SEDDON-TAYLOR SLANDER CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2649, 21 December 1904, Page 13

SEDDON-TAYLOR SLANDER CASE.

CLAIM FOR £1000 DAMAGES.

A DARING DEFENCE.

THE OPENING OF THE CASE.

(BT OtJB SPECIAL RErOETEK.) CHRISTCHURCH, December 13. Intense interest is taken in the slander case Captain. Seddon (a son of the Premier) v. T. E. Taylor, senior member for Christchurch, which opened in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Denniston antl a special jury. The court was crowded throughout the day. The claim is for £1000, for defamation of character, and costs of the action. Dr Findlay (of Wellington), with Mr T. W. Stringer. (of Christchurch),- appeared for' the • plaintiff, Richard .John ■ Spottiswood Seddon, of Wellington, and the defendant, Thomas Edward Taylor,' who- is described | as a land agent, conducted his defence himself. -The special jury of 12 was sworn in ■without a challenge from either side. STATEMENT OP CLAIM. The statement of claim by plaintiff is as follows: — -„ 1. He is a," captain" -of the New Zealand Militia, and in the employ of the Defence Department of the coJony of New Zealand. 2. From March 24, ISOO, until November ' 13, 1901, and from February. 1, 1902, until ! May 28, 1902, he was on military service j in the Boer war in South Africa, and I throughout part of that time he held the commission of firsts lieutenant, and for the rest' of such time the commission of capfcain, and was present in several engagements with the enemy. 3. On .October- 28,- 1903, the .defendant, being a member of the- House of Representatives of the^colocy of New Zealand, made \ a spech •in the said House, in the course of which he ueed the -following 'words, or words to the like eFect:— "I will put on record the details of a martial court that was not held in this country, but was held by some Imperial officers unon a New Zea- - land officer." 4. Oh or about October 29 of the' said month, at Wellington, the defendant, being asked by John Duthie, of Wellington, merchant, A. I/. Herdman, of- Wellington, solicitor, and George Laurenson, of Lyttelton, merchant, respectively, to whom he referred in that portio.i of his speech quoted in' Ufce last preceding- paragraph hereof, replied : ** Captain Seddon " (meaning the plaintiff). "He" (meaning the^ plaintiff) -"ran away and left his,- men; and was eourt-martiallcd for it. He " (meaning the plaintiff) " was court-martialled -and 'cent home before his time wasjup." - - - \ 5. The -'words set out in the last preceding paragraph, hereof- were spoken and published by - the . defendant falsely and ! maliciously, - and of and -concerning the I plaintiff in his calling "or profession as a i military officer. - • 6. The defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of and concerning the plaintiff, in his calling or profession as a military officer, the following words : — "Captain Seddon ran away and left his men. - He was court-martialled for it." " Captain Seddon. was court-martialled while I on service in South, 7 Africa." "'He was' court-martialled and sent home before his ! time." 7. The words set out in the last preceding paragraph hereof were epoken by the defendant to "the said" John Duthie, A. L. Herdman, and , George Laurenson, on or about October 29, at Wellington, and again to the siad George. Laurenson in the months of October, November, and- December, at Lyttelton, and also at Christchurch. 8. The defendant - falsely and maliciously 6poke and published ,of and "concerning" theplaintiff, in his calling or profession of , a military officer, the - following "words : — " 1 believe Captain Seddon ran. away and, left his men/ and was court-martiaUed for it."9. The words set out in the last preceding paragraph hereof were spoken by the defendant to one Roland Spencer, of Christchurch, clerk, at Christchurch, in the month of February, 1904. 10. The words set out in paragraphs (4), (6), and (6) hereof meant, and were intended by the defendant to mean, that the plaintiff, -as' a military officer, had been guilty of such cowardice as to cause him to "be courtmartialled, and proved him unfit to act or hold a commission as a military officer, and that he had been guilty of 'a grave and disgraceful p'ff-enee against military law and discipline, '--whereby the defendant has been, greatly injured in his credit and reputation and in his profession as a military officer and as a servant of the Defence Department of the colony of New Zealand. The plaintiff claims: (1) £1000 damages, CA ' special -damages, and (3) the costs of this action. STATEMENT OF DEFENCE. The defendant, by his solicitor (Thomas Gregory- Russell), says:—1. He denies thai the plaintiff is a captain of the New Zealand Militia, or that he is in the service of the colony of New Zealand. 2. He denies that from March 24, 1900, unfcil Jfovember 13, 1901, or from February, 1902, until May; 28, 1902, or between any other date', he (the plaintiff) was on mili- ", tary service in the Boer war in South ] Africa, and that throughout part of that time he held the commission of first lieutenant, and for the rest of such time the commission of captain, and was present in several engagements with the enemy. 3. He admits that he is a member of the House of Representatives, but denies that on October 28, 1903, he made a speech in the said House in the course of wnioh he used the following words, or any other words of a like effect: — "I will put on record the details of a martial court that was not held in this country, but was held by sonic Imperial officers "upon a New Zealand officer." 4. He denies that on or about October 29, 1903, or any other day, he was asked by John Duthie (of Wellington, merchant), A. I/. Herdman (of Wellington, solicitor), Geo. Laurenson (of Lyttelton, merchant), respectively, or by any other person, to whom he referred in the portion of the speech alleged to have been made by him, quoted in the last preceding paragraph, and replied: "Captain Seddon. He ran away and left his men, and was court-martialled for jt anq sent home before his time was up," or any other words which could bear the same or a similar meaning. 5 He denies that on or about October 29, 1903, or at §Q£ fitter tiffigi fee spoke osjauk

lished to the said John Duthie, the sai3 A. L. Herdman, or the said Geo. Laurenson, ! or to one or other of them, the words following: — "Captain Seddon ran away and left his men." "He was court-martialled -for it." <r Captain Seddon was courtmartialled while on service in South Africa." "He was court-martialled, and sent home before his time," or any other words which could bear a similar meaning. ■ 6. He denies that he mentioned the words mentioned in the sixth paragraph of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim, or I any other words capable of the same meaning, -in the months of October, November, and December, at Lyttelton, to the said Geo. Laurenson, or at any other time or place. 7. He denies that at Christchurch in the month of November, 1904, or elsewhere, at any other time, he spoke and published the words to Roland Spencer, of Christchurch, clerk, in paragraph 8 of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim mentioned, or any other words of a similar meaning. And for a further defence the defendant says :

8. That Jie is a member of the House of Representatives, and as such was, in the month of October last year_, personally present in Wellington, attending there to his duties as such member of the House of Representatives, while the said House of Representatives was sitting.

9. That the persons whose names are mentioned in' paragraph 4 of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim — that is, the said John Duthie, A. L. Herdman, and George Laurenson — are also members of the said House of Representatives, and, if it. be proved that the said words, as set out in paragraph 4 of the said amended statement of claim, were used by the defendant (which , the defendant denies), then, and in such a case, the defendant says the words were spoken upon a privileged occasion, and without malice, and that the defendant had a common interest with the said John Duthie, A. L. Herdman, and the said George Laurenson — to wit, as a member of the House of Representatives, — in discussing with them, as fellow members of the said sHouse' of- Representatives, the' desirability or non-desirability of the Hon. the Premier - appointing to a prominent position in the service of the colony the plaintiff, who, the defendant believed, was an improper person to be so appointed, because of reports which were then, and had been, circulated in Wellington attributing that one Lieutenant Dillon and three troopers lost his and their lives through the -plaintiff, who was in military command of the said Lieutenant Dillon and the other men, deserting them in South Africa at a time when they were attacked by armed Boers during the Boer J war, and that defendant, if he used the , words, did so for the purpose of discussing j with other members of the Ho'usa" the de- | sirability, of preventing "th© appointments . 'being made. For a further defence the 1 defendant says: ".

10.' That if the words imputed to him in paragraph' 6 of the said amended statement of "claim were used (which the defendant denies), that they were spoken without malice and on a privileged occasion to persons whom he had a duty to communicate the same to — to wit, the said John Duthie, A. L. Herdman, and George Laurenson, as members of the said House of Representatives. For a further defence he says:

11. That jf it be proved that he used the said words (which he denies) imputed to | him in paragraph -8 of the said amended •! statement of claim, he said them without" malice, believing them to be true, and | by way of. fair comment upon the actions i of ja, public man. For a further defence the defendant says:

12. That if it bo proved that he used the said words (which he denies), that they are true in substance and in fact, and the defendant says that on or about June 1, 1901, the plaintiff, who for some time during the Boer war in Africa was in command of a body of mounted infantry, was ordered ,on or about the said Ist day of June, 1901, to reconnoitre with his troop a certain position. That when approaching a part. of the country where the enemy were supposed to be the plaintiff, as. commander -of the force then engaged in searching for tLo enemy, ordered 20 scouts, under the command of Lieutenant Dillon, to proceed in advance," and search for the enemy's forces; and that, obeying the orders of the plaintiff, the said Lieutenant Dillon and bis scouts proceeded in advance, and some time after came into touch with and were hotly engaged with the enemy. The said Lieutenant 'Dillon' couid^not withdraw his scouts, and sent messengers to the plaintiff, earnestly begging for assistance. The plaintiff refused to, send any assistance, and a very short, j;iirie afterwards ordered his troops to retire. The plaintiff thereupon, and the whole of his troops, galloped away some .three miles, and although'-there were two or --three' • positions which they could have easily held and defended, and so enabled^ the scouts to extricate themselves, they passed such positions at a gallop, and never halted until they were out of the range of the enemy's fire, and in absolute safety. By this desertion of his scouts the latter were unable to extricate themselves without loss, and as a consequence thereof the said Lieutenant Dillon was shot, and died soon after. Three other men were killed, and other mea were wounded. A military inquiry was held into the. circumstances of this case, the result of which the defendant does not know.

Dr Findlay, in opening the case for the. plaintiff, said that the slanders complained of were various. The first was that which, in connection with a subsequent statement, was issued or published in the House of Representatives in a speech made by Mr Taylor on the 28th October, 1903. His Honor: I don't think you are entitled to use the word "slander" in connection with a speech in the House. Is it not privileged? Dr Findlay said that it was alleged that the slander had been made in. the House and subsequently confirmed outside. In his speech in the House the defendant had threatened to put on record the details of a court-martial, not held in. New Zealand, but held by independent Imperial officers upon a New Zealand officer. The words the defendant used were "court-martial."

Mr Taylor asked if the exact words used in the House should not be quoted?

His Honor said that the words used in the declaration of claim were not " courtmartial" but "martial court."

Dr Findlay said that he intended to ask for leave to amend the statement. Ho would ask for leave at that stage. Mr Taylor objected to the amendment as the two terms were not of the same value. A " martial court " might mean a court of minor importance, whereas* a courtmartial would be a court set up with considerable formality. There were many kinds of military courts, but a court-martial was .the most iaODortant pf them all

33 is Honor said that, while recognising the difference in the two terms, he would allow the amendment. Of course, it would be open to subsequent objection. lixcept m cases where the effect oi the alteration was to make a material difference the court allowed an amendment so as to bring the facts before the jury.

1 Dr Findlay said that he would prove, by calling the reporter who had reported Mr

I Taylor's speech in the House, that tho 'words used had been "court-martial," end ! not, as appeared in Hansard, " martial I court." It would be shown that the defent dant had used the more serious words, and

had subsequently altered them for publica-

. tion in Hansard. He quite agreed with the • defendant that there was a marked differ-

ence in the weight of the words. " Court- ■ martial" had a well recognised meaning in j military circles, and to say that an officer | was court-martialled had a distinct mean- ; ing, while " martial court . left things ; vague and nebulous. It would be suggested j that the alteration by Mr Taylor was done , deliberately, and done because ho recognised j that what he had said in the House was j not true. The circumstances under which ; the speech was made and the context of 1 j the speech would show that it contained a } very grave charge indeed against some ] officer, and of such a grave character as to i demand a court-martial, and that the c!e- . tails of that court-martial were such as not only to disgrace the officer, but, as he would show," that the words of the speech were also a bitter "blow to all connected with the officer — details that were of such a

, nature as to rankle for many a long day ! in the mind of the father of that officer. [ The speech did not openly declare who the i officer was, but it did what it was intended

to do ; it hinted at his name, and aroused lon the part of those who heard or : read it the liveliest curiosity as to . the name of the culprit. Mr Taylor had 1 not long to wait for the inquiries that he had go adroitly &et on foot. He was asked by Messrs John Duthie, G. Laurenson, and A. L. Herdman to whom the

speech referred and to whom the aspersions related.. Mr Taylor told them that it referred to Captain Seddon. That statement was probably sufficient for the plaintiff's case, and was certainly enough for Mr Taylor's purpose. But he went on to make further statements, in which he alleged that Captain Seddon had run away, had left his men, and that he was court-martialled for it, the place and occasion being an engagement in the South African campaign. Mr Taylor had further stated that for his misconduct Captain Seddon was sent home before his time, it would be an inference the jury would be asked to draw from the statement made outside the House that Mr Taylor meant a certain man in his remarks inside the House, and that, subject to his Honor's ruling, amounted to slander. The slander was soon widespread, and Captain Sp-ddon found oub how swift are the wings of calumny. The plaintiff was confronted with the alternative of allowing his reputation as "a soldier to go through New Zealand, his native land, branded with the brand of cowardice, or to cut to the root of this defamation by calling on its author to retract and apologise. On December 21 a letter was written by Captain Seddon's solicitor to Mr Taylor, in which the attention of the last-named was called to the slanders to which he had referred. It was pointed out to Mr Taylor the incalculable injury these slanders would do, and Mr Taylor was asked to retract and apologise. There was no demand for any pecuniary compensation or payment of any kind. He was asked in a straightforward fashion to retract the calumny and express his regret. That application was treated with silent contempt. The next item in the unhappy business was something which appeared in a Christchuroh newspaper, in which Mr Taylor purported to state that he knew nothing of the case and that he was on good terms with Mr Seddon. This paragraph, when brought under the notice of Captain Seddon, naturally led him to think that his solicitor's letter had gone astray. A letter was written askingi for an apology end retraction, and enclosing the newspaper paragraph. An answer was leceiv-ed to this which was short if it was not sweet. The answer was this :

'" Bowron's Buildings, Manchester street, Christchurch 24th February, 1904. Messrs Findlay, Dalziel, and Company. Gentlemen, — I have a letter from you under date February 20 covering a newspaper cutting. The latter is ridiculously inaccurate, and was not written by me. — T. E. Taylor." This was the only communication Captain Seddon had received from Mr Taylor since the slanders were published. Whilst Mr Taylor did not answer letters, he persisted in circulating the slanders, and in February he approached a young man in Christchurch, and repeated the slanders to him, telling him that he believed~fnut Captain Seddon had run away, and that he left his men, and was sent home before his time, and the rest of it. Mr Spencer, who was a member of a South African contingent, told Mr Taylor then and there that the statements he was making were not true. Did Mr Taylor retract? Th«re was no retraction or apology.- Failing to get an. answer to his solicitor's letter, there remained two courses for Captain Seddon — either to suffer th© poisoned arrows of these slanders or take up arms and end them for all time. Captain Seddon had taken the action that all men took who had to defend their characters. He came then to the statement of claim, and would ask the jury to bear in mind that so far tha plaintiff had not rushed heedlessly into that litigation. He waited several months, and asked only a _ retraction and an expression of regret, which were not forthcoming, and so the action began. The statement of claim was short. It alleged that from the) 24th March, 1900, until the 13th November, 1901, and from Ist February, 1902, until 28th May, 1902, the plaintiff was on mili-

tarjr sorvioe in the Boer war in South Africa, and throughout part of that time he held the commission of first lieutenant and for the rest the commission of captain, and was present in several engage-

ments. Mr Taylor in his defenoe denied that on October 28, as was alleged, the speech he had referred to was made, and that on_ the 29th of the same month at Wellington Mr Taylor was asked by Mr John Duthie, Mr Herdman, and Mr Laurenson to whom that part of the speech

referred, and ho then said that it referred to the plaintiff. In addition to stating that he referred to Captain Seddon, Mr Taylor E laced it beyond all doubt, and declare^ > the same three gentlemen that Captain. Seddon had run away and left his men, that he wag court-martialled for it, and was seat home- before his time. Some time in the month of February Mr Taylor approached the young man Roland Spencer, with the object no doubt of getting him to support those charges. He then said to SnenceriJliJifilieYft Captain, Seddon jan

away and left his men, antl was rourtmartiallcd for it." He was told th-e>n tiiat tho statements were untiue, but 1 ad -siuce then persisted in them. It Wj s-uggo^Ud on behalf of the plaintiff that the uo.xU were- intended bj the defendant to mcau that the plaintift as a military officer Lad been guilty of such cowardice as to ciui^e him to be court-mart ialicd, and had pro\ed him unfit to hold a commission as a military officer, and that he had been guilty of a grave and disgraceful offence against military laws and discipline. He came then to the defence, and that defence lie thought he could show was one of the mcsl daring defences which had ever been placed before a jury in this country. He would not weary the jury by reading- all the denials. They were no doubt largely a pleader's denials, and he did not want to -make- any capital out of them. There was the denial that Captain Seddon was a captain at all. There was a denial that he served in South Africa, a denial that he made the speech in the House, that on the 29th October, 1903, he told the three members to whom he referred, and that he used the words which Mr Spencer would prove he used. The statement of defence, in fact, was a complete denial of the allegations in the statement of claim, and it would be the duty of the plaintiff to prove those allegations. What he wanted to impress upon the jury was that the case was not one in which Mr Taylor came before them and admitted that he published the words. His first- ground was a complete and absolute denial of the publication of any words mentioned at all. He might have stopped there, but he was not content with that, and went on to a further defence, and it was there that the defence became singularly interesting and daring. They would obsea-ve the gravity of the justification as contained in paragaph 8 of the statement of defence. So far as the justification really began the defendant said he was discussing with other members of the House th© impropriety of the suggested appointment, that an improper person was about to be appointed — someone to ' whose cowardice the deaths of an officer and Ihree troopers were due. That was a serious statement, and he would prove that it was absolutely and completely untrue, and that the suggestion of the conversation being upon a privileged occasion was utterly without foundation. Fust, it would be shown in answer to the defence that the discussion in the House was on Imprest Supply, and was not about an appointment at all. There was no appointment then, contemplated, for any appointment Captain Seddon occupied had been made months before. He could not reconcile Mr Taylor's defenoe that he had never published the statements at all with the defence that if he used the words the - occasion was a privileged one. The paragraph contained another defence. _. There were two aver> ments in that paragraph — one being that the defendant was not "affected by any bitterness or malice in making the statements, and it was part of the plaintiff's case to prove actual malice. In paragraph 11 the defendant said that if he used the words he had done so by way of fair comment upon the actions of a public man. That was a defence which would be open to Mr Taylor under certain circumstances, but he would submit that it was idle to talk about a young man who happened to be a captain of militia as being a public man. Mr Taylor might have, contented" himself with simply denying publication, or he could have said that he had used the words believing them to be true. If Mr Taylor did not use any of the wards complained of,* why did he go to the trouble of making the charge contained in paragraph 12, and of calling upon the plaintiff to defend himself from the imputation Hierein contained. When the jury came to deal with the question of motive they would, no doubt, draw their inferences from these facts. According to that paragraph Mr Taylor affirmed that Captain Seddon was a coward, that he had deserted his men, tnd that by such desertion several men lost their lives, others suffered wounds, and some were taken prisoners. Mr Taylor was not content with meeting the charges which were averred in the statement of claim. He had gone v further, and he said : "I will go further _ than justify the charges which are made in the statement of claim ; I will add to the ignominy of the plaintiff by saying that owing to his cowardice he was guilty of the death of those men." The charges in paragraph 12 were brutal and unpardonable beyond all expression. If such had happened, there would have been a court-martial, and a finding which the plaintiff would never have faced in the colony — at all events, to his dying day. He said, and he was going to prove it, that a more cruel tissue of monstrous falsehoods was never deliberately put on paper about a young man. Those were the charges which Mr Taylor brought against the plaintiff, and he would no doubt bring evidence to justify every sentence in that terrible indictment. It rested upon Mr Taylor to establish first the guilt of the man he "accused, and, therefore, he should begin. He (the speaker) had the right to wait until Mr Taylor had made out his indictment, and then to call his evidence. But he waived that right. He would begin, and would put in the box man after man, who would hurl back those charges upon the man who had made them.

Mr Taylor inquired whether Dr Findlay proposed to pass over proving that the statements alleged had been made by him and proceed straight to a discussion or the plea of justification. He might put through a large number of witnesses, and it might be a very clever ruse for forcing a nonsuit.

His Honor replied that what Dr Findlay meant was that, after establishing his prima facie case, he would proceed to meet the affirmative defence.

Mr Taylor: I just feared that this might be the means of overloading my witnesses.

Dr Findlay, continuing, said his point was to make it quite plain that he was not

thcie to perpetrate any clever uue. '.•«. >O got a lull and eoinpiote iii\oatigano'i iiit i the charges. Pn.cccJino, iV -said he nmlc.--took the burden of diopr^of. and the.i .revolved his opening tht> case >n sucii h

manner that tt-ey should have no manner of doubt as to what tobk place upon the occasion of the act of " cowardice " and " desertion." The jury were not there, he reminded them, to decide •whether on that occasion the military movements at Blesbokspruit were prudent or not. Captain Seddon, as the officer in command of the company, might or might not have acted with tho skill of a Kitchener. But between honest failure and craven flight lay all the difference of honoxir and disgrace. It was not necessary for his case that he should justify the military movements conducted by Captain Seddon that day. The question was whether he acted with cowardice. But he at least thought that he would be able to show, by the evidence, that Captain Soddoh acted that day with cool judgment and sound discretion in taking his men out of the difficulties in which they were .then placed. But, at anyrate, they were not there to judge as to the military skill of the movement, but to decide as to the question of character, and say whether, on that day at Blesbbkspruit, Captain Seddon fled before the Boor forces. To facilitate the jury in following his remarks, counsel produced a plan showing the part of the country where the engagement took place. The Seventh Contingent and a column under Colonel Grey and some other officers left Standei-ton some days before tho day in question, and, moving alongf the main road, they reached the town of Ermelo. From Erraelo a series of treks leas decided on for the purpose of dispersing the Boers and rollecting oattle and hones.

A night trek was made on May 26,' and a of the scours. The fcouis waited there further one on May 27. These were made haif an hour taking observations of the by the Seventh' Contingent and other mem- country, and trying to ascertain where the bers; forming- one column. Further treks cattle and horses were. Then they advanced were" mado on May 29 and May 30. On i over a ridge lying to the north. Captain the Afternoon of May 31 the column sighted Seddon and his party waited half an hour a Boer convoy. The advance guard, under 600 yards in the rear. Captain Whitely Captains Saxby, Cannon, and Beddcn, gave was then sent off to search the farm for chase, and the convoy made off. A storm tho cattle. At the end of half an hour came up. -' It was nearly midwinter, and Captain Seddon took the direction followed although^ those young men with the part by tho tcouts, and halted upon a rirlge of the Contingent succeeded which was higher than the surrounding capturing several prisoners and a number country and in a good position. He waited of cattle and horses, the impending storm until word was sent in by Lieutenant Dillon and growing darkness compelled them to that the cattle had been sighted, and askleave them and retire to the main front. In ing him to move on. Caplain Seddon thm that attack tho company .was led by Captain movod on in the direction in which ho Seddon, and he and tho members of the understood the scouts were, and wenl for column bore themselves well. The next day about a mile. Then he received word from Colonel Grey, commanding the column, told Lieutenant Billon that the scouts had beCaptain Seddon that he was 'to take 100 como engaged with the enemy, and wero ■men, leave Morgan-sen, and support 26 in a tight corner. Captain Seddon sent scouts whose duty it was to advance to the word at once to Lieutenant Dillon to retire farm where it was- supposed the cattle and upon his company. Captain Seddon then horses taken the day before might be found, advanced in command, and, after going Early on the morning of June 1 the scouts about a mile, sighted the main body of the set out,- not under instructions from Cap- , scouts two or three miles ahead. There tain Seddon, but under orders from the was a, dip between him and the scouts, who commanding officer, Colonel Grey. They were on the high ridge, and Captain Seddon were told to advance four or five milss to was able to see that trie road from the licigo the farm, and bring in the cattle if there, to his company was quite clear of interThe scouts were about 2000 yards in advance yening Bosrs. On hearing thai D:lkm \v?s of Captain Seddon's eonipanv. The advance in a tight corner Captain S-rddon and the was made in that order until the farm was other officers held a conferonce. and it reached. There Captain Seddon and his was decided that the sooats could ersily party found that the scouts had halted a and safely and quickly retire upon the little beyond the farm. Captain Seddon main 'body, and that Dillon should th?reand his party halted 600 yards in the rear . fore be asked la retire. A wiittcn order

was then made out by Captain Seddon and sent to Lieutenant Dillon. The words on the order were : " Retire to us quickly. We are not strong enough to come on. We have already gone further than we were 1 instructed to go.'" The instructions from Colonel Grey were not to advance beyond the farm. That party of 100 men were, said counsel, with no discredit to them, perfectly raw at the time. Up till then the Seventh Contingent had not really been under fire, and," further, the party had no guns. Their directions were not to reconnoitre, as Air Taylor had put it. They were simply a cattle-gathering party, and sent out for that purpose. Bearing all that in view, and also the fact that the scouts could retire easily and safely, Captain Seddon sent that message to Dillon. They would hear the views of the best officers who were engaged on that occasion, and they would say one and all that if Captain Soddon had advanced into tho country where the Boers were the casualties on his side would have been enormous. After the conference Captain Seddon and his party faced about, and saw the scouts beginning to retire through the dip which lay between the heights and the main body. Captains Seddon and Saxby and the other officers watched the retirement, galloping from the position on to the body placed to protect them. Captain Seddon placed 25 men under Captain Drnry on a height, ficm which they could fir-e completely over the heads of the scouts, and so protect/ ihem from a party of Boers who were coming down on them from the noi'th. About 200 Boers were advancing from various directions, mainly from the north, and another party of 50 was coming in to attempt to cut off the- whole body on Blcssbok .Vpru.it. In addition to the 25 men under Contain Drury, Captain Saxby had 16 men a little in the rear and on a vantage ground ; Captain Seddon and those watched the scouts retiring until they had almost arrived at the guard left to receive them. Captain Seddon then ordered Saxby to strengthen the rearguard, and added the 16 men under the latter, giving 41 m-en to cover tho retirement of the scouts. That retirement was so effectively and completely carried out that not one scout received a scratcli for hoiirs after tliey ha<:l reached the main body of Seddon's party. Where, then, did the "desertion" come in? If Mr Taylor's charges meant anything, they meant that Captain Seddon sent these scouts in advance some miles, that they then became hotly engaged with the enemy, were unable to extricate themselves, and were left there forsaken by the officer who sent them cut. He would prove by overwhelming evidence that the whole of that story was baseless and absolutely untrue. After the retirement, continued counsel, the scouts came back upon the 41 men in a strong position, and it was long after before oneman received a wound. There were - then 67 men* 5 engaged in fighting the rearguard action, the Boers outnumbering the Britisn by 2to 1. There were 200 to 250 Boers, and the party opposed consisted of 126 men, many of whom had never been under firei before. Under these circumstances s the offioera determined to fight a rearguard action, and that action was conducted on approved military principles and in entile harmony with the views of Captain Saxby and the others. The Boers then came in from all directions in an attempt to outflank tho party, and met the crossing at Blessbok Spruit. Captain Seddon then joined the main body under Captain Whitely, which was working .-lowly towards the main body, with six men on ihe right and left flank and an advance* stream of six to 12 men, and calmly and in good, order made towards the spruit, which was six miles from the point at which the scouts retired upon the reserves left. The- case they had to meet was that Lieutenant Dillon was left forsaken at least iix or eight miles in the enemj-'s country. Counsel would show, however, that Dillon was only ' 1 00 to 700 yards from the crossing, which at tbab time Captain Seddon told off a party ?o man to enable the whole of the retiring party Jo cross. Dillon fell when he- was defended on all sides by the main body -/hieh Captain Seddon had arranged should be placed in a good position for defence. If it were true, then, thai; the men had fought their rearguard action, what became of Mr Taylor's chai'go that they were forsaken and 1 left in the enemy's country? He intended to prove each one of the statements he had made on behalf of the plaintiff by means of the chief witness for the defendant — that was Captain Quintal, who had be<m i with Lieutenant Dillon all through the day of the engagement, who had been beside him when he fell, and who had direct personal knowledge of everything that occurred. Caplain Quintal's evidence had been taken on commission in Wellington. His statement was read by learned counsel as follows: —

Fletcher Evelyn Quintal said : I am at present A.D.C. to his Excellency the Governor of New South Wales and also sunerintendent of the Constabulary Corps. * I have the honorary rank of captain "in ihe New South Wales army. All A.D.C.'s mu,-t hold that i\,nk. My permanent place of residence k at Norfolk Island. I was in the South African war. I first -.vent out with the 6th Imperial Bushmen (New South Walos). This uas about tho middle of April, J9CO. I served 12 mdnths with the Imperial Bushmen. After severing my connection vith the Imperial Bushmen I was ordered to report myself at Pretoria with a view to joining the Seventh New Zealand Contingent. That contingent was situated at Standerton. I was instructed to p.o there on special duty. Colonel Grey, who wa=; officer commanding the column to which the Sixth Imperial Bushmen wero attached, ■nas gioin? down to take charge of the Seventh New Zealand. I was on Colonel Grey's staff. Before this, Colonel Grey said to me that if I came down with him he would <ret me my commission. I had already been recommended for a commission before that. Our special duty was to form a party of scents. All this time I held the rank of sergeant-major. I joined the Seventh Now Zealand Contingent ab-->ut 11/jy, 1901. Colonel .Grey was at that time officer commanding tho column of which the Ke\ enth New Zealand Contingent forme: l a part. Colonel Porter wa- in command of the Seventh New Zealand Contingent widsr Colonel Grey. When we got the^e Lieutenant Dillon, who was staff officer to Colonel Grey, was told off with mo to form a party of scouts, which he would be in charse of unlil my commission had been gazetted. The commission I was to i^et w:>.s that of lieutenant. I-ioiifcowant Dillon belonged io tho Rifle Biigade. Lieutenant. Dillon and myself then formed this party of s-eou f( s. I remember the Kaffir Spruit incident. If happened, I think, on tho l«t .Tuns, ]QOl. On the afternoon before Ihe aceidonr our column sighted a. Boer convoj . 3t v.as very la^o in the afternoon at the tune.. All thf achfinc-" mounted men of our column ga\o ch.'se. We- just managed to

1 capture the tail part of the convoy and a I few prisoners and a lot of cattle and hoises. By this time darkness had set in, and owing to a heavy storm we had to abandon the cattle and horses, and then return to camp: We camped for the night about four miles distant from Kaffir. After tea all the men from the different companies had to go to the chief staff officer's camp to get orders for the following day. Major Curzon was chief staff officer. I went as representative of the scouts. Captain Seddon did not go. The orders were that the scouts, under Lieutenant Dillon, and a company under I Captain Setldori, were to go out at daylight ! to a Boer farmhouse where the cattle and horses had been left on the previous evening. We (that is, the scouts and Captain Seddon's party) went out at the appointed time to the place named in the column orders. We arrived there, and found no horses or cattle. The scouts then made away in a northerly direction, and went a distance of about four miles. Captain Seddon was the senior officer of the party. I should say that probably the scouls were under his instructions. When I had the scouts after this I could go wherever I liked. There were altogether about 26 men in the scouts. There were about 100 to 120 men in Captain Seddon's party. We ascended a. high hill, and immediately below us saw the cattle and horses. When we saw the cattle and horses there was no sign of the civmy. I iokl Lieutenant Dillon that I I didn't like the look of the place, as I thought it -was an ambush. A party was sent down to round the cattle up, and I was then detailed with about 10 men to go some distance from the left flank to hold the position there and to cover the rattle party. They hadn't got down to j the cattle when the Boers appeared in !, every direction upon our front, and particularly upou the flank that I was holdinsr. I sent a messenger back to Lieutenant Dillon, about three-quarters of a mile aivay (ths messenger was a man called Borlass, I think), to tell him that the Boers were appearing in groat force" on my flank. The messenger came back and said that I Vvas to hold on there. While we wore firing very heavily the whole time, the Boers were rushing- down from the hill, about a niile or two miles off. I found then that if I didn't retire I should very probably be cut off from the main body, or be outflanked — by the main body I mean the main body of scouts. From this position I could not see Captain Seddon's party. I then sent the same messenger back with a message to Lieutenant Dillon as to our situation, and then, seeing that things were getting a bit too hot, I . fell back on the main body of scouts before getting an answer. As soon as I got up to Lieutenant; Dillon we extended our front as far as possible, and started retiring. I could see the main body, under Captain Seddon. 'At that time the Boers had fired just a few casual shots. They were rushing in such a crowd that it was necessary for us to retire. They were gal- < loping towards us at full speed. There "were, 1 should say, from 200 to 250 Boers approaching us. Just as I joined Lieutenant Dillon I saw a messenger conic up to Dillon — from Captain So.ddon's party. T tcoi; him to be. I don't know what the irsf-ssas-'e was. We then retir-ed. I. with half the scouts, was to hold the rearguard T^hile re- | tiring, whilst Lieutenant Dillon would tako up a position in the rear bo cover our retirement. And so it went on, until we : oanie within the support of Captain Seddon's troop — a troop of Captain Seddon's company. We kept retiring the whole time. As soon as we came in touch with Captain Seddon's support, Lieutenant Dillon said that he was soing back in the rear to see Captain Seddon, and that I was to take charge until he returned. After some few minutes he came back, as I take it, from seeing Captain Seddon. When he returned — of course, we had hsen retir*ng the whole time, — the same mode of retirement was continued. Dillon was fatally wounded. He and I were sretting on our horses on £ba brow of the hill, and he was shot, and foil from his horse. I immediately jumped oft my horse and pulled him under cover, the command of the scouts then devolving upon me. The firing from tiie Boers was than getting very severe. It had been very j -severe just belore Lieutenant Dillon, was shot. I called out to Sergeant Gorlett, and a skied him if he would stay by Dillon. He replied that lie' would. 1 immediately took his arms and horse and handed them over to a trooper, and told him to get across the spruit as quickly as he could, as by leading the horse he wouldn't be able to retire quickly enough. I handed over Dillon's horse to another trooper. I did not send for any assistance. Part of my left flank was held by a party of Captain Seddon's lot — about 25 men. Dillon's death, occurred about 400 yards f'-om the spruiv. I sang out- to all the men on the left to go!; a-cross (he spru'c as quickly as_ possible, I while 1 held on with this pesition with ! about "six or se\en men. I told the iiien ! with m.3 (o keep up as hot a lire as ht*v i could, and as soon as I gave ihe word of coiui mard thov were to mount and gallop for the i spruit. 7>7y object in sayiag this was that ! I did not want the whole of the men to be bunched up at the spruit, as only two or three could get across at this piaee ai; I a time. In this last retirement I was 1 wounded myself. As soon as we got j across the spruit we would be quite rafe. j All Uiis, I am sure, did not f-ake an hour, from the timo we saw the Boers coming for us till we pot across the spruit. Lieutenant Dillon and myself were the ohlt ones of the scouts who were wounded. There were, perhaps, some three or four ! of Captain Seddon's lot wounded, ond, I ; think, two cr Ihree killed. They we^re outposts. They were not with us scours at al'. Nono of my lot were taken prisoners. I believe two or three of Cap tarn Seddon's lot wero taken. Assistance was j rendered to us by Captain Seddon's main ! body — a troop of 25 men. I presume rhv | they wora sent to support us. They v. »i> I thee, Jioldinsj the position directly in crir ) rear, it was after we got within their i support that Dillon was wounded. I recognised Serjeant Gannon among his trcop of ?5 men. Lieutenant Dillon did not send ' for an}- B^sistanc* that I know of. All that , I can say is that J understood that he communicated with Captain Seddon. I don'fc ! know that ho sent any message to Captain [ Seddon after we crossed the spruit. CapI tain Seddon's main body were above the ! spruit, about 50 yards, I think. They were firing on ihe Boers over the hill. I went ,np and spoke to Captain Seddon. The Boers lia-I rot < 7 ibnpppart>d ih'-n. nr>r had i Ihp firing ce.i,ed. Some of Captain Srd- : don's company appeared to me to be retiring. Thfv were go-in? at an easy canter. C'Tptain Seddon's main body Fiad retired < (..wards the spruit, and held that position ■nlvle we crossed. Captam Soddon's party j retired in sections. They had gone about ilv'oe miW before the-v crossed the spruit. After comma into touch yy.it h Captain. S*"l*

don's support, we noticed- a retirement going on in the rear. By the support I mean the company of 25 men. By retirement I mean retiring casually. After we got across the spruit I noticed a troop considerably on the left of where I met Captain Seddon cantering away. When I met Captain Seddon I did not ask him why he had not assisted me. I simply spoke to him, and remarked that it was very sad about Dillon. He did riot in the course of conversation make -any reference to the fact that Dillon had 6ent for assistance. He did not say anything about' having received any message from Dillon. I was only speaking to him for about a minute. I have no idea who the messenger was I referred to as coming from Captain Seddon to Dillon. Captain Seddon's main body was about 40 yards away across the spruit when Dillon was shot. Sergeant Pepper was the only name I knew as being among the killed. I made no report concerning the death of Dillon, for the reason that I didn't get into camp till the next morning, when they knew all about it. There was an investigation held a four days later as to the proceedings of that day. It was held by Colonel Porter. There was an/ informal inquiry held, by Colonel Gray a while after " Colonel- Porter's inquiry. I was {present at and made "a statement at botbl inquiries. My statement was taken, down in writing at- Colonel Porter's inquiry, but it was not at . the other one. No "one else was present when I made the statement before Colonels .Grey and White. I was just _ sent for one night to go up to Colonel Grey's tent, and they asked me a- few questions about the proceedings of that day. .We were, on trek at this time. Tho inquiry with Colonel Porter was held, so far as I can remember, before Dillon died,~ but "hot the other _one. Lieutenant Dillon made a statement to me in Standerton Hospital. When. I made the, statement before , Colonel .Porter he was the only .officer present, though there was another man there, but I cannot say who he was. This man wrote something — I cajinot say whether in shorthand or not. I now think I signed the statement. Captain Seddoft was ' not j resent. . I am sure Lieutenant Dillon made no report to Colonel Porter between the time I made mjr statement" to *Colonel Porter and the time I made one to ' Colonels Grey and White. Three or four days may have elapsed. Ido not know whether' my statement to , Colonel. Porter - was taken into a book. I was ' not asked at either^ interview with the colonels to -express ah .opinion (from a military standpoint) as to. what .occurred .at; Kaffir Spruit. I ' could - not _ say now, what statement I made to Colonel Porter. Colonels- Grey and White • asked N • me- about the proceedings, on -the day of the Kaffir- Spruit incident: I told them what .Dillon said to me in the Standerton Hospital. 'He told me that. he should have retired before he did. - That, was alk made no complaint about not receiving any- assistance. He was■not allowed to- talk. That was all I said to ' Colonels Grey and White — simply what Dillon had, told me. - i C" J Mr Herdman: Was it not the ease that Ijhe general' tenor of any of -the statements you made to 'either Colonels Grey or White or to Colonel Potter were adverse to the conduct of Captain Seddon f Witness : - So far as I can remember I didn't mention Caplain. Seddon's name. Colonels Grey and-White mentioned gaptain Seddon's name to me: Different questions were asked' about the proceedings of the day. Questions wei-e not asked aoout Captain Seddon's personal conduct on that day. I don't .think that any questions were asked with reference" to assistance to the . scouls. The colonels wanted to know the full proceedings of the - day, ( and, as an- officer' in command of a particular company Captain Seddon's name was * mentioned. I don't think I made any complaint to Colonel Porter about. Captain Seddon's conduct afte*the death of Lieutenant Dillon..' My_e'pm-. mission was .gazetted on' the 22nd June. I went out into the' field with Captain Seddon after this. .1 was out forming the advance guard ' on^a 1 particular -'occasion when Lieutenant "Leece was killed/ It was considerably after this. Lockett was wqunded on that day too. T~cannot~ say whether Loveday was* killed on fhat^day. Captain Seddon ■was in command of his own squadron. He Lad. nothing to do 'with me. I was responsible only to Colonel White. It was -soon after the Kaffir Spruit affair that I was out entirely in command of the Scouts* I was, with' Captain Seddon on other • occasions. No inquiry 'that I know of was held as to the death of Lieutenant Leece- I was in about 30 engagements , in South Africa in which loss of life occurred, and inquiries other than that into the Kaffir Spruit incident were hfeld, in reference' to them. There was an. inquiry held over it at St-anderton. That- was the only one I was personalia concerned in. ,'There was an inquiry held over Bothasberg by the officer in command. The officer commanding was Colonel White. I never ascertained what the --findings of Colonel Porter and Colonels Grey and White were. They never' told me anything. There could not have been any finding, or it would have been stated in column orders as to whether anyone was exonerated 'or not. Captain Seddon remained with' the column about three or four months after the Kaffir Spruit incident,- leaving us at Newcastle. H<* and Captain SaxbV left us together. ■ Cross-examined by-Dr Findlay, the witness said : I made no charges against Captain Seddon at Porter's inquiry. It was not an inquiry into Captain Seddon's conduct at all, but merely into J;he proceedings, of that day. When casualties happen — 3ay, on an occasion when half a dozen men are killed or wounded — then an inquiry is held. Colonels Grey and White sent,,for me. It was in no way an investigation of charges against Captain fteddon. I know what a court-martial is. No court-martial was ever held in respect toitße rest of the Tvroceedinsrs on the Ist of June. I heard of no military inquiry with, reference to the conduct of- Captain Seddon on that day. Tn reply to my remark that I thought the rattle beinpr tb^re and no B^sors looked like an anibnsh, Dillon said ho. did not think so. Had I b°«n in command I should have first fJrawn the enemy's fire before retiring. From what I saw of the Boers afterwards ■my oninion is strengthened that they could Tint be less than 200 or 250. At that time T thought that our' full strensrth was about half that of the Boers. Taking them ns a whole, the Boers were" always better mounted than we were. His case •was no exception. This event was really the first engagement of any oc-n&ecinence the 7th New Zealanders had been in, There ■was nobody waiting to reinforce Captain fteddon's company had they been outflanked. Captain Seddon's comnany were the whole party. When I first sighted • the Boors it must have been about 11 o clock in the mornincc. The column usually starts •.Wi 6 o'clock in the mojnmsfc_JTb£jjme

was staled in the orders, but I cannot remember it. Assuming that the column started at 6 o'clock in the morning and travelled at the rate of two and a-half nr'les an hour, at the time we first sighted the Boers they would be about 16 miles from us. Had all Seddon's troop com© up to us when we first sighted the Boers it would ! have been very foolish, because, being ' opposed to that number of Boers, we would have had to fight a rearguard action ; and had the whole company come on in that fashion the Boers would have outflanked us twice as easily. The Boers, under the circumstances, would have outflanked us. Had they don© so, the whole company would have been out off from the main body, and probably have been taken prisoners. In ■ my judgment, Dillon should without any j doubt have retired at once on to Seddon's j company. When I first sent him word that I the Boers were in large numbers, there I was nothing to prevent him from doing so. ! If the scouts had retired when I first sent j Dillon word, in my opinion both they and • Seddon's company could have crossed ihe I spruit without casualty. A spruit is a ford 'in the river. We were not sent out to . engage the enemy, but to bring back cattle. We were not sent out to reconnoitre any position, or specially to. srrirch for the I enemy. . • So , far as I know, the purpose of j the scouts going beyond' the farmhouse was ' I to try to find the cattle. I never heard ' of any order having been given by Captain , Seddon to proceed in advance and search for the enemy's forces. Dillon was about 20 or 21 years of age. I had seen a good „ deal of Dillon before this. He was attached to the same staff in the Sixth Imperial Bushmen. As far as- courage goes, I should say he was recklessly brave. Saxby's position was a prominent one. It was a posi- ■ tion well suited to protect our retirement. ; If it had not been for that position we . should have been outflanked and surrounded, j The scouts were never in such a position J_ that they could not withdraw to Seddon's . company. The whole of us got within the j protection of Saxby's troop without any casualty. When I came up to Cannon I I asked him to shift his men further down ' to^ my 'left'. After we got within the protection of Saxby's troop a regular rearguard . action was fought. A 1 rearguard action is -that part part -of a body which hold one \ position whilst the other portion retire on to ] some cither prominent position if possible, j : and this goes on until we get out of the -^■effective range of the^ enemy. This is what happened after we joined the company I believed to be Saxby's. After we joined Saxby's troop Dillon told me that he was ! > going to see Captain Seddon, to find out, where, the spruit was. '.He,; .went alone. :> We were retiring in the direction in which j Dillon went. I was leflrih command. He rejoined me about four or five .minutes afterwards. I could not- see the spruit when Dillon rejoined' me, but -when he came back he pointed in a certain direction, and - said: "The spruit* is there." When Dillon „ rejoined me I was at the bottom of the valley and ascending another hill. Dillon came directly over this hill, and met me j ,i at the' foot of it. If Dillon saw Seddon, the latter could not have been more than four or five minutes - from us. After Dillon returned the rearguard action went on. When Dillon was wounded' he was sitting on his • horse in an exposed position. My horse was hit at the,same time. If Dillon had chosen to take cover the chances are that he would have escaped. I consider that Dillon's exposing himself in» this manner, though a very "brave act, was very unwise. Looking at the number of Captain Seddon's troop and of the Boers anel the nature of the attack, the scouts were receiving as much - support- as' circumstances justified. The Boers were 'galloping at us, and were ex- ' tending their front with the object of outflanking- us and getting possession of a hill .overlooking the spruit. This was ' not the hill which Captain Seddon ocou- 1 -pied later. The Boers were prevented from i getting possession of /the hill they were making for by Gannon's fire on the left, and also by the fire from the hill across the-! spruit, concentrated oh the position jthe •Boers were trying to take. The hill aciross the spruit from which the fire was coming -was the -hill upon which I met Captain Seddon. If the hill across the spruit had not been held by^Captain Seddon's company the ', last ■ half-dozen of my men could not have crossed the-«pruit, and would have been cut off by the Boers.' I was the last man to i cross. After I crossed I found Captain ; Seddon- in> possession of the hill. The Boers 'twere directing part of their fire on the hill , ' where Gaptain Seddon was. When I found ! Gaptain Seddon across the spruit he was . not in a position- of absolute safety. Cap- : .'-tamJ3eddon was^not among the troop I saw I cantering away when I crossed the spruit. , After I spoke to Captain Seddon I went back^to collect my men. I was in comparative safety when I got across the spruit. |?The Boers could not follow us there. Ten ! men could keep the spruit. From first to Is last on that day I could see nothing aniount- ' ing to cowardice on the part of Captain ! Seddon. I saw nothing on that day , amounting to desertion of the scouts or of his own meta by Captain Seddon. From the time that w'e> sighted the Boers to the close of the engagement I saw nothing which, in my opinion, amounted to an error of judgment on the part of Captain Seddon. After I was put in command of the scouts then* strength was gradually increased, until i it reached 70. , I was in command of thescouts for about 10 months. I was myself wounded three times — once just autside i Mafeking, the second time at Kaffir Spruit, ; and the third time I was shot through the I thigh. I had never been in an engagement j with Captain Seddon before the Kaffir { Spruit incident. I remember March 24, ; ( 1900, in the Western Transvaal, when the I -Fourth New Zealand Contingent assisted to 1 oaptuTe De la Key's guns. It was the 1 Eighth Imperial Bushmen in which I was, and the Fourth Contingent effected the capture. I know that Captain Seddon was in the Fourth Contingent at that time. I don't know in whose troop Leece was when he was killed, but I understood he was in ■ Captain Seddon'e company. Major Bauchop was in charge of the whole party. Re-examined by Mr Herdman : I saw nothing of Captain Seddon personally during tse day until I got across the spruit, or of any other troop officer except Dillon. I personally received no message from Captain Seddon on that day. There is no cJoubfc that the scouts and Captain Seddon's men w^re to co-operate on that day. If the scouts got into a difficulty it would be Captain Seddon's duty to extricate them, if he couid do so without any disproportionate loss of life. The soottte and Captain Sectdon left camp \h&ij morning together. When, i 4i 4 saw Captain $eddon on the hill across the I spruit it was about half-past J2 or 1. We left camp in the morning about 4 or 5. 111 was pretty dark. We didn't lose sight of

was m c:

went beyond the farmhouse, when I fell back on Dillon's main body. Captain Seddon's men were from a mile and a-half to j two miles behind, so they nrust have followed us from two miles to two miles and j a-half beyond the farmhouse. When I saw them they were halting. I could not say whether Captain Seddon was with them. I watched them only for an instant; then our main body started to retire. I cannot say whether it was the main body of Captain Seddon's men or whether it was Gannon's troop only.. The men I first saw were more than a troop. In my opinion, Captain Seddon's men were from three to three and a-half miles from the spruit, A short time after we started to retire I looked back and saw them still there. I did not »ac them again until we came within a reasonable distance of whei'e their supports were, as I had my back to them. When Lieutenant Dillon wsnt to see Captain Seddon we had retired about two to two and a-half miles. There nmst have bean about 25 men in Gannon's troop. I cannot say for certain that Lieutenant Dillon saw Captain Seddon. There was a post unconnected with us in some old farm buildings — I think on the enemy's side of the spruit. I think Sergeant Pepper was one ol them. I don't know any of the others. I may have 'heard their names. I don't know whether Pepper was alive when I reached the spruit. Gannon's troop crossed the spruit just before I did. I told him to retire. The main body had got across about two minutes before Gannon. The crossing took place very slowly. . I don't know what part of the company Captain Seddon crossed with — first or last. We had gone about 150 yards after Dillon's return from seeing Captain Seddon, and had taken up another position, when he was shot. The fire was pretty hot then. I think it was foolish for Dillon and myself to have remained sitting on our horses. "When we got to Gannon's troop I don't know where Captain Seddon was. In my opinion, it was distinctly Captain Seddon's duty to cover "the scouts' retreat, and in my opinion such steps were taken. * I joined the main column next morning, at about 9. Captain Seddon joined the main column before I did, on the evening of the Kaffir Spruit affair. From my position on that" 1 day I had a more accurate knowledge of the number of Boers than Captain Seddon had. It would not be Captain Seddon's duty to know of or watoh the movements' of the scouts. It' would have been Lieutenant Dillon's duty, -if he were going out of touch with the main -body, to have informed Captain. Seddon of- the fact. The scouts could ' have gone anywhere they liked, and it -would not have, been Captain , Seddon's duty to have watched th&m or protect their movements, unless' he had received information as to the "movements that the scouts s were .intending to make. All column orders were" taken dow^i in writings and those I got on May 31 were written: I know nothing of the circumstances of the deaths of any < other men (except Dillon) who were killeS on that date. Dr, • Findlay, continuing, said" he had no doubt that the jury would take at its proper value the evidence of Captain Quintal, a man quite unconnected with the case, and of wide experience in^ military matters. He would not depend on that, however; he would call also nearly all the officers who had been present at the engagement, and ha would ask the jury to remember that a,n officer was in an infinitely better position to judge the actions of his brother officer than was a private soldier. The trooper often did not Jcnow the object of a movement, and might for that reason think it was dangerous and unnecessary. He would call Captains Saxby,, Whiiely, and Cameron, Sergeants Patterson, Robertson, and Leighton, and, if necessary, 20 other men who had been present at Jhe engagement. In such a case, he said, the question of malice was important. The last two pleas in the defenoe depended for their effect on the absence of malice, and evidence as to ■'malice was important when the matter of damages had to be considered. He there-fore-proposed to show 1 , in the course, of evidence, that the defendant had been informed long previously that the charges made and repeated had been untrue. He would prove ' that defendant had been told by Spencer and by Robertson that the charges were untrue, and that he had been present when Quintal had. gAvren evidence on commission. It would become the duty of the jury to ask. whether it had not- then been the duty of defendant to acknowledge that he had made a mistake, and to retract the charges. Instead of doing this, the defendant had persisted in his charges up to the time- of the trial. "It will be for you to say," continued Dr Findlay, "if Mr Taylor comes here purely and sincerely aiming at the conviction, and branding of a base coward, or whether he comes here with hatred in his heart and bitterness on his tongue to feed fat a malignant grudge." On Mr Taylor's application all witnesses were ordered to leave the court. William Henry Russell, Hansard reporter, was the first witness i called. He deposed that on October 29, 1903, Ke reported por- * lion of a speech by Mr Taylor in the House, in which Mr Taylor used these words : "I will put on record the details of a courtmartial that was not held in this country; that was not held by Colonel Porter, but was held by»some Imperial officers upon a New Zealand officer." The Premier interjected : " There was no court-martial I am aware of." George Laurenson, M.H.R. for Lyttelton, was called, but did not appear. Roland Spencer, clerk, Christchurch, said he was a member of the Seventh Contingent, and was in Colonel Grey's oolumn. He was not at the Bkssbok affair, having remained with the main oolumn. In February last Mr Taylor called on witness, and asked him if he remembered Kaffir Spruit. Witness said he did not know the place. Mr Taylor mentioned that Captain Seddon had run away from, his men, and witness said he believed that was not so. Mr Taylor then asked why Captain Seddon returned

home before his time, and witness replied that all the men who had joined the Seventh Contingent from the Fourth remained only six months with the Seventh, and Captain Seddcn was one of- the men. When going away, -Mr Taylor remarked : -" I thought , you might ha able to give me some-i nformation ?" Mr Taylor: Did I not tell you that Capfcaiy Seddon was charging- me - with having 1 used certain" words about him? Witness: I do not remember you saying ' that. J" Did you not tell me'that Captain Seddon had always treated you very well? — I hardly knew him. so I could not have said so. I You told me you had no complaint against . Captain Seddou?— l do not remember that. _\fr- Stringer brought out the fact that J witness had committed the conversation with I Mr Taylor to writing, in a letter, and on Mr -Taylor . asking for the document it was produced in. the fcrm. of_a letter written in j March to Captain Seddon, of Wellington. Mr Taylor : , You wrote this' to Captain Seddon on your own' motion? — Witness: I Was asked to do. so. Who asked you?— Mr W. H.' Wilson. ' Who is Mr W. H. Wilson?— He was an »fflcer of the regiment. When did he conic to see. you? — I was alking to Mr Wilson, and he mentioned rhat had been said >in the House in Wel-Fington,-and.l told him Mr Taylor had been to see me, and a week or two later he asked me- to write down what had been said. I pave the lettor'to Mr Wilson, 'who forwarded i.t to^Captain Seddou.', - Conrad Gordon. ,Saxby.,_ clerk in the ■Attorney-general's office, -Salisbury, Rhodesia,'said'he'went to "South" 1 Africa with "the Fourth Contingent as- trooper. He also served in the Seventh" aiid Eighth Contingents, and rose to the position of captain. On the 31st May, ,1901, lie, column to which the. Seventh' Contingent \was attached, while returning' to Standerton -from Ermelo, captured portion of a Beer 'convoy. Next day ■the company* under Captain Seddon, was Benfc out to bring in • some- of the cattle which had been left behind on the previous evening. .The scouts, 25 in number, were in advance, in cfyirge of Lieutenant Dillon and Sergeant-major Quintal. At one point Captain Seddon threw out a right screen in charge of witness, and on moving forward witness found a post left in charge of some pattle. The men in the post Troopers Ireland, Cooper, Donkin, and another, and witness signalled to them- to mount and return. This was a post that Captain Seddon would know nothing about. It was aiot placed there by him. Later on Trooper tDonkin 'was killed and the other men taken prisoners. When witness returned to the main body Captain Seddon had recalled lieutenant Dillon and his scouts and had arranged for a rearguard -to protect them. It would have been foolhardy for" the main body to advance to the position, held by the* Bcouts. When the scouts were well under the protection of the rearguard Captain JSeddon moved away with the main body. fWitness was with tho main body. They went on 200 or 300 yards, when Captain Seddon detached witness and a troop to assist the rearguard. It was a groper and ft-stronsf formation that Captain Seddon arranged for. Witness had discussed with Captain Seddon the question of fighting the fcttackjnsr B«^rs. and it was acreed it was

advisable, as they had no reserve ammunition or reserve provisions, to push on for the Blessbok ' Spruit as originally intended, and tihat plan was followed. The Boers' around the rearguard numbered 60 or so, and others were evidently making for the Blessbok Spruit. Witness had seen Lieutenant Dillon come in with the scouts and join the rearguard. Witness's party made their way back to the spruit and crossed the river. , The road to the spruit had been kept clear by Captain Seddon, otherwise tlie Boers .would have got to the spruit and cut witness and his men off. Dillon's party was also making its way to the spruit, and aalf a mile or so from the spruit Dillon was wounded. After crossing the spruit nothing oi importance occurred.

Mr ' Stringer : • Speaking from your experience," do you think the movement conducted under Captain , Seddon's orders was a proper one? — Witness : Yes ; it was the only one to get us out -of the difficulty.

Was it conducted in the regular military fashion of a rearguard action? — Yes. Were your- men in-a position, considering your supply -of ammunition and so on, to make a fight? — Yes; to make a rearguard fight, but not to take up a position and hold it at all hazards.

Further .examined : When witness returned to camp - Colonel Porter sent for him, and witness gave him a statement of the day's proceedings.

By Mr Taylor : Witness did not remember where Troopers Sandiland and Radcliffe were that day. He did not know that Dillon sent in a request for ammunition. The scouts went out to collect cattle, and were fully protected throughout the .day. Witness saw some scouts, whose ammunition had been expended, join the main body. He asked who the men were, and was told they were scouts. The main body retired leisurely. It' always kept the- same distance from the rearguard. It was the duty of the rearguard to keep in touch with the main body.

Mr Taylor: How do you know fchat Captain Seddon sent out for the scouts? — Witness : H« told me himself.

Did he say he had had word from Dillon? —Yes.

'What was the effect of it?— That he had sighted the cattle and was in touch with the Boers.

He did not say that Dillon had asked for support? — No ; but I found later on that the column had moved towards Dillon's position.

Do you consider that the signal you gave to Donkin's post was sufficient? — Yes, because I saw them standing to their horses preparatory to mounting.

I suppose you did not see all that hap-pe-ned that day in the movements of the company? — No; I could not possibly have seen everything that occurred.

Mr Stringer: If Captain Seddon had retired a considerable distance with his men you would not have failed to see such a movement? — Witness: I would certainly have seen it.

And you would have kept with the main body? — Certainly I would.

At this stage the further hearing of the case was adjourned until the following morning at 10 o'clock.