CURIOUS LIBEL CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 664, 20 August 1864, Page 20

CURIOUS LIBEL CASE.

(From the Oamaru Times )

F. H. Armstrong was cha ged on remand*, wi'h publi hing three defain libels of and concerning »ob=rt Bullen, Sergeant cf Police, stationed at Oamaru.

Mr Julius, who conf'uctfd the pro-rcution, introduced the eas*" by rtad'ngtbe klluwing letter, written by dpferHa'-.f. and fir warded to Hia Hosor the Suoprintend"nt of tlm Piovincs : — " To the Hodorable ( John Hyde Harris, Superintendent of Otigo

" Sm— l beg to ad'lres3 you for the purpose of" nr'king threß distinct chirges against sergeant Bullen, if the Police Kotc lieie^. " i chargi' WergtMiit Hullen with having, wLeoromin^ down to aimm by the steamer Geelong, to takechnrg* cf this statvm, aid then dressed in. colored c'oMws. taken jtveut liberties with a poor gir 1 , a stronger, pa.s'-euge", whom he took into tbe cabin, nnd treated to hot brandy. Hie was protected from him by the interference of thi Key* Mr M'Naught-M), who acted upon an application ma'ie to him by several of tbe cabin pvo-engers.

" I rlnrg? him with sht-lt riug from punishment a woman who was charged with robbery. On the 1 5th nf January last, he threatened the mai that was robbed before going idfo Court, with damages if hft f.iiled, and in Court did not \> nnit him to give bis evidence freely, and surrounded as lip wa3 with witnesses, he never calledt one. No clearer case of circumstantial evidence was ever p' evented to a jury. The Magistrate would undoubtedly have committed her far trial had the Sergeant done his duty.

" And I charge him with wantonly and maliciously, on the evenipg of the 24th February, breaking the door of the store of Mr H. France, without any authority, and in defiance of all law. " I submit these three charges for your consideration, and have the honor to be, " You r most obedt. servant " Francis Hbnry Armbtrono.

" Oaraaru, 2nd February, 1864." These chargi b Mr Julius said he should be able to shew were wholly without foundation, and were pu r ely the result of malice The following cvi ence for the prosecution was thea adduced :—

Henry France identified the letter now produced, addressed to His Hoqt the Superintendent, to be in the handwriti <g of the accused*. Witne-s had Peen the same letter before, but it bad not been shown him by Armstrong

Constable Porter proved that he arrested the prisonpr on the 3r i inst. Was present when the letter prc'u.ed was shown to him by Constable Smith. The accused admitted ihe letter to be Ma hand \riting. fn cro's-examinntion bf defendant, witness said that he (defendant) distinctly said the letterwas his, ann added '• I don't deny it."

Alexander M Master deposed thai; he was one of the magistrates appointed to investigate the charces preferred against prosecutor. The inv.'S'igation took place so-nptime in the month of Februiry last, and w.s instituted inconsequence of a letter said to have been written by defendant, and f>r warded to the Superintendent. A. copyj of that letter formed the basis of cheir procc dings. Th« copy l*y on the table daring: the inquiry in th»! presence of the acati.ved. He (iiefeniant) endeavored to support the chergea contained in the t'osuinent. The letter now produced witn 88 believed to !>b the original of the copyreferrei to. The rssult arrived at on the ir.qu'ry was, that Armstrong had fail»d to establ'sh the charges made. Witness expl lined that one ot the charges contained in the letter waspot iKvesti»ated, as it had formed a su>J3Ctof inquiry in the Kesi'eut IViaeistrnte's Court. The op<nion arrived at with reference to the investigation was. that there wa<! no evidence to cup port the charges— not merely that they were not proveu.

Cross -examined : You stated that you had other witnesses fo support tha accusations, whom you were unable at the time to produce. You :isked for an adjournment, to enable you to bring f.irwarl thos? witnesses, which was refused, as the day of inquiry had been fixed specially to suit \our convenience.

By Mr Julius : The accused did not furnish a. list of the na lcs of the witnesses whom he wishedto call.

Sergeant Bullen deposed that he had seen the. document now produced. Th a . charges contained, in it were untru* in every particular. A copy of it had been forwarded by the Commissioner of" Polke to witness, about the middle of March last. This copy was produced at the investigation that s ib'equently took place. The dooument was, to the best of hia belief a trus copy of the letter now before the Court The accused was present at the investigation, and prosecuted two> of the charges. P. M. Pavne, landlord of the Star and Garter Hotel, proved that defendant boarded at Iris hiuse for a considerable time, and that duringhis stay in the boue he had heari him speak, about' prosecutor. Had heord him say that Bullen was a " peacock" and a " carrion," and. j also innke remarks to the effect that he (prosecutor) did not know his own plice, or words tc^ that effect, Armstrong stayed with witness during the month of February. He (witness) recollected n case before^the Magistrate's Court in which Bullen wbs implfeated. The observations above referred to had been made previous to that case. Witness know it to be so because at the lime when the case came on defendant had left hia house. He first came to live with witness about Christmas, and he must have lived in the house for some considerable time before witness heard him make the remarks about prosecutor. Eemembers having heard Armstrong a r y that be would bring the charges against p:oseoutor, and the remarks alluded to. must have been made previous to that threat, This having concluded the ca*e for the jiroaecution, the defendant, in answer to the Bench, said that he would reserve his defence. Pri&oner was then fully committed to take his trial before ihe ensuing sitting of the Supreme Court ; but was in the meantime liberated on bail, himself in 180, and two sureties of L4O eaoh.