of himself and the said other persons before mentinned, at a lower sum than its real value at the time of the said application being considered as aforesaid ; tbat on or al>ont the 22nd day of September, 1574, the said Frederick Whitaker fraudulently, intendin? to defraud the inhabitants of New Zealand, marie an agreement with one Daniel Pollen, then being a member of the Ministry for the Colony of New Zealand, then acting on behalf of the Government of the Colony, such agreement being in the words and figures following " Auckland, 22nd September, IS7 (.-Memorandum of agreement made between the .Hon. Dr Pollen, on behalf of the (loverninent of New Zealand, on the one part, and Frederick Whitaker, of the other part, as follows : The 9aid Frederick Wbitaker to snr render to the Government all his right, title, and interest in the Piako land, awarded by the Lands Claim Court to F. Wbitaker and T. He.ile, anil transferred tr> F. Whitaker by T. Heale, and, in consideration thereof, to receive a Crown grant for an equal number of acres situate between the Piako and Waitara rivers. The Government to furnish F. Whitaker with a plan of the land, and he to have a right to select the land he will take in one or two blocks; but if taken in two blocks, I the selection to be taken in such way as not to i be injnrions to the remaining Government land. | Any questions on that point to be determined j by the Inspector of Surveys —the quantity to which the said F. Whitaker is entitled bejng ITVM acres 1 rood. On the selection being | made ont of the land of which the plan is to be ) furnished him as above-mentioned, he is to have I the snrvey for the Crown grant made at his own j expense.—Daniel Ponr.Ejr"—which agreement t was contrary to the law then and now in force in the Provincial District of Auckland affectingl the disposal of the lands specified in snch agreement (such land being waste lands of the C\wn situate in the Provincial District of Anckland, and subject to the laws and regulations then in force affecting waste lands in the Provincial District),such lands nothavingpassed ttirnuph the Native Lands Court, as the said D'iniel Pollen and Frederick Whitaker well knew; and that afterwards to wit, during the session of the General Assembly of New Zealand held in the year IHTij—an attempt was made by the said Frederick Whitaker and certain members of the then Ministry to have a Bill pawned into law to carry out the agreement aforesaid, but such Bill was thrown out m the Legislative Council ; but, notwithstanding that the said Bill wiis so thrown out. the jttid Frederick Whitaker, up tj the time of the publishing of the said article, was still attempting to obtain the benefit of the said illegal contract : and that snch agreement, if carried out. would have given to the said Frederick Whitaker an nnfair advantage, to the detriment of the inhabitants of the Colony of New Zealand, by enabling him to chose lands of much greater value than that which he proposed to give to the Government undpr the said agreement. (4.) That the Haul Frederick Whitakerdid.on orabont the year IS}", knowingly, illegally, fraudulently, and dishonestly obtain, by a false representation made to the then Government of New Zealand that he wientitled thereto by virtue of a grant from the Crown in the now Provincial District of Auckland, an exchange of other lands in the town of Anckland, and alleged by him to have been given to the Government of New Zealand to wit, twenty-eight acres of land, more or less, in the island of Kawaii—to the injury of the Crown an:l to the great detriment, damage, and loss of certain of her Majesty'? subjects—to wit, the shareholders of the New Zealand Copper Company -then working a mine on the said land, and who had a better claim to the same than the said Frederick Whitaker, which Crown grant was afterwards —to wit, in the year IS-l'J— on proper procaedings being taken in that behalf in thp Supreme Court of New Zealand, set M'le, cancelled, and destroyed. (">.) And that on the 20th August, IST-, the said Frederick Whitaker, acting as one of the tirm of solicitors of which he and one Thonuis Itussell were members, and which was carried on under the style of Whitakei and Russell, anil while acting for foe and reward for the said Thomas Russell, William Chiaholm Wilson, and Captain James Stone, knowingly, illegally, fraudulently, and dishonestly entered into an agreement with onf James Stackay the younger (acting for ami °n behalf of the (Jovernmant of_ New Zea land) in the purchase from the Native aboriginal owners uf a certain piece or parcel ot land railed the Hotoiitori block in th« Provincial District cf Auckland, whereby it was •nrreed that certain right?, privileges, and estates in and to the said block of Tand an.l jn the kanri and other timber on the said land should be reserved and assured to the said T. Knssell, W. C. Wilson, and C. >'• Stone, such interest and estates so reserved and opened purporting to be go reserved and opened in accordance with certain contracts alleged to have been made between Frederick Whitaker, William C. Wilson, and Charles J. St<-n», and the said Native proprietors of the said laud, although "t the time when the said alleged contracts w ere made, and at the time of the making >'f the said illegal and fraudulent agreement, the said land was Native land for which no cer plicate of title hail been issued, nor any proceed ings taken relative thereto in the Native Lands Lonrt nnder the Native Lands Act, relating to "ich lands and in force for the then time being ; , •id anch illegal agreement aforesaid was after wards illegally and fraudulently ratified and confirmed by the Ministry for the then_ time °eing, wherebv, and by means of which illegal "nil fraudulent agreement, the Native proprietors were, for the benefit of the said Frederick Whitaker, W. C. Wilson,|and C. J. j!tone, defrauded of the prices which they ought to nave obtained frt m the Government of the , . lonyfortbe said rights, privileges, and estates m the said land, and for the timber thereoD ; ■"id the other inhabitants of New Zealand were fairly and improperly prevented from com Peting tor the purchase of the saidrights, estates, PPviieges, and timber found on the said land. And the said George .Tones further says that | 1 the said Frederick Wbitaker and others with *nom he was acting in conjuction, or_ who : *ere his fri»nds, were at the time of the intro- ; unction and consideration of the said Bill in J • with the Natire ownera for tb« par- j • WW si ytrjr ijjge tract# of lands—to wit, the I 1

Morimotu country, im the Provincial District of Wellington, certain lands in the Upper Thames district, and in the Waikato and Taupo districts. And ths said Bill, if passed into law, would have afforded, and was intended by the said Frederick Whitaker to afford, to the said intended purchasers nnfair and undue facilities for the acquisition of the said lands from the Native owners, to the detriment of the said ownerr, and of the legitimate settlement of the said lands by intending purchasers, who were not friends of, or connected in business with, the said F. Whitaker. And as to the whole of the remainder, the said George Jones says that the same is true in substance and iu fact, and

that the same gives an account of the circumstances that gavo birth to the Native Lands Bill: "In the year 1870, or thereabouts, a Pakeha-Maori, named Moon, obtained a block of land beyond Cambridae—Booo acres in extent—from the Natives. He subsequently sold this block." [The remainder of the paragraph simply set out the libel as it appears in the indictment.] And the said George Jones in this behalf further says that when the Native Lands Court Bill aforesaid was distributed among the members of the House of Representatives, all those members conversant with Nitive affairs who were in no w»y personally interested in the acquirement of Native lands, and whe were desirous to see them managed honestly and fairly for the benefit of the inhabitants of New Zealand generally, whether they were usually supporters of the Ministry for the then time being or not, refused to support the said Ministry, of wb ch the said F. Whitaker was a member, in carrying through the said Bill; and the members of the said Ministry themselves, through the Premier, intimited the willingness and desire of the Government to abandon the measure, but the said Frederick Whitaker was most unwilling to abandon the same, and only agreed to it when he saw there was no chance of carrying it; and further, that no public advantage would have been derived from the passing of the said Bill, but if the Bill bad passed it would have rendered it possible to complete such parts of ths said transactions «t out in the alleged libel as were incomplete, and other similar transactions ; and that the i said Frederick Whitaker intended, if the said ' Bill did pass, to have the said parts of the sfcid transactions completed as far as he could; and further, that the obtaining by large speculators of land in great areas has proved and is baneful to New Zealand in general, and to the Provincial District of Auckland in particular, and has retarded and is retarding the progress of settlement there, and that therefore these persons engaged in such transactions are a curse to the Colony; and the said George Jones further saith that it was for the public benefit that the said matters charged in the said alleged libel should be published as aforesaid, and that the particular facts, by reason whereof it was for the pnblic benefit that the said alleged libel should be published, were and are : (L) That the pnblic at large and the members of the General Assembly of New Zealand might have their attention more fully drawn to the pernicious nature of the said measure, and the facilities which it offered, not to the liona fide settler, but to the speculative capitalist, for the acquisition of large areas of Native land, to the great detriment of this Colony. (2.) That for more than 20 years the Native race have always watched with great jealousy and suspicion all the measures of Parliament and Orders in Council which in any way affected their tends or the titles thereto ; that Maori wars and difficulties have originated out of this feeling on their part as to their lands not being sufficiently giiarded by the various Governments of the Colony; and that the Natives all over the North Island were thoroughly alarmed and enraged at the ide& of the proposed Bill becoming law; and that the probability was very great, if snch Bill did become law, that the Colony would have been involved in a great Maori war; and, therefore, that anything likely to show the real nature of the Bill and intention of its promoter, would be also likely to retard its progress and preserve the peace of the country. (3.) That it was for the public good that the acts and intentions of the great public and political officer, the Attorney-General, so far as dealings in land were concernedj shonldbe fully known, especially as he was introducing and supporting strenuously a Native Lands Court Bill, and by it seeking to alter very materially the whole law rolaling to Native lands.

(4). That it was most important for the public and the Parliament to know that the Attorney-General while introducing the said Bill, was in reality introducing a measure which would most materially damage and in jure a very greit number of the CJueen't subjects—to wit, the Native owners of land—and which would be used to his own benefit, and it was right and proper that the attention of all people in the Colony should be called to this fact. That it was expedient that the members of the Houses of Parliament and the public generally should be made aware of the manner in which the said Frederick Whitaker had dealt with Native lands, and to show that re presentations made by him with regard to the said Bill sbonld be regarded with suspicion, and to show from what had been done and attempted to be done previously to restrictions being placed upon dealings with the Natives wbat' might again take place had those restrictions been again removed. That it was expedient and proper, and in the interests of the public generally, and for the dignity of the Crown and for the honour of and conducive to the good fame of the Houses of Parliament, and to the future good government of the people, that the purport, intention, anil powers of the -■aid Bill be rigidly and strictly exsmined, and r.hat the motives and purposes of the said Frederick Whitaker, its introducer and chief promotsr, so far as the said motives and purtmsea might be carried cut if the said Bill be came laws should be widely and publicly known, whereby and by reason thereof all and everything the said alleged defamatory matters so oleaded to in this plea should be published, and this the said George Jones is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays judgment, and that by "die Court here he may be dismissed and dis charged from the said praraises in the indictment above specified.

Mr Haggitt : I am not in a position to say what I shall do with retjerd to the plea, your Honor, at present. I have not followed my learned friend through it—that was mposaible ; but I am disposed to think it is is'opon to objection as the one that I •bjreted to previously, and I think I shall lave to adopt the same course again. It seems to roe to libel everybody aU round, ind not to confine itself to the particular transactions complained of with regard to Mr Whitaker. t>o far as I could catch it as my learnod friend was reading, it accuses the whole Ministry with corruption, charges Dr Pollen directly with fraud and improper dealing in the execution of his office, and at the same time does not eo on to show that Mr Whitaker was at the time there stated connected with the Government in any shape or way whatever. His Honor : lam of course in the same position as you. I have not followed it very closely. You would perhaps like time to consider ?

Mr Haggitt: I could not undertake at a moment's nctice to say what course I would adopt. His Honor: It is quite impossible you should. How long do you wish to consider it ? Yon ought to take plenty of time ; it is not a matter that should be hurried through. Mv Haggitt: Supposing I was to decide to demur, when conld your Honor conveniently take the argument? Of course that wou d influence me a good deal. His Honor remarked that Mr Justica Johnston was expected to arrive in the evening, and that they had intended to take Banco business together on Thursday. Mr Haggitt: Will that affect the trial before the Jury ? His Honor :I do not think it will. You see yesterday morning he had made all arrangements to come down. It is possible he may take si-mecasesin Banco, in which you are not concerned, by himself. I think I should probably be prepared to take the argument to-morrow morning. Yon would sot of coone be ready tbv afterooop, »nd it would

be of no use adjoining the Court till 2 o'clock. It i» a matter whieh require* a good deal of looking up—it is far more important, and much more difficult, than the majority of the ca&es we have in Banco. Mr Haggitt: I should like, if possible, to be prepared ta go on with the jury trial tomorrow morning ; but I do not know that I shall be able to do so, and to devote sufficient time to this demurrer, to be certain I have taken all the points of objection it is open to. Hla Honor: Mr Justice Johnston and myself h*d arranged to take business in Banco to-morrow. Ido not know whether it would be competent under any procedure to be taken in Banco, or whether the argument of the demurrer conld be remanded from Nisi Print to Banco.

Mr Haggitt: Still, your Honor, there conld be no objection to Mr JubMco Johnston sitting in Court and hearing the argument, although your Honor is only acting alone. I should have no objection to ibi being argued in Banco.

His Honor : Argued before two Judges. I see there is more difficulty in making out your oaae on the present plea than you had on the last one.

Mr Haggitt: Or rather the defendant would have.

His Honor : No. You would have more difficulty in upsetting thia. plea than you had in upsetting the last one. Mr JEtees : We are quite content with our chance of making it good. Mr Haggitt: A very remote chance, I think. I may have more difficulty, yonr Honor, but I do not think this Is a good plea. It seems to me, in the first place, the mere insertion in the indictment of an innuendo on these words here, " enriching himself at the expense of the Colony," does not justify my learned friends in setting out in their plea the whole of the transactions in which Mr Whitaker has been engsgod during the whole course of his residence in this Colony, commencing from 1845 onwards, and it seems to me that the allegations as to the reasons why the publication of the article was for the benefit of the public, fail entirely to show that it could be so. Upon these two grounds, I do not think I should have any more difficulty than with regard to the previous one. Certainly with regard to the particularity with which the facts are alleged, I do not think I shall have much ground to complain of that; if length means particularity there is leigth enough. However, as to that, I am not in a position to say at the present time ; but my intention is to s»y that the plea is bad npon this one ground •lone : Assuming everything Stated here is admitted to be true, still there must be a conviction on the indictment —it does not cover the indictment so fully as to entitle the defendant, on proof of everything contained in it, to be acquitted of the indictment ; —and tint is the test I submit. His Honor : Yea ; if it does not cover the indictment.

Mr Haggitt: If the Court looking at this say : Assuming all t<» be true, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted ; but if I can s»y, on the other hand, I admit all this to be true, yet still the indictment is not covered, then it is a bad plea. I presume that is the test ? His Honor: Yes.

Mr Haggitt: I should like a little time to look into it, your Honor; but my feeling at the present time is that I should demur to it. So far as any consent I can give to the matter is concerned, I shall not have the slightest objection to having the argument in Banco before both your Honors. Mr Rees : I am fully slive to *be importance of having two Judges to deal with the ca«e. It seems from what my learned friend now says he has no new points—they are simply the same points again which have been argued. As to my learned friend's supposition that these are all the cases Mr Whitaker has been concerned in, he is far mistaken; they are just typical cases to justify the libel. Of course the plea must stand or fall as it is.

His Honor : There is power for amending merely formal defects ' Mr Rees : Yes ; but I mean the gist and substance. Mr Hislop and myself have gone carefully through it, and I submit that it covers the whole of the allegations. If it could be found by a Jury to be a fair defence to the libel, it "ought to go to the Jury for them to decide. I trust my learned friend, unless he has some new points to be met, will go on with the argument at once. In nature it is the same as the other plea. The only thing is, that, it sets out with absolute particularity the facts, and the gronnds are given more distinctly why its publication was for the benefit of the public, and the whole article is absolutely in its own terms justified. Mr Haggitt: It also involves this consideration, whether because Mr Whitaker complains of a libel upon him, the whole of the land transactioas are to form the subject of a minute enquiry in this Court—as to whether they are justifiable transactions. I think that must be contrary to all rules of pleading, and the practice of the Court. His Honor : Unless you have brought it yourself by the interpretation you have put upon the libel. Mr Haggitt: The only passage that cen suggest such an interpretation Mr Rees : Are we to argue it now ? His Honor : > r o ; I think it is undesirable now to go into the question. Mr Haggitt: Your Honor his already expressed an ex judicial opinion. I wooM ask your Honor to consider this, that as the libel is confined altogether to Native lands the innuendo explaining it must also be taken to be confined to Native lands.

His Honor : I expressed my opinion in or der that it might sscist the f ramers of the plsa and yourself if you choose to demur to the plea. In what time would you like an adjournment! Mr Haggitt said he would be prepared to go on with the ca*c on Thursday morning, and in the meantime would let the c-unscl for the defence know whether or not he would enter a demurrer t> the plea. He thought it most probable he should adopt that course.

His Honor: As to its being argued in Banco before two Judges, I think it is very desirable to have two minds on a question of the kind.

Mr Haggitt: lam quite agreeable.

Mr Rees : Ido not object. His Honor: "Very well, if it suits Mr Johnston's convenience, I will suggest that to him.

The Court adjourned at 10.45 until 10 a m. to-day.

Thursdat, 14th Mxncn. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

THE OAMAItU MAIL LIBEL CASE. His Honor took his seat at 10 o'clock. Mr Haggitt, the counsel far the prosecution, said that he had conridered the defendant's plea, and had determined to demur to it. Mr Rees, who appeared with Mr Hislop for the defendant, joined in the demurrer. His Honor: Yesterday I stated I would consult Mr Justice Johnston's convenience as to whether he would be prepared to sit with me in the argument of the demurrer, and he is prepared to do so if the parties consider it desirable. The principal reason for this is that if two Judges sit together, there is a greater probability of our being able to go on with the trial of the facts. Mr Haggitt.: As I said yesterday, I have not the slishtest objection. Mr Rees: We have no objection at all. We are pleased to hare the assistance of two Judges. flu Honor; Then I think the war weald be

to appoint a sitting ia Banco at 10.30, and to adjourn the Ni9i Frina Court till 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. The Court was adjourned accordingly. (Before their Honors Mr Justice Johnston and Mr Justice Williams.) ARGUMENT OF DBMURRER.

The argument of the demurrer raised to the defendant's second plea of justification, in the libel case of George Jones, jun., was heard in Banco before two Judges. Mr Hagsitt appeared to support the demnrrer, and Messrs Kees and Hislop for the plea. Mr Haggitt, in support of the demurrer, said that he conceived the plea to be bad on several grounds. The right 01 pleading justification to an indictment for libel was given under the Imperial Statute 6 and 7 Vic, chap. OS, An Act toamendthe Lawrespecting Defamatory Word* and Libel. That Act was introduced into the Colony by an Ordinance of the Legislative Council passed in the year 1845, session 5, No. .8. Under the section referred to it was provided—" That on the trial of any indictment or information for a defamatory libel, the defendant having pleaded such a plea as hereinafter mentioned, the truth of the matters charged may be inquired into, but shall not amount to a defence unless it is for the public benefit that the said matters charged should be published; and to entitle the defendant to jive evidence ef the truth of such matters charged, as a defence tosuch indictment or information, it shall be necessary for the defendant, in pleading to the said indictment or information, to allege the truth of the matters charged in the manner now required in pleading a justification to an action of dotarnation, and further to allege that it was for the public benefit that the said matters charged should be published, and the particular fact or facts by reason whereof it was for the public benefit the such matters charged should be published, to which plea the prosecutor shall be at liberty to reply generally." The defendant's second plea had been made under this statute, and the argument had arisen as to what was the meaning of the words, " in the manner now required in pleading justification for an action of defamation," but it had been decidedthat it meant the practice in England at that time. His Honor Justice Johnston assented.

Mr Haggitt cited "Starkie on SL»uder,"32Dd edition, p. 394, to show the mode of pleading at the time mentioned, and submitted that under the then existing rules of pleading it was not sufficient to allege inferences or facta, but the facta of the libel must be proved. From what little could be found in the books on this Bubject, he gathered that in all cases in which a general plea was allowed where the charge was not indictable, the plaintiff was entitled to the particulars of all the charges to be established ; and at the time to which the statute was direeted whan such a plea was admitted, everything required to be specially justified— Baron and Allan, 8 Jurist, N.S., 114. Justice Williams: Is not that case rather against you ! Does not one of the Judges say, before the Common Law Procedure Act, a general justification would be sufficient ? Justice Johnson: That must mean, by reason of this, that the justification enuld not have been more particular. Mr Htggitt: Precisely. Since the Common Law Procedure Act it had been held that a general plea of justification »ay be alleged, but where it was iudictable particulars must be given. In "Starkie on Slander," 393, it was laid down—" Thus where the defendant in the first instance charges the plaintiff with having feloniously stolen one kind of chattel, he cannot afterwards justify it by pleading that the defendant had actually been guilty of stealing a different one, and so, with regard to every circumstance at all material to the facts set up by way of justification in the plea, must be strictly conformable with the imputation charged in the declaration " —Hillsden and Mercer, Cro. J., 67C The grounds which he submitted in iuppert of the demurrer were as follows :—l. it does not, in the manner required in pleading justification to an order for slander or libel at the time of the passing of Statutes VI and VII Vic, set forth the facts by reason whereof the publication of the alleged libel was justifi. able. 2. That the plea introduces and attempts to put in issue matter not alleged in the indictment, noi necessary to be alleged in order to support the plea itself; and seeks to jnstify the libelcomplainedof in the indictment, by accusing Mr Whitaker —the person mentioned in the indictment —in general terms, of acting illegally and fraudulently in a number of land transac tions, some of which appear by the plea to have been connected with Native lands, whilst ethers are shown to be quite unconnected with Native lands ; and some transactions are not particularised with any reasonable degree of certainty ; whilst none of them are referred to in the article complained of. _ 3. That the plea does not cover the whole libel. -4. That the plea is inartificially pleaded, and is informal, uncertain, and argumentative. 5. That the plea does not get out any particular facts by reason whereof it was for_ the public benefit the article should be published. Hr Haggitt said it would perhaps be moro convenient he should take the objection to the third ground first —namely, that the plea did not cover the whole of the libel. He thought it was necessary that a plea to an indictment for a libel of this kind, setting out the article and placing particular meaningi to particular passage* by means of innuendoes, should cover not only the article itself but also the innuendoes. The plea, it would be seen, did not even profess to do this, but selected certain passages from the article which it sought to justify. His Honor Justice Johnßton: As I understand the construction of the pica it is this, as to so much of the libel as begins at the commencement of the article and goes down to the word speculators, you plead certain facts. Then as to the facts beginning with Moon's employment. The answer to th»t portion of the libel, and to the whole I may say, except as to the first part pleaded to, is—first, that the statements of fact about Moon and so forth, are true; and that the residuum after that statement of facts are justified by a set of facts relating to Moon and Brissenden's agency. Is not that so ? Mr Rees: Yes.

His Honor : Then it struck me in reading it that possibly the facts stated with respect to the first portion of the libel selected to be pleaded to, might also hare been introduced with regard to the residue of the libel, but they are not. Those facts are pleaded exclusively to the first portien of the libel. Mr Haggitt: They are; and your Honor will have noticed also that merely points of the libel are pleaded to, and that the innuendoes are not referred to at all.

His Honor: Then yon have to make out, in order to Bustain this objection, that the innueudos carry the suggestion of the meaning of the words of the lihel further than the justification wonld be an answer to it, because, if the innuendo is not larger than the libel, the fact of its not being pleaded in the very words of the innuendo need not signify. Mr Haggitt: What I submit is this : that the plea of justification is a plea of confession and avoidance. It must confess the whole and avoid the whole, as it is pleaded to the indictment.

Justice Williams : All it admits is the pub lished words.

Justice Johnston: Yes; but not that the matter published is libellous. The object of the innuendo is to point out to the defendant the meaniDg that you say. would naturally be attached to tne words he published under the circumstances, and the defendant has to meet it. Mr Haggitt: The plea of justification must cover the whole libel, innuendoes and aIL This plea does not profess to cover the innuendoes, and cannot be held to cover more than it professes to. Justice Johnston considered it would have been wrong to hare pleaded directly to the innuendos. The defendant might join Issue as to whether they were used in the sense indicnted, and it would be for the Jury to decide. What the defendant was pleading to might be only that portion which was alleged te be a libel, and which was charged in a particular way, and which the prosecution must make out to prove their case. Mr Haggitt said that a plea which was directed to only one part of the charge could not be extended to the whole. Therefore if the defendantsaid : Asto this part I plead so-and-so, aad to the other so-and-so, but left part uncovered, the plea was bad. In support of this contention Mr Haggitt refened to a form of pleading laid down Is Bull and Lock, page Ith

His Honor said he did not say the form would not be a good one, but was it exclusive ? Mr Haggitt: The first part of the libel, to the words "land speculater" contained two charges—the first, that the Bill was actually intended as an instrument to enable certain

Auckland speculators to work another swindle; and the other charge, that the correct designation of the Bill was a Bill to enrich at the axpense of the Colony the Attorney-General and his friends. To the first charge the justification

pleaded was, that the Bill would havs afforded to speculators and capitalists great facilities for acquiring land, and that the Auckland Land Speculating King, with the knowledge and consent of Mr Whitaker, intended if the BUI

passed to take advantage of its provisions to acquire, by unfair or other means, large tracts of land; and it further charged that the Bill was drawn for the purpose of enabling such speculators to carry out their intentions aforesaid. He would submit that this was not the way in which a charge of kind could be justified. It could only be justified by setting out the facts, whereas it was attempted to be done here by making assertions. There were no facts at all. The plea should have shown how the Bill would have afforded speculators and capitalists means of acquiring lands in an unfair manner. It was not for the plea to make assertions, and the assertions made in it were altogether incapable of proof. There was nothing they could take issue on in this plea, as they had nothing to deny but bare assertions. Within the meaning of the rule the provisions of the Bill ought to have been stated, and how they would have afforded unfair means to capitalists of acquiring Native lands. Another objection to the plea was, that the statements were purely argumentative, and indeed it looked more like a selection from an intended speech than a pleading of facts, showing how the swindle could have occurred if the Aot had passed. Nothing appeared about the Bill but abuse of it. Justice Johnston said he knew nothing about the Native Lands Bill referred to, and, as it was not passed, he could not take judicial notice of it. He supposed it was intended to give some sort of priority to persons in the position of the one accused in the libel.

Mr Haggitt next referred to the statement that the accused was " connected with certain persons in business, sometimes called the Auckland Land Speculating Ring." He would ask, how could that be met ? The plea should hare get out the names of these persons, and the statement that it was their intention to do certain things was quite incapable of proof, and could not be used as a justification, .Following on the tame paragraph was the statement that these persons, if the Bill passed, intended to take advantage of its provisions to acquire land by unfair or other means. It was difficult to understand how, if the Bill passed and became law, they could have done this by unfair means, because it would have been legal. Justice Williams : It depends upon what the terms of the Bill are.

Mr Haggitt: If they were to meet such a charge they were certainly entitled to know the names of the persons who were called this ring, so that they might call them and disprove their connection with them.

Justice Johnston: But they say you know best

Mr Haggitt contended that the plea must •how that there were provisions in the Bill which would enable lands to be taken up, and that there were lands which could be so taken up. The whole meaniDg of the article and of the innuendoes placed upon it clearly went to show that nothing but Native lands were referred to, and therefore it was not competent to refer to the whole ot the land speculations which Mr Whitaker had been engaged in since his arrival in the Colony. The point of the libel, as indicated by the innuendoes, is tbatthe Attorney-General and hi« colleagues had been enriched at the expense of the Colony by means of these speculations, and the justification was that the prosecutor had entered into laud speculations of a different kind, and did not at all justify what the libel charged. On the fourth ground—that the plea was inartificially pleaded, informal, and argumentative—he submitted that the latter part of the plea did not set out any facts or circumstances whatever, although it purported to be an account of the circumstance! that gave birth to the Native Lands Bill. The assertions were uncertain, incapable of proof, and merely matters cf opinion. By the strict nil* of pleadiug matters of this kind could not be inserted. The plea should consist of matters of fact only, and mat- ■ ters of argument, and such statements as could not be met by truth were inadmissible. On the fifth ground of objection—that the plea did not set cut any particular tacts, by reason whereof it was for the publie benefit, that the matters charged in the article should be published—he submitted that a reference to the sixth section of the Act would show that the.plea of justification not only required to allege as true the matters charged in the manner now required in an action for slander or libeL In order to make the plea good, it must prove the truth of the matter, next allege that it was for the public benefit it should be published, and how it was and why it was for th<! public benefit. How could issues be raised en such a plea as this—" That the Native race for the last twenty years had always watched with great jealousy the proceedings of Parliament," Ac, and the direction of the Jury would have to go the length that the fact« stated in the plea must be found. Hs submitted that all the statements in this portion of the plea were argumentative, and were not facts capable of proof. The same objection was also urged to the portion of the plea pleaded in justification of the publication of the libel. The framer of these facts or arguments seemed to have gone upon the assumption that the facts now alleged in the plea were contained in the aiticle, but moot of these things were not contained in the article at all, and therefore the reasons alleged did not apply, as, for instance, the allegation " that it was for the good of the public that the acts and intentions of the great public and political officer —the Attorney General —so f.»r as his dealing* in land were concerned, should be fully known," &c Justice Johnston : Yes ; it sounds a little like a portion of a speech or au address intended for the Jury. Mr Haggitt: Yes ; that is how I characterise the whole plea. I submit, on the whole five Coints the objections I have taken to this plea y way of demurrerare good, xnd that the Crown is entitled to succeed.

Mr Rees, in support of the plea, submitted that a number of the points taken came under the general objection of imirtificiality or want of precision of the plea, which he would submit to the Court would not be a ground for demurrer. The objection might be a ground for special demurrer, but under the old practice special demurrer was not providod, and he would submit that no special demurrer was preserved under the dicta of the Judges, as % defence pleadable upon the Common Law Procedure Act.

Justice William?: There was no apecial demurrer in criminal cases, was there ? You could ilemur to an indictment on a question of form of general demurrer, on a matter which in civil action would have been by special demurrer. Mr Keee said that was what he meant to convey. That a general demurrer might havo laid, but that an amendment would hardly have been grounds fur a demurrer. He would shortly touch upon the argument used on behalf of the Urown. In relation to the firit point, he contended that the facts set out in the plea were amply sufficient to justify the whole libel. It was not necessary that every part of the libel be justified, if the whole gist and substance of it be justified. If the plea professed to justify the whole and only justified, a part, of course it was bad ; but if the gist of the libel and all its main parts be justified, no exception could be taken to the non-justification of minor matters, '''he whole article was sot out in the declaration as a libel. His - learned friend had had some little difficulty in deciding what was the libel and what was not, and had put in the whole article as a libel. He would submit that there could be no doubt that the prefatory statement, before the narration of the circumstances contained the libel, and if they could be justified the rest of the article might be left out ) but unless they could be justified the article was libellous. The meaning of these statements was that the aaid Frederick Whi taker and friends had fraudulently and dishonestly entered into contract* to enrich them, wires st tbe expense of the Colony,

Jnstioe.WilHama thought that the sting of the libel came afterwards, as it drew particular attention that the Bill was intended to enable them

to carry out certain transactions, the particulars of which were given. Mr Reei said that the article did not set out that Mr Whitaker would go beyond the law in attempting to get the Bill passed, or that he was going beyond morality. Every legislator had a right to attempt to pass a law if in his opinion it was for the benefit of the community. Justice Johnston: Even though it benefited himself ?

Mr Rees: Tee. I do not think that is libellous. To the statement of facts giving the history of the transaction, the innuendo put to it was su;h, he believed, aa no jury would be allowed to find, and the innuendo did not need to be answered.

Justice Johnston said he had some difficulty in seeing that the averment " that Mr Whitaker, through an agent capable of doing any dirty business, made a propowl," meant that he employed such agent knowingly and dishonestly, and that he intended by him to carry out dishonourable transactions. It was not very clear to him whether this was not such a hypothetical meaning on the words that it could not be said to be a good innuendo. Mr Rees cited authorities in support of his contention that it was not necessary for them to answer the innuendo if it went outside the facts as stated in the alleged libel. The mat ters, he submitted, were set forth with sufficient particularity and distinctness. Mr Whitaker was charged in the plea _ with having been engaged in certain dishonest transactions with other people. There were five cases set out, and if they were proved, they would amply justify the article. In the plea there were documents set out, alleged to have been signed by Mr Whitaker, by whichhe ob tuned land contrary to law, and for his own and others' benefit. He was somewhat surprised at the statement of the other side that they must be restricted to Native lands, as neither a word of the alleged libel, nor the plea, referred exclusively to Native lands. The second objection was covered by the answer to the first. If the plea set out matters pertinent to the case, and alleged fraudulent transactions . in land, and they were admissible as points for the plea of justification, then the second objection would fail, because they wore not foreign matters introduced, but matters in issub between the parties. The fact that the time of the Court might be up was no argument. The Court would see that justice was done. It the matters were proved, and if their proof was for the benefit of the public, he would ask the Court if the mere fact of going back to any distance of time, or taking a wide range of subject*, was not justifiable? The Court would say, " You are bound to defend the charge. Your duty both to yourselves, the public, and the Court, which hj»» to administer justice, is, that you should give the reasons for who the charge was made." As for the third ground, he failed to perceive what part of the libel was not covered. The first and more serious of the allegations were covered by distinct charges which the defendant took the risk of proving, and then the truth of the whole narrative, and of the facts contained in the statement of the intentions of the person subject to the alleged libel, were justified by the ulea. It was impossible simply to state facts in the sense of something having been done and accomplished. Justice Johnston said that a state of mind, pain, joy, and grief were held to be facts. Mr Reessaid the facts in the last paragraph were facts in that sense, and could not be otherwise. They were not facts in tho sense of one man striking another, but must be inferred from the circumstances, and because certain thiugs were done or said. He considered the Bill should not be placed in the plea, although that had been contended to be one of its defects. If it was an evidentiary fact it would not have been proper to have pleaded it. Justice Johnston: It might have bean enough to have said that it gave powers for certain purposes. The other side say, you do not show how the Bill, if carried, would have produced these effects. Mr Rees: The Bill is not produced in the plea, bat the intention and effect, of tho measure are alluded to by the defendaut as entitling h'"m to speak of it in the way ha did. If the Bill would not have enabled Mr Whitaker to carry out his desires, that mii'ht have been his intention, and the article would still have been, justifiable.

His Honor: Y»u say that if the Bill had not been capable of carrying out the intention of Mr Whitaker, still that might have been its tneanin; and purpose ? Mr Rees : Yes. His Honor: That would have been an additional libel upon Mr Whitaker to say that he did not know how to draft a Bill to carry out Mr intentions. •

Mr Rees : The spirit of the Bill having been set out, it might well be ordered to be attached to the plea supposing the Court deem it neeessary that it should be on the record. His Honor: What do the prosecution say to that?

Mr Haggitt: The part of it you require would be quite sufficient. It would be too long to place the whole Bill on. We should never get through it.

Mr Roes :_ I'll take tint. Mr Haggitt: If you are asking tne to consent to that now, I must decline. Mr Rees: Why, it was absolutely stated in the House every facility and means should be given to have everything connected with the case thoroughly investigated.

Justice Johnston: Mr Whitaker has something to say to that, surely. Ido not know that he would be bound to take the instructions the House might cive him if it would affect his prosecution. Who is presenting the c«»se ? Mr Haggitt; I appear as Crown Piosecutor. His Honor : Yes ; but who was bound over ! Mr Haggitt said that the case had com* d«wn from Wellington. His Honor : Well, I suppose we need not take that up at present. I suppose if you regard that as objectionable, you will make up vour minrl whether you will or will not oppose it.

Mr Haggitt: I have made up my mind to oppose it, and to let the plea stand or fall as it

Mr Rees : Tlion I shall ask the Court, if necessary, on the exercise of its own powers to allow it. I believe the Court has such full power, providing it does not take the other side by surprise. Justice Johnston rema-k-jd that if the question came to be considered, Mr Rees would probably show some authority on the point, he (his Honor) was not aware of any. Mr Reef : The next point, that the plea is inartilieially pleaded, I shall not argue. The point does not appear to have much weight. His Honor said that the only question on that point was, if there had been a sufficient statement of facts on account of which it was for the benefit of the public the article should be published, as required within the meaning of the statuto. Mr Haggitt's contention, that it had been left for inference or argument, must be stvted by facts why tho publication was far the public benefit. Some libels were of such a character that their truth or falsehood must be of public importance. Mr Rees replied that the plea alleged distinctly and cateuorieally why the publication was for the benefit of the public, and all that was necessary wai for these facts to appear on the record for the Jury to consider. In concluding, he contended that it was not necessary for the text of the Act to be put in tho plea, and not even the substance of it. Mr Whitaker's actions and intentions with regard to it they must prove to be as alleged, in order to answer the declaration, as the libel was not on the Bill itself, but on Mr Whitaker's actions and intentions.

Mr Hsggitt replied, going t&e same ground as formerly, and maintaining that the innuendo to which exception had been taken was justified. As to the right to inquire into the case, he quite admitted the principle that, if necessary for the ends of justice, the time of the Court might be occupied for a week, or a month, or a year. The defendant was entitled to as much of the time of the Court «s was necessary, but it was the duty of the Court to see to it, and his duty to point out if the time of the Court was being unnecessarily takenup. He submitted that to inquire into transactions mentioned in the plea would be unnecessarily taking up the time of the Court, for there was no purpose to be serred by going into these matters, If the transactions set out in the plea were proved, sgll the Plain libel would remain

uncoTered, and it would, only b« proving incidental facts as it were, and not affecting the main question. Upon that ground he objected to so much prominence being given to them in the pleading, and asked tho Court to disallow there. So far an the other matters, to which his learned friend had referrod, were concerned, ho waj quite ready to leave his contention and his learned frieud's reply to the consideration of the Const;. Justice Johnston: The matters invoMJTd in this argument are so very important/ I do not think it would become ns, even if wo had made up our minds to a certain extent, to give our decision at once. They seem to mo worthy of consideration with some leisure, and we must not hurry the matter. I would just ask, what probably would be most convenient for all parties in regard to further proceeding in the case T

Mr Haggitt: If your Honor did deliver judgment to-morrow, I apprehend it would be pretty late in the day, and it would not be worth while bringing the Jury here. His Honor: I wanted to see whether this course would not meet all parties. This matter I will later have to look into, to read tho authorities, and to satisfy one's mind. Wo should be ready in all probability to deliver our judgment on the demurrer on Saturday morning. Even supposing the plea of justification should be disallowed, and the ense haR to go to the Jury, would it be convenient in such a case as that that the Jury should come on Saturday ? It struck me in all probability that we might take further time, even up to Monday morning, if necessary. How would this do—that Mr Justice Williams to-morrow should adjourn the Circuit Sitting till Monday morning, and that we should adjourn the sitting of the Court in Banco, for the purpose °f giving judgment at noon on Saturday ? Coui'sel on both sides concurred i» this sug« gestion, and the Court adjourned at 5.30 p.m.