THE POLITICAL LIBEL CASES. NEW AND IMPORTANT EVIDENCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2284, 9 December 1897, Page 24

THE POLITICAL LIBEL CASES. NEW AND IMPORTANT EVIDENCE.

QUITE ANOTHER VERDICT.

NOT LIBELLOUS, BUT FAIR COMMENT. (From Our Own Correspondent.)

Blenheim, November 30,

The libel case Mills v. the Chriatchurch Press was heard to-day iv the Supreme Court here. The same counsel appeared as iv the Oiago Daily Times case. A new jury, including only one of those empanelled in the Tim 33 case, trac chosen.

Mr Jellicoe briefly opened ths case and called no witnesses.

Sir R. Stout said he was not surprised at the attitude taken up by his learned friend. His client wanted money — he did not mind about hia character, — therefore Me Mills's couusel simply nude a speech, called no evidence, and left the case ia the hands of the jury. If Mr Mills had a character ta clear, why did he not step into the witness b?x and attempt to dear it?

The Registrar of the Supreme Courfc ab Blan-i heira was called^ and stated thjfcb the only writs issued by Mr 1 Mills were the two against the Times and Witness Company *ud the Fi'ess Company.

A. Rodgers, solicitor for Mr Mills in this &ctiju, said that of bts own knowledge he only knew of these two writs.

S. J. Furnesi, proprietor of the Marlborough Express and agent for the Press Association, said he saw Mr Mills about some newspaper comments about the shifting of Jeffries. He republished portion of the article published by the Mauawatu Standard. Mr Mills told witness the stateme its published ia that paper were untrue.

To Mr Jellicoe : Witness withdrew the stataments made in his paper and expressed regret.

A. Rodg«is recalled, said he had no iustrucliona to sue the Manawatu Standard.

• To Mr Jellicoe : Mr Mills had some delicacy in "going for" the Manawatu Sfc*ndird as Mr

Buick, who was interested in that paper, had been Mr Milli's opponent, and had only just left the district. Constable Jeffries gave evidence somewhat similar to that which he gave in the Times csae. H« Btiid in reference to the letter written by Mr Mills to the Hou. Mr Cirroll, that Mr Mills was making a charge against him which he (Mr Mills) knew at the time to bj groundless. In regard to the interview with Colonel Hums,

witness said the latter told hiui the reason of

his transfer was, because he interfered in the election. Colonel Hums took dowu the Police, Regulations aud read regulation 24 to him regarding political interference. Colonel Huma also read a circular from the Police G-tzjtbe to him regarding political interference by the

police, v Witoesi said that did not apply

to him in any way other than in re» gird to following out the instructions 1 ha had received about rectifying the electoral roll. Colonel Hum-J replied, •' You have beea

accused of haviug_ done^ so." Witnes3 said,, "I'm not-guilty of, it, aud I tru»t you'll do me, tb.s jostlca, pi having au inquiry into *it."| Colonel Hume said an, order had been issued! for his transfer, and he would have to go.'

Witness replied that he thought it very hard 1 that he' should be charged with an offence without having an opportunity of defending himself ; that even a criminal accused of an offence would have an opportunity of defending himself. Colonel Hutne V>ld witness he had had a very good spell at Picfcou, aud witness replied that he did not think he had. He had not beea there six years, aud other constables had not been shifted for 20 ye*rs. Colonel Hume said to him . something about disfranchising voters, and the man who would do that was a political danger. Witness w&s going to give some reply, aud Colonel Hume •aid, " That'll do ; that'll do," and witness then left the office.

Mr Jellicoe objected to witness giving evidence about a telegram he sent to Mr Card" stating that Mr Mills had cau j el his dismissal.

Witness said that when' he saw Mr Mills in Picton the latter denied that he was responsible for his transfer. Mr Mills said complaints had been made to him by the electors in Admiralty Bay that they had been disfranchised.

At this stage Sir R. Stoat asked Colonel Hume to produce the documents and petitions praying that Jeffries should not be removed. This was done, and saveral petitions signed by leading citizens, borough councillors, justices of the peace, and ex-justices.

Witness said Takska was a very extensive district, intersected by a river. It could not be worked properly by a foot constable. The constable who was there previously kept his own horse, and that witness could not afford to do. The Picton house was much better than the Takaka one. Hewould not take his family into the latter. The inspector of public works admitted the house was in disrepair, and made certain recommendations. Witness detailed the loss in his income through the change sf station. His loss would bi £66 14s a year. To do the work at Takaka a young and smart active man was required. They might put an old man there, but he would not do the work at all as it should be done.

To Mr Jellicoe : Witness considered he had been treated very unfairly. Witness grumbled at his shift to Wellington about seven years ago. He believed Mr Mills helped to get him shifted to Picton on that occasion. Mr Cadmau happened to bs in the police office when 15 or 20 of the tennis players trooped in to the verandah. Mr Cadman asked who they were, and witness told him. He believed that was mainly the reason why play on the tennis court in the police grounds was stopped. Mr Buick assisted in the matter. Witness had made some repairs to the hous9 at Picton. The Police department had sent out a circular that if renovating had lo be done the police had to do it at their own expense — a cheap way of getting their building* renovated. Witness told Mr Card, of Picton, before he (witness) went to Walliogfcon that he believed Mr Mills had exercised undue influence/ in getting him shifted. He balieved now it was becanse of Mr Mills that he had been removed. On the day witness went to Wellington ha did not arrange with Mr John YouDg, of Picton, to take a petition round about the transfer. Witness reiterated his statement about what Colonel Hume had told him, and also about taking down the regulations and reading regulation 24 to him. He believed Colonel Hume had personal ill-feeling against him. He felt that, but he could not assign any reason. He only felt he had ill-feeling against him. If Colonel Hume said he did not state that he urged political reasons for witness's transfer he would ba guilty of perjury. Witness had no doubt on that point in the slightest. If

Colonel Hume said that, he would be stating

Iwhat was untrue, either intentionally or otherwise, from aefective memory. At one time - Takakft was a mounted fetation. Colonel Hume

took the regulations down from a shelf on his right hand. Witness got a proper '• Irishman's rite "in being sent to Takaka. Witneis would not have minded Takak* if he had not had a large family. It was a responsibility, and .he hoped Mr Jellicoe troald some day realise it. — (Great laughter.)

Mr Jellicoe : You don't; want me to realise my family, do you ? — (Laughter.)

Witness : You may have to realise on them. — (Renewed laughter.)

To his Honor : The commissioner knew of the emoluments witness received from the Advances to Settlers and Public Trust departments which he received at Picton, but not at Takak».

Thomas Jeffries, farmer and brother of the last witness, g&ve evidence. Mr Mills, he said, told him that hit) brother had been working against him fMr Mills) during the last election. Hs promised witness that he would send a telegram to Wellington.

Sir R. Stout called A. W. Hogg, M.H.R., who did not appear. Ia reference to Mr Jellicoe's statement that Mr Hopghad not promised to come, Sir R Sfcoub »f=aid he felt that a reflection had been cast up?n hia word, so he now read a telegram from his partner in Wellington, to the effect that Mr Hogg had admitted to him in writing that he had proinUed to cooie.

Mr Jellicoe called rebutting evidence.- ' Colonel Hume give evidence regarding the Takaka station similar to what hs gave on the previous day. Jeffries was nob- disrated in goiug to Takika. He repeifced his' evidence regarding the transfer of Jrffriorf, which he said he recomtneu'led in May, 1896 " Ho denied the evidence given by Jeffries as to what he told the Utter in Wellington. No charge had been mado to witness's department about interference by Jrffvies in the e'eotious. He knew abou'j cjinplaints made to the Colonial Secretary's department about taking vote-d < ff the roll, but that had noHiing to do with the t-ansfer. Witness told Jeffries he was transferred from Picton because it was considered he had been there long enough. He told him also it wa* very unusual for constables to come and »9k why they ware removed. Jeffries said he understood he wm accused of interfering iv the late dec ion. Witness said, "Well, Constable J ffries, Pio'on's a small place. Da you tne&u to tell me you did nob talk about it?" He said, "Oh ye«, I talked about it, bub I took no pact iv it." Witue?s asked, 'Wh*t's thi* about some miv b:in^ struck off the roll," and ha replied, •' I only acted under instructions." Witness said, "Well, Constable Jeffries, I think you made two mistakes. I tbiuk you oughO to have voted, aud I dou't think you ought to have talked about it. I supposa you know the regulation agamsfc it P " and with that ho (Hume) got it \and read it to him. Jeffries then said, •' It's very unfair to punish me for what I didn't do, and I should like to have an inquiry." Witness replied, •' If you want an ioquiry you tuva been long enough in the service to know how to get ib." He s»id, " Well, I shall always think I was shifted on account of the pirb I .took in the election.' Witness replied, "You c»a. think what you, like." He'didvhotlike Jeffrie->'s style or nunner, a<; all. - ' To Sir R. Sboufc ; The transfer* generally 1 were talked over with the Minister before witness recommended theoi. Sometimes 1 the/ suggestion cam 1 ) from 111? Minister, not f com him (the cummissioner) , Ministers interfered in the transfers. In .the list submitted the Minister suggested a transfer from Ponsonby toFeatherston. Ports onby is a suburb of Auck-' land. Witness was very muuh aware of the fact that members of Parliament interfered and recommended tV»ns r ors. There was, therefore, considerable danger of policamen looking to members to secure them transfers. The petition produced referred t3 Jeffries'a removal on political grounds, and the Ministers' answer, written by witueffs, did not deny thi«. Witness did not receive any telegram from Mr Mills about the matter. Ha admitted that the matter of elections was discussed by him and Jeffries in Wellington. He also admitted showing Jeffries regulation 24. Ho also admitted showing him the circular. He did not tell him he was removed because of political grounds ; but he did not contradict Jefifries'a statement aJb the interview that he (Jeffries) should always believe he had bsen removed on political grounds.

To Mr Jellicoe : Witness always looked upon petitions as not worth the paper they were written on, but they sometimes frightened Ministers.

Mr Jellicoe proposed to put in the Hon. T. Thompson's evidence taken in Wellington.

Sir R. Stout objected. He said Mr Thompson was not his witness. His Honor told Mr Jellicoe that it did nob affect the value of the evidence to say whose witness Mr Thompson was. Mr Jallicoe said he could not understand why Sir R. Sfcoufc did not want himself associated with such evidence. Sir Robert : Bacausa I believe it is. not correct, if you wand to know why. The evidence was read. Sir R. Stout addressed the jury, commentiug on the f«Ci of the new and important evidence greatly to the advantage of the defeud ant which they had' managed to get in this cise. He also commeute -3 severely oa the fact that Mr Mills still refused to go into the witness box, and referred to the character aud standing of Jeffries, who had given hia evidence in such astraightforward m inner. Mr Thompson's and Coloael Hume's evidence must; be wiped oat altogether, because in the petition sent them there was » grave charge that Jeffries had been removed on grounds of strong political partisanship. They had the opportunity of denying that in their reply, and neither of them did it. Then the very fact that Colonel Hume took down the Gazette and read regulation 24 to Jeffries showed clearly that the latter had been charged with political interference, and strengthened Jeffrias's evidence regarding what Colonel Hutne told him. Then if he had been so charged, who bub Mr Mills would have made the charges ? Then the correspondence from Mr Mills re the electors of Admiralty Bay showed that Mr Mills had made a persistent effort to run Jeffries to earth.

Mr Jellicoa followed at some length. Ha stated that Jtffries's evidence regarding what took place ab the interview with Colonel Huma was not to be trusted, because he could not remember what took placa between him and Wilkie in Sir R. Stout's office.

Mr Jellicoe eoacluded'his address in reply at 5.30 p.m., when his Honor s»id he was perfectly certain be was not going on with the case that evening, and the court adjourned till 10.30 to-morrow. "*

THE SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. December 1. The libel case Mills v. Christchurch Press was resumed to-day. Mr Justice Edwards, in summing up, spoke for an hour and a-half. Referring to the new evideaca as ' to what took place ia Wellington between Jeffries and Colonel Hume (which evidence was not allowed in the Times case because of Mr Jellicoe's objection), his Honor

said that these two witnesses agreed in the main aa to what took place at the interview except in the material point as to whether Colonel Hume told Jeffries he was removed for political reason*. It was for the jury to say which was most likely to be stating what was true. Jeffries was evidently a man doing his best to give honest evidence, but he laboured under a very strong sense of grievance. He, however, appsared to be a very honest, respectable, straightforward man. Labouring under a grievance that he .was being removed in some way through his action ia connection with the rolls, it might; be easy for him to fall into the mistake of attributing Colonel Hume's first words as a reference fco his removal for peliticivl interference. Oa the other hand, (hay had to consider whether there w*s any reason for doubting Colonel Hume'd evidence. He was a Government servant, and in a sense he might have something at stake in the matter. Hs Honor did not say so, but probably thut was a suggestion that might be made to them. Certainly, if Colonol Hume did' open the ball by saying Jeffries had baea removed for political reasons he was a moat indiscreet commissioner of police. It was for the jury to say whether it was not very, improbable for'ihim to say this, and whether he had nob - acquired «uffi3teat s - knowledge and experience; of colonialpolitical " life to keep his tongue qaiit;> m a matter like that; even if . it \rora' true., As 'to' the question of fair comment!,' it must be- remembered that- Me Mills' was' 1 a public, man, and public men— and certainly member* of the Houso — must expscb and submit to criticism, and, he sh6uld-say,"evei to unfair criticism. However biting, however scathing, however v njusb were the deductions drawn frqm many facts, he should tay th»y were privileged regarding a member of the House in his c&picity as member of the House, if the basis of the criticism was trus. Bun there musfc be a bav^s for the criticism.. It w*s'f or the jury to say whether there was a basis for tha criticism in this case. If it could be proved that; Mr Mills was instrumental in removing Jeffries, even although his motived- might have been of the purest, then his Honor would say ho wjuM have to pat; up with tho 'criticism. His Honor referred to the Press as m very respectable and a very fide paper, and also comm anted ou the duty of newspaper proprietors, who, in their desire to do justice to tha interests of the public, were plaoed at a very great disadvantage in these matter?. There was something that apparently required inquiry, and if the press left it alone they nvghfi ba charged with being pusillanimous or afraid, or they could pul: it ia and take the consequences. Nevertheless, this was no auswer to the plaint ff's claim if the charge were nob true. If the defeudaubs hid paid a small sum iuto court and apologised, it could ba pleadad" in mitigation of damages. But they did not do that. They held their statements ware true, which would of course be aa aggravation ot the -libel. , \ The jury retired to consider their verdict afc 20 minutes to 12, and, after an hour's deliberation, they returned with a unanimous verdict; ia favour of the defendants.- The,, iiso.es »ub- - mitted to the jury and their answer* w.etfe~ »s follows— ' ■ 1 1. Is the article complained'" of 'libellous ?--• Aimwer: No.' . 1 2. Were the st<*^enieafcs of fact in \,he article true?— Answer : Yea, io substance.? • ,3. Was the laid article, in. so. far as jt does not consist of allegations of fact,- Fair comment upon the action ot ths plaintiff ? — Answer : Yes. 4. What damage*, if any, i( the plaintiff entitled to? — Answer: None. Ths Registrar aiked if the verdict was a unanimous verdict. The Foreman said it was. Judgment wad entered for the defendants, with co its according to so*le, subjscb to stay oE proceedings for seven days and thereafter till any motioa of which notioe is given ia the meanb'me is disposed of.

(Fboji Our Own Correspondent.)

Wellington, December 0.

The Otago D.uly Times Company hava given notica to move for a new trial in the Mills libel case. Mr Mills'* solicitors hare also given notice to move for a new trial in the case against the Christchurch Press. These applications will be heard before Me Justice Edwards and another Sqprema Court; judge, probiblysbe Chief Justioo, in Wellington. I understand th\t in the event of the two judges disagreeing the verdicts will stand good.