MR THOMAS LUTHER SHEPHERD. M.P.C., M.H.R

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3148, 9 March 1872, Page 3

MR THOMAS LUTHER SHEPHERD. M.P.C., M.H.R

' The Wakatip Mail gives the, following report of the case brought againsirifytf rSsepTef3. for using abusive language, mention of which has already been made in our telegraphic column :—• :/ .

Thomas L. Shepherd appeared to answer a an information laid under the 4th section of ' the Vagrant Act, in that lie did, in a public Vplace, to wit—in a public room of the ' Queen's Arms Hotel—make use of threaten- • ing, abusive, and insulting words towards James Richardson, by calling him a vile little liar, a little sweep, ad d black-i-guard, and a scoundrel, with an intent to ; provoke a breach, of the peace. Mr Turtpp.

■- appeared for the complainant; defendant pleaded for himself. James Richardson, Town Clerk and Photographer, deposed that he was in the large '•reading room of the Queen's Arms Hotel -pri the evening of Wednesday, the 20th 'ult.; and that he walked up from the door and seated himself at the table at the

upper end of the room, with some friends. He took lip the Cromwell Argns and began reading the Queenstown correspondent's , letter. He was asked to read it aloud, as 'it was the only copy in the room. Did not notice that the defendant was in the room at the time he began reading the article. His , >, attention was drawn to the fact when lie had jfpaartiLy, read it. Did not consider there was .-anything offensive in the letter that he read; : if the defendant had not been listening he a would not have heard it. The defendant ' came up -and said to him, " The man who writes for that paper is a liar; he writes lies." 'Said to Mr' Croft, who was near him, wonder who he( (the writer) is. Finished reading ttheletter aloud. .The defendant then came up randi-toobitlie pqper^romniinder witness's face, ; arid slappeUi it'down upda the table, saying, .to know who wrote this, you i l&tie>eweep'?—you wrote it, you little vileliar; ;ypu are in the habit of writing lies in this r A j«^peDC." IDo-ltlhim to prove that it was witness wh 6 wrote it. Defendant askeu him to deny it. , Replied, it had nothing to do with either of them who wrote for the paper. The ♦defendant then : said "you are a d-7—d {blackguard, sweep, liar," &c. Told him it vwas not gentlemanly language; to which'detfendant replied, "Whydotft you resent it then f Told him he was too big for \vitness to hit; this conduct was such as to induce witness to strike him; told him he (witness) would, take other means to repay him for ■what he had said. Never did anything to annoy .defendant, but knew he had a dislike to him (witness.) 350 defendant: Have also written for the JPress. Will not answer the question as to • whether 1 did, or did not, write the libel in question.' Am one of the correspondents of the Cromwell Argus. Will not swear whether I wrote, for the issue of 9th January last. My correspondence has been irregular., Do not know whether it will . cease after this letter. Give the editor of the paper both news and facts. :. Tite defendant here read out part of the better in question, .and it was afterwards read in full more than once. The following is the portion complained of:—"Another .strong supporter of Mr Macassey is your .member for the Dnnstan, who has, to all .•appearance, quite forgotten the energetic manner in which Mr Hallenstein worked to ■ -.secure his return for this constituency last year. Alas, for human ingratitude." ' Defendant: Did you not write this in ■ .January, " The honourable member for th Dunstan has again honoured us with his presence. I fear he will find mining agency scarcely so brisk as it was before his departure, now that we have two lawyers injthe place?" , 1 Witness : I decline to answer the question. Upon an appeal to the Bench the Court -ruled that the letter in question bore upon the letter now given in evidence, and need not be answered if the witness chose that course. '• To defendant: You said that I was a -liar before I got to the Hallenstein paragraph. Cannot tell whether you were excited at ■""'■ first, as my back was towards you. When you came up } thought you were going to ■strike me; you did not do so. Saw you afterwards at the bar door, talking with Webb and Cope. You went away. Cannot :- say whether you tried to avoid me ; passed you afterwards, and you went away again. Witaeua was again examined, at length,

about writing the articles, during which the defendant called the attention of the Court to the fact that witness was smiling and making signals to some one in Court, thus treating the Bench with contempt. Mr Beetham thought the defendant had better leave the matter in their hands ; the respect due to the Court would be sharply looked after.

To defendant: Have no« malicious feelings towards you. Have an instinctive dislike to you. My manner is the same to you as ever. May have laughed from my office door when you got the summons, but did not M'ave my hand contemptuously towards you. Have detailed everything except imitating your manner, which I cannot do.

During the above cross-examination much stress was laid, by the defendant, upon the libellous nature of the. article; but the Court said that for the present'tase it was a matter of indifference whether it was libellous or not. The defendant contended that the case hinged upon that point. C. J. Webb deposed he was in Eiehardt's room on the evening in question. (Witness then chiefly confirmed the evidence of plaintiff.) When at the bar. doorway, said to defendant—"You should not attack a man unless you know for certain that he wrote the letter." Defendant replied—" He knew he did, and that he was a d d little scoundrel, and had attempted to rob him of three months' rent." He was not so excited then. • ■ , ■ i ■ To defendant: Did not hear you say in the room, when you went up to plaintiff, "You scoundrel, you are not satisfied with writing a libel against me, but you must also insult me by reading it out here." You used the language stated. . Did not observe you avoid plaintiff, but you went away.

J. T. Crofts said he was also present, and confirmed the evidence of previous witnesses. Next day saw defendant in the store, and they had a rehearsal of the previous night's proceedings. Defendant said he would thrash Richardson, then plead justification, and be fined.

To defendant : You did not say you might have struck him, and be fined. You said you would thrash him. You said it was better as it was, and that you were glad you did not strike him. The room is a public one, fronting Marine Parade. You must have been excited to have acted so strangely. You must have had some cause, I think, to cause you to use the language you did. Did not hear you say " You scoundrel," &c.

J. M'Douall deposed : Asked the plaintiff to read out the. article in question, as ihere was only one paper in the room. (Witness also confirmed previous evidence in chief.)

To defendant: Plaintiff had his back to you. Every one in the room, if Kstening, could have heard the article read. You looked red enough in the face.- Cannot say whether yoii were excited. You were angry, apparently. You were sitting at the long table. It might have been ninesfeet, but cannot say exact distance. ■; ' '-.',

The defendant said he was sorry bhat, as a public man, he had been forced into Courtbut their Worships would, perhaps, bear in mind the fact that it was possible for the greatest ruffian in existence to force the highest in the land, into Court. He had himself been brought into that Court in the grossest manner possible, after having been insulted by the complainant in the most open way. For a long time past he had been attacked by the plaintiff in the columns of the Cromwell paper. He had made it a point to find out the writer, who was the complainant in this action. He (witness) had been continually, as an M.H.R., made a subject of ridicule; and the Court would observe that the complainant did not accept of the opportunity offered him to deny that he had written these libels about him. Complainant would, no doubt, have been only too glad to do so, had he been able, instead of sheltering himself behind a legal defence. Besides writing the article, the complainant had attemptedtogrossly insult him_ (jiaiiiobo} r 4>j--rrading4ir(nrVin~ar~rooni tilled with people, while he (Mr Shepherd) was present. He held a position in the Colony, and the complainant had attempted to bring into contempt that position. If their worships had any doubt about the law of libel, he would read to them one extract from " Addison on Torts." Ed. 1870. He himself had been taught to hold the law in respect, and he believed he had always done so. The authority he was about to quote would show that a person in a private position could not be libelled with impunity, and he would also, point out that the libel would" be much, more felt by a person in a public position. (Quotation read to above effect.) The provocation he had received was so great, so gross, and so insulting, that he would have been quite justified, under the circumstances, iHie had retaliated upon the plaintiff's person. He had not done so. The plaintiff seemed to have an instinctive dislike to truth and justice. The letter contained libels ten times worse than those against himself j though even these would have cost the paper several thousands of pounds if they had been proceeded upon, or if the paper was worth it. He considered that the letter, besides insnlthig himself, insulted also a whole religious body, and Mr Macassey, who held a colonial reputation. "'. lf' .-... :.■•' '-■. '■■> *:■'-■■ ■■ .■■ -'■'"'

Mr Beetham.: Great latitude is allowed a defendant; but we must confine ourselves to the case| otherwise we will be getting into too deep Water. " '. .' "

The defendant woxild excuse himself, and | state, as their Worships perhaps knew, that a person often found himself more anxious to defend an absent friend with warmth, when he was attacked as in this letter,, suck as Mr Macassey had been. The complainant, after all these gross tin justified insults,, had the audacity to go into the box and say he did not consider such letters offensive. One | good thing woull follow this exposure— the public would from this time forth know I who was the author of these disgraceful mid libellous letters. He would leave his case in their Worships', hauds, and ask if he had not received unmerited, provocation. " After a short retirement, Mr Beetham said the Bench had come to the decision to dismiss the'information. Although they. at. the sairie time, considered thatthetreading of the article was calculated to give considerable provocation, yet they regretted that Mr Shepherd had used language of such a strong nature as he had done. The reading of the article in a public room was, perhaps, quite as insulting as defendant's language.—Case dismissed.