Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS,

£Befobe His Honoe Me. Justice Richmond.]

MPORTANT SPECIAL JURY CASE.

ACTION FOR SLANDER.

Levin v. Beaumont.

DAMAGES LAID AT £5000.

[SPECIALLY REPORTED."]

This is an action for slander arising out of certain alleged defamatory statements spoken and published by Richard Beaumont, sheepfarmer of Marlborough, of and concerning Nathaniel William Levin, of Wellingto,nmerchant,respectingcertainmonetary transactions narrated below, in which Joseph Dresser Tetley, at; one time a runholder in Marlborough Province, and •who lately fled the country, was concerned. The case, both from the position of the parties aoncemed. and the circumstances as regards Tetley, out of which the action arose, has created a large amount of attention throughout the Colony, and promises to become one of the causes celebres of New Zealand. The leading men of the legal profession were retained on both sides, and a host of witnesses were subpoenaed. For the plaintiff appeared Mr. PeenDbbgast, Attorney-Generni, and with him were Mr. Deßathe Bbandon, of Wellington, and Mr. KingDOK, of Nelson. For the defendant, w«s Mr. ConoiXiY, of Picton ; with whom were Mr. Hast, of Wellington, and Mr. Pitt, of Nelson. The following are the names of the special jurorsGeorge Bennett (foreman), Jonathan Lewis, Edward Everett, C. Hunter Brown, James Bentley, Frederick Huddleston, W. H. Turner, James T. Lowe, Thomas E. Hodder, R. M. Paton, John Blackett, and James Mackay, tertius. PLAINTIFF'S DECLAEATION. The declaration stripped of its legal formalisms and repetitions, sets forth as follows: — " That the plaintiff carried on business as a merchant and agent for sheep farmers, runholders, sheep runs, and stations, together with Charles J. Pharazyn, in the City of Wellington, in the Province of Wellington, and elsewhere, in the Colony of New Zealand ; and until lately, and sometime before the committing of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, one Joseph Dresser Tetley carried on business in the Province of Marlborough and Nelson, in New Zealand, as a runholder and sheep farmer. " And at various times before, and at the time of the committing of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, the defendant mad 3 charges against the eaid Joseph Dresser Tetley, of fraudulent and dishonest conduct in the sale to him the defendant, by the said Joseph Dresser Tetley, of certain sheep. And the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff, in relation to his said business, and the carrying on and conducting thereof by him, the words following, that is to say : "Levin and Tetley have swindled me. I and •ome other young men came out under Tetley's wing. The money to be placed at our disposal by our friends waß only to be invested by the advice and with the consent of Tetley, or Levin, or both. My money was invested with Le7in's advice and consent, and the money so invested went in liquidation of Tetley's overdraft with his firm (Levin and Pharazyn), and in that transaction he (Levin) acted in collusion with Tetley." The declaration then proceeds to give the intent and meaning of this statement, thus:— " Meaning thereby tbat he the plaintiff dishonorably and dishonestly colluded with the said J. D. Tetley to obtain, and dishonorably and dishonestly did obtain, from the defendant and other persons, certain moneys, and that he the plaintiff had been party to and colluded with the said J. D. Tetley in the said fraudulent and dishonest conduct about the sale of the said sheep, with which the defendant charged the said J. D. Tetley, and that the plaintiff had knowingly, deceitfully, and dishonestly, and in collusion with the said J. D. Tetley, advised the defendant and certain other young men to invest certain money placed at their disposal by their friends in an improvident and unprofitable manner, in order that the said money might be received by the plaintiff in liquidation of a debt due from the said J. D. Tetley to the said partnership firm." The Declaration proceeds to narrate other words • poken and published by the defendant to this effect:— " Though I was satisfied with Levin's explanation, and gave him a letter of apology exonerating him from the charges I made against him, yet I am conTiuced from further enquiries that he has all along been in collusion with Tetley. I will insist on his returning my letter. Tetley would have obtained from my friends a loan of fifty-five thousand pounds, (£55,000,) had not my letters, exposing Tetley's Bwindling, reached them in time to prevent it. I have ■written to my friends and the Barings, meaning thereby a firm of bankers in London; and to Alexander's (meaning thereby a firm of merchants in London, the correspondents of the plaintiff), and to some Directors of the Bank of England, exposing his conduct," (meaning thereby the dishonest and swindling conduct with ■which the defendant charged the plaintiff with having been guilty of in collusion with the said J. D. Tetley.) The declaration further sets forth that the plaintiff also sues the defendant; that he (the plaintiff) carried on business as a merchant and agent for jsheep farmers^ runholders, sheep runs, and stations, together with Charles' Johnson Ph'arazy'n, in' Wellington, and elsewhere in t|i'e Colony,'' that 'the defendant' falsely and 'maliciously sppice and published the words following," [here the above narrated gtatements of the "defendant are'again apd the deolaration'propeeds t'p say th'ftt the 'meaning p,f the defendants' allegation as to collusipn was]— V that the plaintiff and the said J. D. Tetley ccmipired and agreed together to cheat and defraud the defendant of the said money of his so invested, and that they (plaintiff and Tetley), in pursuance of such conspiracy and agreement'did fraudulently obtain and acquire from the defendant.the said money.— " Whereby the plaintiff wag injured in his credit and reputation as a merchant, and as such agent as aforesaid, and in his said business as a merchant and as agent as aforesaid. " Wherefore the plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of Five Thousand Pounds as damages." DEFENDANT'S PIEAS. These are as follows: — 1. That he is not guilty. 2. That the plaintiff did not at the time of the alleged grievances carry on business as a merchant and agent for sheep farmers, runholders, sheep runs, and stations, as in the plaintiff's declaration alleged. 3. That the defendant has not made charges against Joseph Dresser Tetley of fraudulent and dishonest conduct on and about the sale to him, the defendant, by the said J. D. Tetley, of certain sheep as in the declaration alleged. 4. That the words alleged to have been spoken and published by the defendant o,f tb,e pJajntifPp^'lLeiTin and Tefcley have swindled me," w,ere and ftre true. i ii§. 'fl^at tpe dejeriflant haß, ; nofc.at l any.tim.e spoken or.puJ>lished. u ofi the plaintiff tbat ta&..i-. x "■■ '. ". was'rinly to be' invested by the advice and' with the Consent of eaid J. D. Tetley, or the plaintiff, or both Of them.' " ' J " 6. That the words allege^ to have beea spoken and pub]ish9s, by the.' defendant of. tie uplaintiff/'i<'imy VotoV Ms 'invested with lie'vin'js advice Ind consent, Atfd 'the 'monejr'so invested 1 vievit in liquidation of Tetley's overdraft wi%'nfe (the plaintiff's) firm, and in tjiat transaction fee; '(the" plaintiff) acted tot colluiibn* with TOtle^," Were and1 are true. " '"?. That the words lalleged to have been spoken and published by the1 defendant of the'plaintiff, rtl and iome other1 young men came out under Tetleys' wing, tHe money to'be placed at our disposal by oiirfriends fcaVbnty to be'invested by tfye aGlvicW.and with the |bnsent;'Qf 'T^ey, .tfr.-L^,; tir b,o.th,;'sc.]i {as qfloted jtj the declaraiidn]—bo far a,s the san^e ai'e applicable to some other young men (namely, Digby Garfortti, ' kte of Kekerangu, Marlborough, but now in Eng«

land, Henry Wharton, of Kaikoura, Marlborough> and Frederick Arthur Puileine, of Picton), were and are true. 8. That the said words, bo far as the same, if any of them, were spoken and published by the defendant of the plaintiff, did not relate to any sale of sheep by the said J. D. Tetley to the defendant, as in the plaintiff*! declaration alleged. 9. That, on or about 19th day of January, 1865, the Baid J. D. Tetley, Digby Garforth, Henry Wlurton, Frederick Arthur Puileine, and the defendant, arrived together from England at Wellington, in this Colony. 10. That the said Digby Garforth, Henry Wharton, Frederick Arthur Pulliene, and the defendant had not been in this Colony previously to the said 19th day of January, 1865 ; but the said J. I). Tetley had resided this Colony from the year 1858 to 1863, or thereabouts, and was well known to the plaintiff. 11. That the friends or relatives of the said Digby G-arforth had authorised him to draw upon them for the sum of £2000 on the condition that the said sum should only be invested by the advice and with the consent of'the said J. D. Tetly, or of the plaintiff, or of both of them. 12. That the friends or relatives of the said Henry Wharton, who was then under 21 years of age, had authorised him to draw upon them for the sum of £2000 on a like condition. 13. That the friends or relatives of the said Frederick Arthur Pulliene had authorised him to draw upon them for the sum of £2000 on a like condition. 14. That the defendant had a letter of credit to the amount of £2700, and. also was authorised by his friends or relatives to draw upon them for the sum of £1000, both of which sums of £2700 and £1000, were at the defendant's own disposal. 15. That the plaintiff represented to the defendant and to the said Digby G-arforth, Henry Wharton, and Frederick Arthur Puileine, that the said J. D. Tetley was at the time in independent circumstances, and was possessed of unincumbered property in this Colony, and was a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the money at the disposal of the defendant, and with the money for which the said Digby G-arforth, Henry Wharton, and Frederick Arthur Puileine, were authorised by their respective friends and relatives to draw upon them as aforesaid; whereas in fact, and to the knowledge of the plaintiff, the said J. D. Tetley was then in embarrassed circumstances, and was indebted to the plaintiffs' firm in a large sum of money, which he the said J. D. Tetley was wholly unable to pay, and the plaintiffs' firm held a mortgage over all the real property of the said J. D. Tefrley, to secure the payment of the said debt, which mortgage had been executed on or about the year 1863, but had never been registered. 16. That the plaintiff, well knowing that the said J. D. Tetley was in embarrassed circumstances, and that he -n as wholly unable to pay the plaintiff's firm the large sum of money which he was then indebted to the said firm, and that the said firm held an unregistered mortgage over all the real property of the said J. D. Tetley, and in fraud of the trust reposed in him, by the friends and relatives of the said Digby Garforth, Henry Wkarton, and Frederick Arthur Puileine, counselled and advised them that they should lend to the said J. D. Tetley the several sums of money for which they were respectively authorised to draw upon their friends and relatives, as in the defendant's 11th, 12th, and 13fch pleas mentione-1; and also counselled and advised the defendant that he should lend to the said J. D. Tetley the several sums of money at the defendant's disposal as in the defendant's 14th plea mentioned; and wholly concealed from the said Digby Garforth, Henry Wharton, and Frederick Arthur Puileine, and from the defendant the real circumstances and position of the said J. D. Tetley. 17. That in consequence of the said advice of the plaintiff the said Digby G-arforth lent to the said J. D. Tetley the sum of £1600, and the said Henry Wharton lent the said J. Tetley £1600, and the said Frederick Arthur Puileine lent the said J. D. Tetley the sum of £2000, and the defendant lent to the said J. D. Tetley the sum of £3400, all of which sums were placed to the credit of the account of the said J. D, Tetley with the plaintiff's firm, and. in liquidation of the overdraft of the said J. D. Tetley with the said firm, whereby the said sums have been wholly lost to the said Digby Garforth, Henry Wharton, Frederick Arthur Puileine, and tp the defendant respectively. 18. That in the said transaction the plaintiff did act in collusion with the said J, D, Tetley, and the plaintiff and the said J. D. Tetley did swindle the defendant. 19. That the words alleged in the plaintiff's declaration to have been spoken and published by the defendant of the plaintiff, " though I was satisfied with Levin's explanation, and gave him a letter of apology exonerating him from the charges I made against him, yet I am convinced, from further enquiries, that he has all ulong been in collusion with Tetley; I will insist on his returning my letter"— were and are true. 20. That the said letter of apology was written by defendant at the plaintiff's request, and before the defendant knew that in January, 1865, the said Joseph Dresser Tetley waa largely indebted to the plaintiff's firm, and was at that time wholly unable to discharge the said debt, and that the plaintiff's firm at that time held a mortgage over the real property of the said J. D. Tetley, which mortgage was never registered. 21. That the said letter of apology was written as ' aforesaid, and also upon the faith of this statement of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had paid certain sums of money to the account of the said J. D. Tetley with the Bank of New Zealand at Picton, which sums we're' to be on accotint of certain property at Scarborough', in the Province of Marlborough, in which property the defendant was, or was supposed to be, interested; and was written as aforesaid before the defendanj; jiad ascertained that tfte said sta. temenj; of'the plaintiff wa,s untrue. 22. Tl^at t]ie wprds alleged in the plaintiff's declaration to have been spoken and published by the defendant of the plaintiff, "Tetley would have obtained from my friends £55,000, had not my letters exposing Tetley's swindling reached them in time to prevent it. I have written to my friends and to the Barings, and to Alexanders, and to some of the Direotors of the Bank of England, exposing his conduct," so for as the said words, if any of them were spoken and published by the defendant, were spoken and published by the defendant of the plaintiff. rEAINTIIT'S BEPHCATIOK. In the replication plaintiff joins issue as to so much of the defendant's plea as denies the material allegations in the declaration; and plaintiff denies the material allegations contained in the residue of the defendant's pleas. ■" ISSUES TOE JUBY. The following issues, proposed by the defendant, were settled to be tried at Kelson:— 1. Did the defendant speak and publish of the plaintiff the words in the plaintiff's declaration alleged ? :',."" 2. Are the words go oppke.n and, published, by the defan^aflfiofthe'^Vawtifftme? J !• . . !§'. Did' the plaintiff, oavry, on busing"'' n mor . obasnt and: agent for ibeeprt-; ■"* as a ™er" ..Lions, as in the plaintiffs declaration alleged, at the time that; the words were so spoken tod published by the defendant of the plaintiff ? 4. To what damages (if any) is the plaintiff entitled? The Attoene^ (jeijbbajp, in opening the pleadings, said, th^ plaintiff was1 Mr.'iJevin, a'merchant, who had occupied,,si prominent'and'influential position in ; 'VV reilingto*n, where he had done a large business for a long period of years.' Mr. Beaumont, the defendant, was a funholder, in Marlboroug'h. The action was one for slanderj expressed in words, from which the ! plaintiff now sought—as he must necessarily do, in I vindication of his cliaracter-^-redpess'ai;' the hands of ! the jury v |t'was not1 so much a matter of money as ! a vindication lje"deirianded:. He came to disprove the slailderbus assertions which hail been' maide j and it wduld be"the duty of'the jury, wlien they came to assess 'the damages against the defendant, not to apportion1 them according to the defandant's means of paying them;' but, at the same time, it must be borne !in mind that if they gave merely a small or contemptible cum, that fact would in effect m much damnify

the plaintiff as if they gave a verdict for the defendant. Having said thus much, hs would at the outset make some remarks on the law of slander, the law of conspiracy, and the law of cheating, because as the case became developed, all these points would arise. Slander spoken was distinguished from words of the same kind written and printed, as being less considered ; but when spoken and published to the injury of a man damages followed. The law presumed that a man was damaged by such statements, and when such slander was spoken of a man in the plaintiff's business and situation, it did not follow that it necessarily would, but it might damage him. That was consistent with common sense. The jury knew how difficult it was to trace loss of business to any cause, and it was sufficient if the slanderous expressions were such as might have done so. It mattered not whether the person so slandered was in a position of wealth and trust or not, or if he were but the .humblest person in the land ; if one man ventured to say of another words charging him with an indictable offence, the slanderer must be liable in damage. Common sense would show the necessity of this law, so as to shut men's mouths so that they shall not with impunity charge people with crimes that would, if true, render them liable to be indicted If a man in business was spoken of in words involving, by implication or otherwise, such a crime, he would be entitled to damages, unless the slanderer could justify the statement. The language also clearly charged plaintiff with conspiracy to cheat and defraud the defendant, and it would be thought that defendant would not now deny it. The defendant was bold to slander, but when brought into Court he sought to shelter himself under the miserable subterfuge that the plaintiff was not in business at the time the slander was uttered. He thought he might be able to show that under the rule of Court plaintiff would not be able to prove his declaration as to being in business,—and, therefore, that he might go forth and slander him with something like impunity. But Mr. Levin had been twenty-seven yearsin business, and had conducted himself and it honorably and well, with credit to himself, and was retiring from it in order to visit the old country. Early in 1869, Mr* Levin was making preparation to go to England, and, although he had dissolved partnership with Mr. Pharazyn, he was still carrying on business in Wellington. True, he was going home, either as it might happen to conduct business there or'to retiie from business altogether, as he thought fit; at all events he had not ceased to carry on business as a merchant. He now came to the charge of conspiracy and cheating. It was declared that Mr. Tetley and he had colluded to swindle, which is simply a charge of an indictable offence. If he could prove that charge it would enable the defendant to put the plaintiff in the dock and be tried for the offence. To collude in such context meant an agreement or confederation; it was not necessary to employ the word conspire ; it was not necessary for a slanderer to express himself in the language of an indictment. Anything that expressed a charge of confederacy, meant in such a case a charge of conspirarcy. Now as to the law of cheating. It was a rule in law that cheating was not an indictable offence. Eraud in private transactions between individuals is not indictable; and, therefore, although defendant had charged plaintiff with cheating as between himself and defendant, that would be no ground of action ; that had been held ; but if he charged two men with cheating, that was charging them with confederation, charging them with an indictable offence. His learned friend would no doubt seek to shelter this defendant from the consequences of this act, for defendant, in the first place, denied the words, phough in subsequent paragraphs he admitted thpm,—but by the first plea he, in effect, said, " I will put you to the proof of the words, and if I find you cannot prove them, although I adroit them in the next plea, although I declare you to be guilty of fraud, of conspiracy, charge you with being a fraudulent person, and with cheating and swindling; although I say all this, yet, if you fail to prove that I said it, I shall claim a non-suit." Mr. CoNOLTiY: lam sorry to interrupt my learned friend ; he is not reading the pleadings, but he is professing to quote from them. Mr. Attobney-Geneeal : I am nqt professing to quote them. lam only giving their actual meaning. Mr. Cqnolly ;It would be better to put them in and read them at once tq the jury, rather than put tli em in the light the At^ctrnpy-Q-enepal is placing them. The Jttdge : I don't think Mr, Attorney-General is wrong, although I am not surprised ab Mr. Conolly rising. It ia allowable to set forth what counsel deems the meaning of the pleading. If the words were spoken, I do not see why they should not be admitted. In truth, I don't like to see a plea of Not Guilty in such circumstances, and I always set it right before the case comes into court. Mr. Conolly : But your honor, in this case it was necessary. There is a positive denial that all the words set forth in the declaration are correct. We deny some of the words altogether as having been used of and concerning the plaintiff. Mr. Attoeney-Genneeal proceeded to say that when counsel addressed the jury they did not adhere merely to precise words used by the defendant. He did not think he was going beyond what was right and warrantable in addressing a jury. However, his friend wished to have the pleadings read, and they shall be read. The first count of the declaration was intended to meet the case in the event of the plaintiff not being able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he was carrying on business as ah agent and merchant; and to meet the probable excuse that the words were not spoken of him as a merchant. The second'count was introduced for the purpose of meeting the objection, and to show that the plaintiff was carrying on business as' a merchant and' agent. The learned gentleman then proceeded' to re,ad the defendant's pleadings, nonimen^ng bo thftm as tie went'on'.' Kefe^rin^ to, the 4ftl\ plea, in which it ia alleged tl^afc the. words alleged fa h,ave been spoken and published by the defendant of the plaintiff -were and are true,—he said he was p.qt fa.p wrqng in saying he had slandered the plaintiff, and that though denying it, he admitted it subsequently. The Judge : It is quite clear that the charge is in the plea, and that was what Mr. Conolly was contending for; but the question for the jury is not whether these words are on the plea as a matter of narrative, but whether they were spoken out of floors, and at the time declared, Mr, Attobney-Genbbai. v And also whether they were true, and whether they made out a charge of swindling. On the fifth plea he remarked that defendant seemed to say plaintiff bad not got hold of the right language. He says, " Although we did slander you, and say all manner of things against you, yet the language used was slightly different from that you have attributed to us. I have never said that my money was ordered by my relatives to be invested by the advice and counsel of Mr. Tetley and Mr. Levin, but only that the moneys of other gentlemen were to be so invested." There was very , little difference in the fact. On the 6,^ pjjeq,, Tjn j which the words of defendant are, oup.teS, (1 Jfty; money j was invested by Leriuj's. ft&Vipaiftno) CQnspn,^ §nfl ■»*>-„' in liguidfjiiofltof $ etfafi . oyer-di§ft wJUi >'- '„ ,; , gien« W^.^uKconnect the charge of swindling ,1-om that of colluding in this transaction, but he himself held that both' went together. That, bowever, was not the way pleas shou],^ have been framed; they were really all one plea, all aimed at justifying the slander. After quoting the seventh plea, he said, i here followed thirteen paragraphs'he called them, ! and not separate pleas, for there was really but one plea—setting forth justification, and these the plaintiff says in effect, "I will prove before a jury the facts I have stated, and T will claim from this Court ; a vetdict for the defendant unde^ the justification given by the proof of the faotsi**. '" ' : The Jropj; That'is, I suppose, under the 88th I Rule of Court, which states, "If therdefendant justify i the alleged libel, 'of slander, on1 the1 ground of its : truth, the plea'must show dearly arid specifically the ! charge Which the defendant undertakes to establish i against the plaintiff, unless the same be shown in the 1 alleged libel of slander itself." T^adefen'daiit denies i the allegation. ''• ■"'''*' !:■■" The Attobijey Genesal, after.reading as far as the 117 th plea, sajd, quoting^ the118 th,' thiswas defendant's ' conclusion regarding this transaction,—-that the plaintiff did act in collusion with Tetley, and that he and Tetley did dwindle the defendant, That part of the

pleading was applied to that part of the declaration which charged the defendant with stating that plaintiff had swindled the defendant and the young men, and had colluded with Tetley for that purpose. Passing on to the last pleas, he said that that plea declared that the words referred to therein were not spoken of the plaintiff, hut he contended that they were Bpoken of the plaintiff. They were, it was true, as pleaded, spoken of Tetley, but they were as much spoken of the defendant, because they were spoken of the transaction in which both were charged with being concerned together. The learned gentleman then described the course he should take in conducting his case. He would first prove the uttering of the slanders, and the occasion on which, and the person to whom they were uttered; but he should not produce his casein full, nor go into any evidence with regard to rebutting the allegations brought forward, and the evidence that would be adduced in justification of these allegations. He had not intended to read (he pleas at this stage; but having done so, and having pointed out what was necessary to support an action for slander, and having pointed out the difference between words spoken of a private person, and words spoken of a merchant in relation to his business, be should allow the defendant to go on with his case, and then bring evidence to rebut the statements. He added that in case of slander of a private person the action must fail unless the plaintiff could prove special damages; but he would prove that the plaintiff was carrying on business as a merchant at the time the slanders were uttered. He should also prove that the firm of Levin and Pharazyn still continued, (although plaintiff had left it,) and continued under the same name, Levin & Co. At the time the slanders w«re uttered the plaintiff was making arrangements for going to England. At this time he found that Mr. Beaumont was spreading this slanderous report, and this stopped his departure. After touching on some points of evidence he proposed to bring out, the learned gentleman said that the thought might struck the jury, and many people besides, with regard to Mr. Levin, who for twentyseven years hadoccupied a high commercial position, that it was not worth his while to bring into court the person slandering him. But the case was very different from an ordinary case of slander. It might be a prudent course to follow if the slander was uttered in the heat of the moment; but this was not the fact in this case. The defendant had admitted the utterance, and had apologised for doing so ; but afterwards he repeated the slanders, with additions, behind Mr. Levin's back. And not only did he utter the slanders, but he said he should publish them over the Colony, and over England. " I will write to the Barings" (the Bankers), he said, "to Alexander's," Eedfern and Alexander, the correspondents of Mr. Levin ; and to other Bankers. It was necessary to show that Mr. Levin did not collude with Tetley. He was going home, and what could he say to his friends who learned that these slanders had been uttered and spread, if he, instead of staying and refuting them had fled before them, leaving behind him a son in business, with his late partner, Mr. Pharazyn. It was no matter how entirely he might personally disregard slanders made by a pevsou in Mr. Beaumont's condition; he could not, asabusiness man, do otherwise than notice them ; it was his bounden duty to do so. The learned gentlemen then called William Henry Eyes, who deponed : I am Superintendent of the Province of Marlborough- I know the plaintiff and defendant; Mr. Beaumont is a sheepfarmer in Marlborough, Mr. Levin a merchant in Wellington. In February last, I met M>". Beaumont on board the Airedale. In the course of a conversation Mr. Beaumont accused Tetley and Levin of having swindled him. He said he and others came out bringing come money with them, and he and the others were to invest it with the advice and consent of Levin and Tetley, and that certain moneys had been so invested by the advice of those persons, a.nd that the moneys, which had been drawn for, had been paid over to Mr. Levin in liquidation of Mr-. Tetley's account. Mr. B,eaumo,nt went qn tp explain that sometime previqus to this he had met Mr. Levin in Bicton, and had Refused to acknowledge him 5 that Mr. jjerin then epught an interview with him, and made certain explanations which satisfied him at the time, and he wrote a letter at Mr. Levin's request saying so, He added, " I am now going back to Wellington to demand that letter back, because from subsequent investigation, I believe that Levin has been acting in collusion with Tetloy throughout." I observed that what lie wa3 saying of Mr. Levin was rather slanderous language, and I cautioned him to speak in a lower tone of voice, as there were persons standing near. He said, " I am not making a private or confidential communication to you. I wish everyone to know it; I have told it to many others." I said he would be having an action for defamation, brought against him. He said, " 1 would rather have it than not. I wish the transaction made public, and I should not mind spending a few hundred pounds over it. If he does not return my letter, J, think I shall have the whole thing published in the Wellington papers." He also said he. had written to the Baring's, to Alexanders, and to certain Directors of the Bank of England;' and he further told me that previously to this he had written to his friends in England, and had been the means of preventing Tetley from borrowing £50,000 or £55,000, from his, (Beaumont's) friends in England. Mr. i^eaupiont accused Levin, in conjunction with Tetley, of swind^ ling him, and that he' (Levin) was as bad as T,e]tley. He said, with reference to the swindling, tlhat they had acted, in collusion together from the first;. and; he also used iiie, sa^me reaspti witlj, regard to t^e letter he intended to withdraw, because. 0/ s.uch, collusion. "Mr. 4TXPM?T-^EI^EE4^ s I understand you to say th^ Mr. Beaumpns sajcl t^at the money obtained by My. Tetley, wen,t in liquidation of Tetley's overdra^wfyh Levin j did he mention the names of any other persons who had been concerned in this matter ? Witness : He mentioned the names of persons, who had been affected by the transaction. Mr. Attobney-Genebai : Who were they ? Witness: They were Mr. Wharton, Mr, Bujjiene, and Mr. Garforth. Mr. AttoeneytGe^bbali \ What did he Bay ? Witness; He said that these three and himself came out under Tetley's wing, and that their money was only to be invested with the advice of Levin and Tetley, and that both had advised the money to be invested with Tetley, and that it was so invested and went in payment of Tetley's overdraft. He characterised it as a swindling transaction throughout. Mr. Attorney-Genebal : When he referred to the transaction, did he make use of any expression respecting Mr. Levin's going home ? Witness : I could not be sure; bjs I thinl? Mr. Levin's going to England was. re%r&l to, and' that Mr. Beaumont said !,'.MV^%iU fits ft rather hot for Mm ■who^^ gets "there," V 1 • '■'-'■ ; ! i*W:mmMljm&j l , . That was with reference *° *«WtyW*s ike Barings and others ? . ■ l«ness:. Precisely. Mr. Attobney-Genebai. : Did Mr, Beaumont, in speaking to you, directly accuse MfY Levin and Mr. Tetley of acting in collision together ? Witness v He did. This closed the examination in chief. Mr. Cos OILY, (in cross-examination): What time in 1 February did you have t;his conversation with M^r. ; Beaumont ? ■ i Witness: I can't give the date j but ,% tbinfr ifc was I about the middle or latter h,alf, of February of the (present year. "*■ '" ' - Mr. CoiJQXEP s Did you ascertain that Mr. Beau- | mont was going fdrfher north, to Tauranga ? I Witness: I did)' 't think he went North either the ' same day he arrived m Wellington, or the day softer. He was only a'very short time in Wellington, and he ; was some weeks away. I Mr. ConoMiY : Hoy? aoon was any memorandum i of your evidence ta'ljien down ?" ' :I •' Witness: 'It; was" takec^' dewn very soon after it was mentioned to|v me. "It was taken down by Pr. IFeatherston. ' t was asked to write it, but I reused. Dr. Featherstori, next1 day, waited on nic, Vita Mr. Levin, aud asked me toconftrin ttie words I had used, and I did confirm them as being substantially correct. Mr. Conoliy : You have stated that Mr. Levin and Mr. Tetley had advised Mr. Beaumont to purchm iheep i we 70a ium no Mid, thit ?

Witness f I could not positively say. The Judge: The word sheep was used I think. Witness: I believe I understood the money was invested in sheep! . Mr. Conoily i A,re you quite sure that Mr. Beiumont said he had written to the Barings and Alexander's f . Witness: lam quite positive he said so. Mr. Conoily : Was it not that he had written to his brothers in England, and that they would take the advice of the Barings P . „' ~='. Witness: It is my impression that he said he had written himself. Mr. Conollt : Is it also your impression that he said his own money was so restricted to the invest* merit under the advice of Mr. Tetley and Levin ? Witness: Yes. I might possibly be mistaken, and have jumbled up some of the points. I did not expect to be examined on the subject. Mr. Attobney-Genebai: My friend asked you if it was your impression that Mr. Beaumont had said that Mr. Levin and Mr. Tetly had swindled him. Mr. CoNOLiiY: I have not asked the witness a single question on the subject. Mr. AttobneyGenebal: Then I am mistaken. To witness—ls it your impression that Mr. Beaumont informed you that the money was invested in sheep ? Witness: That is my impression, so far as I can recollect. Nathaniel William Levin, (the plaintiff), sworn : I reside in Wellington, and have lived there nearly twenty-nine years, and have carried on business as a merchant there since 1841 to March, 1868. My business was so very general as to include almost everything; land agencies, agency for the Trust and Loan Company, which I still retain, for an Insurance offices, and for several absentee proprietors. I was agent also for runholders, receiving their wool and furnishing them with supplies and money, and negotiating the sale of runs and sheep. I carried on business alone until June, 1862, and thereafter until March, 1868, Mr. Pharazyn was my partner. At that time the partnership was dissolved; but the same firm has been carried on by Mr. Pharazyn, my son, and Mr. Walter Johnston under the same name of Levin and Co. When the partnership was dissolved, I ceased to carry on business as a merchant so far as the Province of Wellington was concerned. Mr. CoifoliY: I shall object to my friend putting questions to this witness contradicting his own declaration. The declaration says that plaintiff " carried on business as a merchant and agent for sheepfarmers, runholders, sheep runs, and stations, together with Charles Johnson Pbarazyn in the City of Wellington, in the Province of Wellington," and that " the plaintiff was injured in his credit and reputation as a merchant." Now, he can't take evidence to show that he is not a merchant. The Judge: Evidence of that kind won't hurt you, Mr. Connolly. Mr. Cokoliy: No, it won't particularly hurt me, but is it not irrelevant from the issues, your honor ? The Judge : Yea, it is irrelevant and may be stopped as such. At the Bame time, a man may be a merchant in London, and yet do no business anywhere except in China. Mr. Attorney-General : I may ask, your honor, that I mtiy be permitted tp amend this part of the declaration. He then proposed the following amendment, substituting, for the concluding part of paragraph 1, the following:—" That for some time before the committing of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff, together with one Charles Johnson Pharazyn, carried on business as a merchant and agent for runholders, at Wellington, in the Pvovinoe of Wellington, under the firm of Levin and Co., and at the time of the committing of suoh grievances the plaintiff was a merchant and commission agent, carrying on business in New Zealand." Mr. Cqnqi/ly objected to the amendment on the ground that it entirely altered the whole scope of the action, Plaintiff had bad numerous opportunities o amending the declaration, the issues and the entire pleadings, and had not done so. Such an amendment would throw the whole case into confusion ; it would alter the whole of the declaration, the pleas and ths issues also, in proof of which he read the. third issue which put; the question as, 40, whether the defendant did carry on business as a merchant in Wellington at the time, tha words were spoken. We should have prepared! a new issue had this been stated, and altered the whole issues and a variety of other points. We are taken by surprise if this amendment were allowed. We had given an issue, and on that issue we are entitled to a verdict. If this amendment were allowed it would be necessary to alter the pleadings from beginning to en,d, It was true the power of amendment given by the rule of Court to the Judge was so large that one can never know where it began a&d ended; but; surely it was never intended to, give such power as to alter the whole pleadings, and change the entire complexion of the cage, The Judge : In common sense the ques^on is whether plaintiff was slandered in relation to, that business ? Certainly, you are put yp, a false position by the plaintiff. Mr. ConolliY : It ci^es to me entirely as a aurprise, for it wast utterly, unknown to me. that Mr. Levin was in business since, he left the firm of L^yin, ap,d Co. ' Mr. A^tob^ey.Genebal: It w;as. kaown, through^ out Colony. Mr. Hast : (sattQ, qo#t) Ifafc a bit. Mr, Cqjtoi^y : $t was not known by common repute. And oppose Mr, Levin had not been carrying on feupiness. by himself since 1868, and chooses to asseyt that he was, which may or not be true— how can we rebut this assertion ? We never knew of it. He sayß he was carrying on business, not & Wellington, but in New Zealand. Mr. attobney-Genebal : The declaration says it. Mr. Conoiiy : The declaration, aaya he is carrying on business with Mr. Phara^ya, That we are prepared to rebut, and $h© other side now retracts that, and says he was carrying on business by himself; which may op may not be the case. We are prepared to prove that he was not carrying on business with Mr. Pharazyn ; and we are taken by surprise by the new allegation. The Judge : I confess I am a good deal impressed with what Mr. Conoily has said. No doubt he. has been taken by surprise. Mr. Attobney-Genebai : The re^l question is whether Mr. Levin is slandered, in his business as a merchant. The Judge : Yes,, that may he the real question ; but is it the qpewion the parties came here to try ? Was h.9 a merchant at the time ? Mr. Attobney-Genebal : Whether we gan sup-, port the amendment in law, is another matter; hut the facts are these—Two person^ werein. partnership, one retires, and another tenants, and carries on the business under thaaajjae firm, At the time of the transaction^ <& which the slander is. spok,e», the plaintiff wai actually in partnership. Tfhf. other side oould not be taken by surprise unless something were done which changed the aspect of, the,. c^se. In order to prevent the necessity for having a great number of counts, th^s pp^er was given to allow of amendments; ' i The Judge :, Yes, amendments should be folly imade in, meters of words, but when questions of faej'are material, it is necessary to guard against sweeping amendments. 1 After some further discussion and a re/^renoe by I the Attobney-Genebal to the <$*# J^msdale v. Greenacre, The Judge allowed, Ijhe, amendment. He did not , think there was aay real danger- to defendant^ and, did not caaßide^ him taken by surprise; b%t atj ijjhe same time he arrived at the conclu£J#n w v ith diffidence. ' ' i Mr. Conoliy request^ \hs Jjudge. to, take % n»te : of his objection, The evid^n^e. oij the plaintis w^s then proceeded with Ml flow's -.—% w.as, sesiweted by the deed of partnership from carrying on business at Wellington. After the dissolution of partnership I retained all my land agencies, and I retain them still, and also the Trust and Loan Company's Agency. These are lucrative. Mr. Attobney-Gehsbal : Did you, as a matter of fact, trade as a merchant ? Witness: I have purchased wool; that is all I have done since. I had no independent office. I

not buy and sell goods, nor carry on any runholding agency. The business of the Trust and Loan Company was lending money and negotiating mortgages. I was agent for absentee proprietors also, and managed their property. I know Tetley very well indeed. I first became acquainted with him in 1857. He lived at Kekerangu, in Marlborough Province, and carried on business as a runholder. Ho lived there from 1858 to 1863, when he went to England, and returned in 1865, and went back again in 1868. He has never returned. Mr. Attobney-Gexsrai : Do you know whert he is? Witness: I saw a letter from him about two months ago, stating that he was 100 miles above Montevideo. I know Beaumont, Wharton, Garforth, and Pt.lleine. I first met them about 26th January, 1865, when they arrived from England. Tetley introduced them to me. He said he wished to have some business conversation with me about them. I proposed they should all come and dine with me, and we should talk matters over after dinner. Tetley, Beaumont, Garforth, and Wharton came to my house to dinner. I recollect Tetley told me he had advised them to purchase Bheep and to leave them with him for about two years, until such time as they could secure country, and then they (the four strangers) should form a partnership. This was said in their presence. Tetley asked me whether I could recommend such a proceeding. I said I thought it was about the best thing they could do. I won't be sure if anything was said then about the amount of money those gentlemen would have. They left with Mr. Tetley for Marlborough about the end of January or beginning of February, 1865. I received a letter from Mr. Beaumont in March, 1865, requesting me to pay certain moneys into Mr. Tetley's account, and referring to Mr. Tefcley's letting themhave 7000sheepon terms Mr.Beauraonthadlelt with me a bill on Overend, Q-urney, & Co. for £2774, less exchange which was placed to his credit on 30th January, 1865. He also sent a letter of credit for £1000 unaccompanied by any bills of exchange, and therefore it was not a remittance. I had no conversation with Tetley about any other transaction with, respect to these young men. I had a conversation with Mr. Beaumont. Mr. Attobnet-Genebal : Was there any conversation about lending money to Tetley from these young gentlemen ? Witness: .None with me. I think Wharton brought me out a letter of introduction. I don't keep such letters, and could not find it anywhere. I think it asked me to advise him as to the investment of money they were to have. I don't remember from v/ho-a that letter came. Tetley went from Tfew Zealand last in '68. I went over to Pieton in the end of '68. I recollect seeing Beaumont at Blenheim, and we went on to Kekerangu together* Mr. Murray, the Bank Inspector, was there, and Mr. Chaytor and Mr. William Pharazyn. I received! from Mr. Beaumont a letter of apobgy, dated 26th December, '68. [Letter put in and read as follows]: — "To N. Levin, Esq., Wellington, " 26th December, 1889. " Dear Sir, —I have to express my regret that the complexion of some things in connection with J. D. Tetley's affairs led me to take views injurious to and to. give expression to them privately. Explanations made> to me, and your offer to give me every facility fortracing out Tetley's transactions through the books* of your late firm have satisfied me that any such statements made by me, are unjust to you and yourlate partner, and I am happy to be able to. withdraw them. " Yours faithfully, " R. Beaumont." I was then at Kekerangu. A few days after that letter was written I returned to Wellington. It was. arranged that whenever- he came over, be could cometo my office and examine the accounts. He came and looked at Tetley's account. This was about tho 16th> of January, 1869. I did not see him after that day,, but X don t think he got away until 22nd or 23rd. Mr-, Attorney-Genebal: While looking at the account, did he make any complaint op remark with reference to this transaction, the purchase of sheep, referred to in his letter of Maro&, 1865 ? Witness: No. The Attobney-Genebas > Nor with refererte© to the moneys mentioned in that letter ? Witness : No, The following letter was put in and read :— " Kekerangu, March 18th, 186 S. (4Mt Deab Sib,—As Mr. Tetley has agreed to lefc mv companions and myself have 7000 ewes on terms, for two years from the da,te on which the respective sums are paid into.3»s account, I shall feel obliged by your paying the. sum of £2700 (two thousand seven hundred) owb of thp sum I placed with you to Mr. Tetley's account. I enclose a. letter of credit on Messrs. Finlay Hodgson and Co. for £1000, which I shall be obliged by your getting cashed and placing the sum of £1000. (one thousand) to Mr. Tetley's! account, vrh jch sum,, with the £2700 above-mentioned,, and the further sum of £4000, which my companions* aw to, pay, will complete the price of the 7000. ewes? a,t tjhe stipulated price, 225. I have been told that, afc the present rate of exchange, I should receive a premium on the bill for £1000 at sight; if you are ablo to get it cashed on these twins, I shall be obliged by your placing any balance to my account. I will write to Messrs. Finlay Hodgson & Co. by the, English mail. ." X »n>, Dear Sir, " Yours truly, "KIOHAIBJ BEAUMONT."1 [He*© copies of Mr. Tetley's accounts from the books of Messrs. Levin and Co., from 1857 to 1868, were put in and admitted by the other side.] . Witness: These accounts show the receipts for all the moneys paid for the 7000 ew,e» transferred by Tetley, except £1000 which was, p&ced to Tetley's credit in 1865-66. There waa ;S4OOO, being £1000 each from WhartonandGarforth,and£2ooofroinPulleine J which was credited ©n 13th February, 1865, and £2700 from Beaumont, credited on 23rd March, according to his letier of 18fch March. I recerred £4000 from M?« Tetley by three bills of exchange drawn by those gentlemen in favor of Tetley and endorsed to me. (Bills produced.) Thkis the £4000 referred to by Beaumont when speaking of his companions. About ' 24th or 25th February last, I received information from Mr. Eyes. Up to that time I had not received any letter from Mr. Beaumont withdrawing his Hter'.of apology. W^in two days after I heard this, statement from Mr. Eyes I instructed my solicitor to raise an action against Mr. Beautnont for. slander. I received a letter from Mr. Beaumont on March 18, addressed to me inside, but to Levin and Co. on the cover. [Letter put ia and read_as. follow* ;<-- J . " To ZST. Levin, Esq., Wellington. " SlB) —I am now in a position to state in writing the inference I draw from nay inspection, of Mr. Tetley's account with your firm. At your request, I wrote you a letter at Kekerangu, at the end of last December, stating th^t the explanation you had given me of your ahe^ in the transactions by which 1 and others wsw induced, to intrust our money to Mr. Tetl&j, was such as to convince me that neither I, nor any of the others who bare been co-victims with \ myselfj had any cause to, complain of the conduct of ' yourself and your firm. This letter I beg to retract, as I regret to, say, that after due deliberation, I am unahfc to, reconcile your statements, on the good faith of which, my letter was written, with the facts which : an. inspection of Mr. Tetley's account with your firm ; forces on »y conviction. « Yeu will remember that the statements mas§.by. : you were in answer to accusations you imagined,l- had, made (or might probably'make) against you r They were, as nearly as my memory will serve, as.follows: — Charge—That, in January, 1865, when ypu advised myself and others to lend certain Mini!, of money to . Mr. Tetley, that.person was largely;-indebted to you, or your firm. Your answer was-^Tbat, as far as your memory served yon, at the date named Mr. Tetly was only slightly, if at all, in your debt. Charge—That^Mr. iTet&y; bid' Wen in the habit of burdening the Awatere prc^etty with, the expanses of hi* private station of fokmjiafuj'over which you bil.l a mortgage, and of whichjou received the wool . by paying the expenses by cheques on tile Bank of Niw Zealand. A^«^»ltttai|UMr.l«tity hsA

been in the habit of paying every expense by cheques on the Bank of New Zealand, whioh was the account of the Awatere property, yet that he did so purely for the convenience of his men, who objected to being subjected to the exchange charged on Wellington orders, and that an inspection of your account would show that you had made considerable payments quarterly to meet the1 payments made by the Bank of New Zealand, on account of his private station. " You further stated that you bad not the slightest suspicion that Mr. Tetley's property was not sufficient to meet all demands on it, and that, when you were writing off possible losses on your various accounts, you excluded Mr. Tetley's property of Kekerangu from the list. , : " These were your answers to my charge*, and these you stated that an inspection of Mr. Tetley's account would support. I regret, however, to state that the evidence borne by the account in question demolishes your defence, in my opinion, and not only confirms but gives me fresh grounds for grave complain.ts . against you and Mr. Tetley. " I will state a few of the chief points on which I ground my charges. " Previous to Mr. Tetley's departure for England in 1863, he appears to have effected a mortgage on his property in your favor. This was never registered, and, by this omission on your, part, Mr. Tetley was enabled, without fear of detection, to assert to us, as he constantly did, that his property was unencumbered. Mr. Tetley appears to have come out from England originally with small means, and to have gone home in 1863 with encumbered property. Yet he was enabled, by funds supplied by you, to act the part of a man of fortune, instead of appearing in his true colors as a needy adventurer, or, at any rate, as a man of small means. By means of these false appearances he was enabled to get himself placed in the position of guardian to inexperienced new-comers, a responsibility which he discharged by referring us to the very man who held an unregistered mortgage over his property for advice as to an investment. To call to your mind how thoroughly Mr. Tetley appears to have prepared the way for the catastrophe which I has now been completed, I will quote one phrase in the letters written by the parents of his victims, at Mr., Tetley's suggestion:—' I hereby authorise my son j to draw for , such money only to be invested with the written consent of Mr. Tetley or Mr. Levin.' " When I add that your advice was for us to lend our money to Mr. Tetley, I have completed my first ground of complaint that your advice was not entirely disinterested. " I can confidently assert that, utterly inexperienced as I was;, at the time I first entered this ColonyJp colontil notions of dexterity in business matters, Kid I known that Mr. Tetley was referring myself and others to the holder" of an unregistered mortgage over nis property as a suitable adviser, I would have rejected the advice I received to iend my money to Mr. Tetley, without a moment's hesitation. "I further find that Mr. Tetley purchased a property called Wikawa by cheques on the Bank of New Zealand, and has paidforlandonhisown property in the game way,- and mortgaged these purchases to to your firm. That, in one instance, he has paid a sum of £2000 out of the Awatere account in payment of a bill given to you. As you have been in a position to form a tolerable notion of Mr. Tetley's pecuniary affairs, I consider that these form just grounds for complaint on my part. "Of the sum of £1700 paid by Mr. Wharton's friends to his account with you, as his agent, and which appears to have been paid to Mr. Tetley's 5 irivate account, when I think that you, as his agent, might have been aware that he had no interest whatever in the Kekerangu property, I will say nothing, as. that is question for Mr. Wharton or his friends to deal with, not for myself. The points affecting the other victims I will also leave for their own consideration, as I have no authority to attack or condone your astion in the matter. "So far as giving my consent to the action of the Bank of New Zealand in waiving their right to dispute the validity of a bill, of sale held by you over certain stock, &c, of Mr. Tetley's, in so far as it nffected the security they held over the same property, I considered myself at liberty, on behalf of myself and my partners, to accept the consideration you offered as an equivalent. But, as regards your conduct towards those gentlemen in conjunction with Mr. Tetley, prior to AprO, 1868,1 have no authority to express an opinion as to their probable view of your conduct. But I have no doubt that, though they have proved themselves so facile a prey to colonial dexterity, i personally, or though their friends,' they will be able to form, and, if necessary, express an opinion on your conduct. I beg -once more to state that I retract the letter I wrote yon expressing myself satisfied with your explanation, nnd shall he obliged by your returning it to me at Starborough Run. Failing this, I propose to send both letters to the papers in this Colony, and giving them what publicity may be necessary in England, in order to let any who may read the first letter judge how far it may be deemed to represent my i.riie sentiments. " I am your obedient servant, "R. Beaumont. "Tauranga, Match 10th, 1869." Witness: Redfern, Alexander, and Co. are my agents in London. They have very large transactions in New Zealand. They are my correspondents, and have been for sixteen years. I hold their power-of-uttqrney now. The Barings are a large banking firm in London. I held a power-of-attorney from Lord Ashburfcon, a member of that firm. Mr. Attobney - General : Were you making arrangements to go home after dissolving the partnership between yourself and Mr, Pbarazyn ? "Witness: I was. At the time I heard of the slander I had not only made arrangements for going home, but we had let our house, sold our furniture, and taken our passage j I mean for myself, my wife and daughter. Mr. Conolly: I don't understand this last question and answer, unless it means that Mr. Levin is going to claim special damages for loss of passage, which I don't suppose he intends doing. Mr. Attobney-Genebal: Certainly not. CBOSB EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF. Mr. Conolly : With-respect to your business since March, 1868, you have stated it was purchasing wool ? Witness: Yes. Mr. Cqnolly : From whom ? Witness : From Mr. Cross, of Wellington. Mr. Conolly : That was a transaction at Wellington ? "Witness: It was. ■ Mr. Conolly : That transaction was in Wellington, in a rgom in the same house Levin and Cs. occupied? Witness: Yes. It was not the same room I occupied when in the firm. It had been used before only as a consulting room. Mr. Conolly: Was that purchase of wool your only transaction siriceMarch, 1868 ? Witness: It was. Mr. Conolly : When did it occur ? Witness: Either in January or February, 1869. Mr. CONOItY: Was it before or after you, heard the statement from Mr. Eyes. Witness: Before. I had taken my passage by the Ruahine before I heard that statement. She was to sail on 27th March, and I secured my passage more than, a month before that. Mr. Conolly : How ,did you become acquainted withMrljTetley?:-' . Witness' t, He brought me a very strong letter of introduction from Mr. Weld, the present Governor of Western Australia. Mr. Tetley did not come out to manage Clifford and Weld's run. He came out for the purpose, of settling. Mr. CoNOLLTf i Were you aware that he was a man of little or no means ? Witness: After he had been out some time. Mr. Conolly : Then it was on the faith of this letteaof introduction from Hr. Weld that you assisted him with money. Witness : Yes; '.and 'from a strong prepossession in his fevor from hia manner. 1 never he^rd that he had been insolvent before he left England. I nsve? heard of it.'tiil nqw. ' ' J Mr. CoNOXLYi I observe that inline first year,his account is overdrawn £1019. Witness: Ye»^

Mr. Conolly : Was Tetley's account ever in credit* except for a very small sum from that year till it was closed? Witness: Not at the end of any one year [Witness was then interrogated regarding the balances of Tetley's account, the particulars of which are these : —In March '59, he was debtor to Levin and Co., £1547; in March '60, debtor for £2010s. lOd.; in the next year nearly the whole credit was brought to account. In January, 1861, £2560 was the balance against Tetley, and in March it was over £5000; commission was charged in that year on £4977.. On 31st January, '61, the balance was £2708, and three months later it was £2981.; on 28th February,62, it was £4309; on 31st March of that year, when Mr. Pharazyn entered into partnership it was £4515; on 31st March,63, it was £1585.] Mr. Conolly: Was not that sudden decrease of the balance caused by your discounting bills for Tetley at very long dates ? j Witness: Yes; but not his own bills. Mr. Conolly: Yes; one was for £4450 with eleven months to run, one for £1000 with five months to run? Witness: Yes; but it might be well to observe that I was in England at this time. That transaction of discounting those bills was not my individual transaction. Mr. Conolly : You have in that year commission charged on cash advanced £10,631. Witness: Yes. Mr. Conolly : And if those discounted bills had not been brought to account, would not Tetley's overdraft have been about £9000 ? Witness: Yes, so the accounts show. I Bhould observe here that I went to England in December '62. I was then aware that Tetley was going to England shortly after me. He purchased a considerable quantity of land before I left for England. He mortgaged that land to our firm. The mortgage was over 6000 acres, and is dated Bth October, '62. That was before my departure to England. At that time I believed it included the whole land he possessed, but I have reason to believe there were 1000 acres not included. Mr. Conolly : Was that mortgage registered ? Witness: No. Mr. Conolly : Why not ? Witness : I can't tell you. Mr. Conolly : Was it the practice of your firm not to register mortgages ? Witness :We were not in the practice of taking mortgages without registering them. Mr. Conolly : Why was not this one registered ? Witness: I really can't say why. Mr. Conolly: Did you take mortgages from other people about that time ? Witness: Yes. Mr. Conolly : Were these registered ? '■ Witness : I .believe so, but I am not prepared to ' answer the question. Since I returned home, they are always punctually registered. Mr. Conolly : Why was this particular mort- ?- gage left unregistered ? Witness: I really can't say why? I did not see 1 the mortgage again. After it was signed, it remained kin the hands of our solicitor until I saw it iv Mr. : Brandon's office about the time I told Mr. Beaumont iin Mr. Conolly's presence, that I held a mortgage ' granted in 1862. Mr. Conolly: Did you not tell Beaumont, shortly after the time you got him to write that i letter of apology, that you had that mortgage ? I- Witness: Certainly, positively, and decidedly not. » Mr. Conolly : Did you not say to him that to < show the confidence you had in Tetley, you had a • mortgage in 1862, and had not registered it ? Was it • not on horseback, as you were going to Kekerangu 1 you said this ? > Witness : Most decidedly not. The first time I ■ told him of that mortgage was at Picton, when he 1 charged me with a mortgage in 1868 from Tetley, as he was on the eve of leaving for Eng--1 land. Mr. Conolly : Will you declare on your oath that 1 the mortgage you told him of at that'time, was not 1 the mortgage of 1866. i Witness: I told him of the mortgage in your own ' house, and we were speaking of the matter on the ■ way up. Mr. Conolly : Was it not the mortgage of 1866 - you told him of ? Witness : I told him that the mortgage of 1862 was ■ superseded by that of 1866. In 1868 I was to take certain first mortgages for myself, because of certain 1 capital I left in the firm; that of 1866 was in favor of the firm; that of 1868 was in my favor, and that of 1866 was then cancelled. I think I mentioned this first to Beaumont on the way to your office. Mr. Conolly : I call your attention particularly to what took place in my office ; did you not say that Beaumont had complained of your taking a mortgage just before Tetley left, and that that mortgage was only the renewal of that of 1866. Witness : 1 believe I did, and I believe also mentioned that of 1862. Mr. Conolly : You swear that positively ? Witness: I do. I also told Beaumont that I had never taken a lien over Tetley's wool. ' Mr. Conolly : Did you meet Mr. Tetley often in England? Witness : Only twice, once in London and once in York. I think I remained two nights in York with him. I heard nothing of his living in great style. He had three or four apartments in Coney's Lodgings, in York. I returned to New Zealand iv April or May, 1864. My visit to Tetley, in York, must have been in October, 1863. I remember Tetley's return to New Zealand in January, 1865. Some of these young . men dined with me. They left for Marlboronghtwo days after that. Ido not recollect of their coming to my office. Beaumont came to arrange about the Bills. So far as my memory serves me, the business was decided in my house after dinner. I don't say business was not talked of in my office, but I can't tax my memory with it. I don't recollect Beaumont, Garforth, Wharton, and Tetley coming to my office. I won't swear they did not come. Two letters were put in by Mr. Conolly and read:— " To my son, Mr. Henry Whaeton. " I authorise you to draw upon me for £1000 (One thousand pounds), at sixty days' sight, for investment in land or stock in New Zealand, on the express ■ understanding that such investment is recommended by the written approval of Mr. Tetley or Mr. Leviu, or of both ; and I undertake to advance an additional thousand pounds after receiving from one or both of them a written opinion that such further advance was necessary for the completion of an advantageous purchase. " Signed by your mother, "Cath. M. Whaeton, " 31, Upper Harley-street, " sth October, 1864." I have no recollection of ever seeing this letter. "Kirby Wiske, Thirsk, "6th October, 1864. " To my son, Fbederick Arthur Pulleine. " This will authorise you to draw upon me for the sum of Two thousand .pounds, at eixty days' sight, for investment in land or stock in New Zealand, subject to the approbation of Mr. Tetley or Mr. Levin, Wellington. " (Signed) Robebt Pitlleine." I don't say I have not seen this letter, but I have no recollection of having done so. [Two bills were produced.] I will not swear whether or not I may have seen these. I think,Tetley did say that their,money was to be invested on his or my advice. Mr. Conolly: Did you advise them to lend Tetley the money? Witness: No, never. What I recommended wns for them to buy sheep and leave them with Tetley until some land was found to put them on. Mr. Conolly : Did not Tetley say that they call these things, in New Zealand, investing in sheep ? The Judge: What things? Mr. Conolly: Lending money without any security, and calling it investing in sheep, your Honor. Did Tetley say this? Witness : I can't tax my memory. I Mr. Conolly : Of course, one can't expect that a .gentleman, .in whose experience so many business. • traneaijfciqns occtr, should remember details ; but do .you, npfc,recqlle,c|i some statement being made to the

effect that lending money was, in their case, investing in sheep ? Witness: I deny ever having heard it. Mr. Conolly: Was not something Baid about the sheep being worth 225. or 235. per head ? Witness: It is quite possible. Mr. Conolly : Did not Tetley say, "it does not matter whether we say 225. or 235. or £22 or £23, the real investment is to be in land ?" Witness: Certainly not. Mr. Conolly: When Beaumont drew in your office, a bill on England for £2700, did you not praise up Tetley, and express a wish that there were many move like him in New Zealand ? Witness: Yes, I have no doubt I did, for it was my opinion at the time. Mr. Conollt : Did you toll Beaumont that you held an unregistered mortgage over Tetley's property ? - ' Witness: It was not my business to do so. Mr. Conolly: Did you tell him of Tetley's financial condition ? Witness: I was not called upon to do so. Mr. Conolly :On 31st March, 1864, Tetley's debt to your firm was £13,031 ? Witness: Yes. Mr. Conolly: On 31st March, 1865, it was £10,648? Witness: Yes. Mr. Conolly : And that was after his receiving £6700 from Beaumont and his friends ? Witness: Yes. Mr. Conolly: Then without that money Tetley would have been £17,348 in your debt ? Witness : Yes. Mr. Conolly : Did you not know that his whole property was not worth that sum ? Witness : I was told it was worth £20,000. Mr. Conolly : What, then ? In 1865 ? I Witness: Yes, I was satisfied. I knew nothing of his property. I had never seen it myself. He told me himself, and other people had told me, it was worth so much. In January, 1866, he had about 9000 acres of freehold land. Mr. Conolly : Don't you know he bought most of that land at ss. or ss. fid. per aero ? Witness: A good deal of it was 10s., and I knew he spent a large sum in fencing and improvements. I calculated the number of sheep he held from the clip of wool. He rented 8000 from Trolpve, 1000 from Miss Hort, 600 from Mr. Bell. Mr. Conolly: Had he not 12,000 from Mr. Wyvill? Witness : These were paid for in account. Miss Dodworth's was not for sheep. I was instructed to pay her £35 a quarter, and I did. I don't think it was the rent of sheep. Judging from the clip, and allowing the libei'al calculation of 41bs of wool per head, there would be, including Richmond Brook, 25,700. There were 60,0001bs of wool from one place, and over 40,0001bs from another. There were 9000 sheep rented from Major Richmond ; 8000 from Mr. Tvolove, and some others: making 18,500, leaving 7000 belonging to Tetley, at this time, before lambing. On the 15th April, I carried another £1000 of Beaumont's to Tetley's account. On the 31st March, 1866, Tefcley's balance was £19,878, and the number of sheep he held was 35,600. On the 31st March, 1867, the balance was £22,678. Mr. Conolly: How many of these sheep were Tetley's own, subject of course to the 7000. he professed to have to deliver to Beaumont, and the 18,500 ? Witness: I can't be certain. Mr. Conomy :Do you remember Wharton being in Wellington in 1867'? Witness: Yes. Mr. Conolly : Did you not ask whether he expected more money from England ? Witness: Decidedly not. Mr. Conolly : Did he not tell you he expected more money out ? Witness : I have no recollection of such a conversation. Mr. Conolly: Did you not say to him if he got more money he would soon have a good stake in the country? Witness : I don't remember it all. Mr. Conolly : Do you deny it ? Wicness: I say I remember nothing of such a thing, and that amounts to a denial. Mr. Conolly : Did £1700 come out to Wharton's account to you ? Witness: Mr. Fearcm rfiffiittetl me £1700 to the joint credit of Tetley and Wharton, for which a new account was opened in th,e ledger. Of that, £1500 was drawn out by authority, and placed to Tetley's credit. On 31st March, 1868, the balance against Tetley was £24,244. That was the day our partnership accounts were balanced. We nob did not write off one shilling from Tetley's account as bad. I always looked on if; as safe. Mr. Pharazyn said he was prepared to lose £5000 on that account. It was always considered safe, and to show it, the new firm advanced £500 more to enable Mr. Tetley to go to England. I have no idea of how Tetley was to be supplied with funds in England. Shortly after his departure, Beaumont, as his attorney, began to look into his affairs, and I heard in July he had been making enquiries, and was told the sum that was due to out* firm. At the same time I was put in possession of the fact that. Tetley had an overdrawn account of £11,000 at the Bank of New Zealand. I believe Tetley was to return in October, 1868. He bus not done so, nor do I think it likely he will ever return. Before December, 1868, I had heard that Beaumont had made complaints against Tetley, but not against myself until he refused to acknowledge me. I told Beaumont that though Tetley had not returned, I believed he would return by next mail. After I learned what I now know, I abandoned that delusion. Mr. Conolly : When in Marlborough, did Beaumont charge you with having advised him and his friends to lend money to Tetley, when you knew he was embarrassed at the time, and did you tell him that Tetley was very slightly in your debt when he went to England in 1865 ? Witness: When Tetley went to England he was very slightly indebted to me, and on his return, such was his property and position, as regards credit, that he had only to cross the road to get any merchant to take up his account. Mr. Conolly: Did not; Beaumont, after you arrived at Picton, tell you that you knew Tetley was living expensively in England dux-ing two years, and did he not charge you with knowing of tfhis extravagance, and also with assisting, hjm to keep up false appearances whilo he was deeply in your debt ? Witness : I said I knew nothing of it. Mr. Conolly : Did he not also charge you with concealing Tetley's debt from these young men ? Witness : It was noib my province to speak of ifc, Mr. Conolly: Did he not then tell you that Tetley was a most improper man to be trusted with young men's money at the time he got it ? Witness : Most positively not. | Mr. Conolly : Did not Beaumont charge you with, in January, 1,865, advising these young men to lend their monoy to Tfitl,ey ? " knowing that it would come into your hands ? Witness: No; he made charges bnt not in that way. His charge referred to tie mortgage. I don't recollect whether he or some one else charged me $dth advising them to lend the money. Mr. Conolly : Why was this letter ,(pf apology) written ? ; Witness; Inconsequence of certain charges. He charged me that the Awaterc property in which Beau-: mont had an interest, had been burdened by Tetley with the expenses of the Keker#ngu property, which is mortgaged to me. Mr. Conolly: Did you tell him that those expenses had been reimbursed by quarterly payments of £500^ to the Bank of New Zealand ? " ' i Witness; I remember saying that quarterly payments had been made. Mr. Conolly : Under whpt circumstances wasthis letter of apology written ? Witness: We were going to arrange about some sheep, and I told Beaumont that I would do nothing as to the sheep until he apologised. I explained matters to him, and he expressed himself satisfied. Beaumont and I returned to Blenheim together, and found Mr. Murray, the sub-inspector of the bank, there. We looked at Tetley's account. Mr. Conou/E: Did Mr. Murray say "I don't see any of these £500 quarterly payments except one ?"

Witness: No, not in my hearing. I sent copies of this letter of apology to England, and copies of everything, I had in connection with this business. I also sent to England copies of the letter of 10th March, withdrawing the apology. When Beautnont came over and looked at Tetley's account in our books, I asked him if he was satisfied, and he said he would let me know, or words to that effect. Mr. Conolly : Did you ask him for a clean bill of health ? Witness.: No; I asked him for a business letter of introduction to his friends in England ; to whom I could show the accounts. I asked him for nothing more, and I understood him to say he would let me know. Re-examined by the Attobney-Geneeal : Tetley was introduced to me by Mr. Weld in terms of high commendation. He recommended him as a good settler. Had he not been a gentleman, I don't think Mr. Weld would have sent him to me. He spoke of him as his friend. Mr. Weld Baid nothing of his having been a bankrupt in England. Mr. Weld, now Governor of Western Australia, had been out since 1848. He was a flockowner adjoining Kekerangu. In 1858 Mr. Tetley had overdrawn his account £1019. He was doing nothing then. He took a lease of Trolove's station about the end of 1858, and that overdraft must have supplied £500 paid I to Trolove. The lease was for two years. After the lease he purchased 8000 or 9000 acres of leasehold, and 80 acres of homestead freehold. Up to March '66, 1 supplied Tetley with stores and money, and received his wool. During all that time I never took any wool lien from him, nor any bill of sale over his sheep. He stocked his run by some sheep he had over from Trolove's run, and he may have bought some besides. At that time he was a debtor of about £1000 on the year's transactions. In 1859 he took a lease of sheep from Major Richmond for £1700 a year the first year, and £2000 a-year after, from '59 to end of '68. He had 9000 sheep, and was to return 10,000. For the last year no rent was paid. Tetley had power to deal with the sheep, only returning certain numbers, ages, and sexes. We paid the rent regularly to Major Richmond's agent. Tetley afterwards took another lease of Trolove's property for six years of a small extent of country, rent £1500 for first three years, and £1800 for last three. During all those years I never knew Tetley owed money to other persons; I believed I was his sole creditor up to the time of his return from England in 1865, and later. I don't think he owed anyone else money until he purchased Starborough run. About the end of 1865 he wrote to me saying he would require to open an account at the Bank of New Zealand, in Picton, for the purpose of paying men's wages and small accounts, as people objected to pay the exchange, and also to pay in small sums for sales to butchers, &c. Miss Hort had 1000 sheep under ordinary sheep agreement; £125 rent was paid, a fixed money payment. Miss Hort is a sister of Mrs. Levin. That agreement expired in 1868 ; just before Tetley went home, I made a new one. 600 sheep were rented from Mr. Bell, who sold them in 1867 to Tetley, and we found the money, £399 155., at 13s. per head. I never knew Miss Dodsworth had any sheep. She was a bister of Mrs. Tetley's, and we remitted her £35 quarterly up to January, 1868. Mrs. Tetley was a daughter of Sir Somebody Dodsworth. The payment was stopped because we understood from Tetley that he was selling land to Mr. Chaytor to Becure this £35 to Miss Dodsworth. We released a certain portion for that purpose. None of this money was paid to us. The Court adjourned till next day.

- SECOND DAY—THURSDAY. [Re-examination of Mr. Levin continued by Mr. Attoeney-Geneeal] : Miss Hort did not get her sheep. We charged 10 per cent interest and 2| commission on advances. We never charge commission on a balance brought forward at the year's end. The debits on Tetley's account to 31st March, 1862, are £11,931; the gross credits, £7300; the balance, £4360. In October, 1862, I took the mortgage, when there was a balance of £6400. I took the mortgage simply because he was going to England, and to meet any accident as to the payment. Up to that time 1 had not asked him for either payment or security. The mortgage contained a covenant to convey all property subsequently acquired, in addition to Kekerangu. It mortgages abo leasehold property, and contains a covenant that he should execute a wool lien if required. I never asked for that. Also to insure the buildings for £1900. The mortgage is not only for Kekerangu, but also for some property leased from Trolove, also the license for the Sawtooth run and other properties*. In 1862-63 the account ended with a debit of only £1500. The debit was reduced that year by £7600, for bills received for sheep sold to Mr. Lance. £5550 of that was debited in the following year. There was difficulty in carrying out the agreement, because the sheep were not delivered within three months. £1200 was paid for the purchase of Kekerangu in 1863-64. The gross debits, including the balance of the previous year, were £19,569 which includes these bills, and the balance'against him £13,882. When Tetley left for England in 1863, he had a credit of £1200 for his expenses. I met him in London, and he asked a further credit, as he had a wool press, fencing wire, &c, to purchase. I gave a further credit of £2000. I saw no particular extravagance on the part of Tetley. [Certain letters from Tetley were proposed to be put in, but were objected to by Mr. Conolly, as not being evidence, and the Judge allowed the objection.] When Beaumont called at my office in January, 1865, he told us he had authority to draw a certain sum of money, and wished to leave it with us ; I said we did not want it, but at last we agreed to allow it to lie at call at the usual bank rate of 2£ per cent. Pulleine's, Wharton's, and Garforth's drafts we remitted to Redfern and Alexander for collection. These drafts were enclosed in a letter to me from Tetley at Kekerangu. Nothing was said about the terms of the investment. The sheep were to be simply on term 9, these I never knew, and I don't know to this- day. It was proposed by Tetley, and I was asked to advise about it, and I said I thought it a good thing. All I knew was that Beaumont wrote saying you will probably know we are to receive £800 a-year from Tetley for our sheep. [Letter read] : — " We are in receipt of your letter of the 28th instant. "We are not sorry that you have been unable to send us the standards we wrote you about, as we find, from the number of cattle about this place, that wood Hosts are necessary to form an efficient fence. " We will be obliged by your honoring any bills we draw on you, and discounting them on the usual terms, beyond the sum of £1200 which we placed in your hands, as it is probable that we shall considerably overdraw our account this year. "You probably know .that we receive £800 from Mr. Tetley in March. Acting on his advice we are having all the necessary improvements done to our land at once, so as to put it in a paying condition as soon as possible. " R. Beaumont. " August 10th, 1865." Except that letter and one directing me to draw the £4000, &c, I heard nothing whatever about the terms. In 1865-66 Tetley had a transaction with Mr. Fearon and Mr. Poynter, of Nelson. Tetley then purchased Starborough. run. The first payment after that purchase was £1000 to Mr. Poynter. He purchased Mr. Fearon's and Mrs. Newcome's property. The disbursements £or Starborough account include Fearon s, Newcome's, and Mrs. Stevens's properties. There was one account j for Kekerangu, one for Richmond Brook, and one for; Starborough, or the Awatere property, and one for; general account. We kept the property until we' gave up the Starborough agency, because the drafts were so heavy. He told me he was about making; arrangements with Fin^ay, Hodgson, and Co., tpj obtain money at $ per cent., an,d would work the; stations through the bank, and thus save all com-: missions. That conversation must have tiaken place in April, or May, 1866. The condition, he made was, that I sbouldassjst him through 1866 and 18,67, I receiving the wool, and at the end of that time to get payment. I asked him if he would take Kekerangu on the same terms, but he said he could Rot dp so then. Beaumont, Wharton, and Garforth started in partnership together at Kaikoura. In October, 1866, they owed u« a balance of £554, with which sum

Tetley was debited, because he said he would hare to ' pay that to them. Tiro of these quarterly payments for the Kekerangu expenses were drawn for.. When Tetley started for England in May, 1868, he gave me the mortgage and a bill of sale over the sheep at Kekerangu, to secure the sum of £12,000 to myself. It was secured to me, as on my retiring it was agreed that I should hare first mortgages. There still remained £12,400 due to the new firm. Levin and Co. lose £15,000 by Tetley, and I lose personally £6,000. When Mr. Pharazvn and I reaclju«t<?d partnership in 1865, instead of keeping half of Tetley's debt, I took three-fourths of it, and Pharazyn only one fourth. The consideration of bad and ! doubtful debts took place in February following, and , although Tetley's balance had increased I took over the 1 whole as good. At the close of the first partnership we wrote off £14,000 for.bad and doubtful.debts, but nothing was written off Tetley's. . I was advised one year that there were some thirty.bales of wool clipped at Starborough that should have been clipped at > Kekerangu and come to me. Cattle and horses were also sold, of which I got no proceeds. So far as I know, there was no reason why Beaumont should not get his sheep in 1867. According to wool returns there were 29,725 from which to select. Tetley bought some land 'at Picton valued to me at over £2,000, and the highest value I can get put on it now is £300; it is ninety-seven acres, some freehold, some native leases. I sold Kekerangu station for £9,000, including sheep which cost me £900. We took the mortgage in 1866 because Tetley owed us over £20,000 ; it was made a fresh transaction to secure all land purchased since 1862. Until I went, in 1868,1 had never been in Marlborough at all. I depended entirely on the representations made to me. In 1866 • Mr. Tetley sold a property to Mr. Maskell for £3,000 receiving £1,500, and leaving £1,500, and Tetley afterwards bought it- from Moskell for £2,000. We provided the money for the purchase. Tetley afterwards sold it to Mr. Chaytor for £1,500. The piece of property that was released from Kekerangu did not come through our hands. | This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr. Conolly contended there was no case to go to the jury. He argued that plaintiff was not a mer-. chant at the time the slander was uttered. He had only one solitary transaction in January or February, 1869, when he had sold his furniture, and taken his passage for England, and the partnership closed in March, 1868. He could not imagine a merchant sitting eleven months in a room and doing only one transaction. He said he had retired from business, and the terms of his retirement restricted him from doing any business in Wellington. After somts discussion the Judge disallowed the objection, and decided to allow the case to go to the jury. CASE POE DEFENDANT. Mr. Conolly then opened for the defendant. Mr. Conolly, in opening for the defence, said, that in the interests of his client, he was bound to use all the safeguards the law allowed him, to save him from the consequences which the other side desired to see spring from the present action, and therefore he had taken objections during the progress of the case, and sought to shelter his client under these objections. Representing as he did, a gentleman like Mr. Beaumont, he did not, however, regret that these objections had been overruled. He did not regret that he should have an opportunity of laying before tbe jury the facts of the case on which the defence was founded. These objections, it might be, would come up on a future day; but, in the meantime, it would be his duty now to put the defendant and his witnesses in the box, and he would undertake to prove that all the words actually spoken were justifiable, in the circumstances; and it would be well to show that such proceedings as his client complained of, could not be passed over, and that it should be published here and in England, that the public might be put on its guard against any repetition of such conduct. He hardly knew now, notwithstanding that the character and conduct of Tetley was so well known—what opinion plaintiff entertained of that person; never a word was said about him or his conduct, except that he had held a high opinion of him, and not a word was now spoken that would indicate that that opinion was changed. There was no doubt that from first to last Mr. Levin, by his propping up of the man, was the cause of the sucoesi of Tetley's fraud and dishonesty, for, but for Mr. Levin he would never have had the means to do the harm he had done. Plaintiff well knew from his business management and experience that Tetley was a man of no means and large liabilities, and he concealed that knowledge from those whom Tetley had marked out to be his victims. Tetley came out without means, and plaintiff took him in hand from the first, and at the end of five years' Bojourn in this country when he was £9000 in Mr. Levin's debt, Tetley went to England for a holiday. A holiday! Not after making a fortune, by which he would have been entitled to go and enjoy himself, but after he had made large debts, which were increased by plaintiff advancing him first £1200 to meet the expenses of his holiday trip, and then £2000 more, making £3200, and on this he lived in a style like a man of fortune, earned in five years; and his false appearances and fahe representations induced persons cf means, and with sons, to place their sons and their money under his care ; they deemed it a golden opportunity. The parents furnished their sons with letters of credit, expressing confidence and trust in both Tetley and plaintiff. Mr. Atiornby-Q-eneeat, : My friend, I apprehend, intends to prove all this, otherwise h& has no right to say it. Mr. •Oqnolly continued: These letters were shown to Mr. Levin, of whom th_eir holders know nothing except through Tetley, and Mr. Levin knew nothing of them except through Tetley and these letters. Plaintiff said he did not remember the fq,ct of thege letters having been shown to him, nor of the jnteiv view when they were shown; but he should make that fact perfectly clear to the jury, and that all the business was done, not at the dinner table, but in the office of the plaintiff. Mr. Levin voluntarily undertook an office of trust, and to say the least he concealed from the persons interested the knowledge he possessed as to the actual financial position of Tetley, and it was perfectly plain, had he not concealed thai knowledge, not a penny would have been given of the money that was lent Tetley, and by him paid to plaintiff in reductiou of his debt. He knew that Tetley was indebted to him £17,000, and from his business knowledge he could not have failed to know that had that fact been communicated to defendant, that balance would not have been reduced by the money of Tetley's victims. No one could tell, no one could know, except one man, that Tetley was really next to bankrupt, if not wholly so at that time Only one man could have told that, and that man was the plaintiff. Was it not for his advantage to conceal that fact ? Did not after events prove how he benefited by that concealment ? He told us he did not recollect that he had advised them to lend their money to Tetley, as being the best thing they could do ; but he (Mr. Conolly) would show that in two interviews, one with Beaumont, Wharton*, and Garforth, and anothei* and separate one with Pulliene, plaintiff had used the same language, word for word. Mr.' Conolly at some length narrated the various points he intended to prdve \ and, touching Mr. Eyes' evidence, he said it was only yesterday from Mr. Eyes' evidence that defendant Jcnew how, when, where, and to whdvh the words alleged were spoken. He concluded by remarking that the amendment of the declaration respecting the carrying on of business by the plaintiff reduced the case to the practical issue of: Were the words spoken of by the defendant of the plaintiff true ? He then called .' ..■''■■ :" .■"'*' .' "■ •'•'■■••' '■'- ■■' j .Evidence job the Defence. Richard Beaumont, examined by Mr. Haet: I am a sheep farmer. I reside in Awaf ere, on Scarborough station. I know the plaintiff, and Joseph Dresser Tetley. I first made Mr. Tetley's personal acquaintance at a place called Aiskew, in Yorkshire, i August, 1864. I had heard of him previously. fie was living at Aiskew.' I did not see hfrn elsewhere till we met at Plymouth' to embark wfyh hjhv'tb Ne^r A friend of my fathers introduced me'l/to fiim. I was to meet him at York races, but was unable to do it. Tetley aftewards wrpte tp me asking me to yisit him, and talk over New Zealand affairs. I djd again meet him at the house of G»forth'« father about a fortnight before we wiled. By gmpnl wpuU 1

knew in what style Tetloy was living in Yorkshire. He hunted with hounds kept by a relation of mine. Tetley, his wife, three boys, a tutor, a butler, a lady's maid, and another servant, .Garforth, Pulleine, and Wharton cam* out in the ship. Tetley and I dined with the plaintiff shortly after our arrival. Whirton and Garfortb. came after dinner. I had the pleasure of taking Mrs. Levin in to dinner, and from the talk at the table the impression on my mind whs that I was a very fortunate fellow in coining out with Mr. Tetiey; Mr. Levin spoke so highly in praise of Mr. Tetley, wishing there were more like him. No business was talked on that occasion. I recollect a business conversation in Mr. Levin's office. I arrived on 19th January. This conversation took place a few days after my arrival. I think it was the morning of the | day on which we dined at the house. Wharton and Garforth were with us at the office. Mr. Tetley was i there also. Mr. Levin came in. I simply said Tetley | had told us to wait on him to talk about some investment of money. We had some letters from our friends, —I, Wharton, and Garforth. I handed my letter to Mr. Levin. It was an ordinary business letter authorising me to draw. I saw Wharton and i Garforth's letters on board ship, and on the way to Mr. Levin's office. [Mrs. Wharton's letter read] : — I saw that letter in Levin's hands. I saw Garforth bringing his letter, but I am not so sure that I saw him give it to Levin; I can remember his opening it in the street on the way to the hotel. Mr. Levin having seen these letters went into an ttdjoinining room and brought Tetley out. Some conversation took place as to investments, and we were told it was a very wise thing for young men to invest their money at once, as it gave them a stake in the country. There was some talk that Tetley should look out for an investment, as new comers were not able to judge of value, and that our money was not to be locked up beyond two years. It was to be invested in the land purchased, and we were to have the option oi withdrawing our capital if we were not satisfied. Mr. Conolly : Do you recollect the first words spoken by plaintiff ? Witness: Tetley said you want to do something with your money. The conversation, the substance of which I have given ensued. I was: the principal speaker on behalf of the new comers. Tetley spoke mo3t, sometimes Levin spoke. It all occurred in Leven's presence. Among the last words Levin spoke, he said " Why don't you lend your money to Mr. Tetley? You cannot do better." We were told it was called an investment in sheep, and then Tetley and Levin had a conversation between themselves, as to value. Tetley said the sheep should be valued at 235. a head, and Mr. Levin said 225. was enough, as he had not to deliver them. Tetley said, "In this instance, you know, Levin whether it is 225. or 235., or £22 or £23, it makes no difference as it is a mere matter of form," or words to that effect. No more was said about the matter. Nothing was said about delivering sheep. I went into another room and drew a bill of exchange for £2,700. I cannot state anything as to what was said about an ultimate investment, except that Tetley was to look out for property on our behalf. I don't think any more was said. No written paper eyer passed between me and Tetley. There never was any agreement about sheep between me and Mr. Tetley, nor had I a single sheep delivered. None were ever set apart or ever marked. Within a few days after the iuterview in the office of the, plaintiff we all went to Kekerangu. Mr. Conoiix : What return did you get for your money laid out ? Witness: Twelve and a-half per cent. It was paid by Levin and Co. till about the middle of 1866, when the Starborough account was transferred to the Bank of New Zealand. The interest was paid yearly, but we draw it sometimes before it was due if we wanted it. For about a year and a-half after that I was a sort of manager or assistant to learn eheepfarming in order to be fit to become active partner, and take the management of the Awatere property during Tetley'i absence in England. We stopped three or four mouths with Tetley, and the autumn dip came on whilst we were there. I consider the plaintiffs numbers as to the sheep are correct, and a!so as to the quantity of land. The character of the Kekerangu land was various: about 300 acres homestead was in good grass paddocks, and a few hundred acres with grass laid on the surface and beginning to show. Nearly the whole of the land was five shilling per acre land, with the value of the improvements in addition. It would be very hard for any one but the most impartial witness to say what was the value of the improvements. In the beginning of January last plaintiff wa9 with me at the Bank of New Zealand at Picton and examined Tetley's account there. It was overdrawn to the tune of £13,000 or £14,000. Before then I had been in Wellington and asked Mr. Pharazyn the amount of Tetley's debt to Levin and Co., and was told it wa9 £22,000. Either then or immediately before this the Manager of the Bank told that Tetley's account was in a queer state, and he then asked if his private run was mortgaged. I replied " No," for Tetley had always said his property was unencumbered. Until that time I had no idea that Tetley was indebted to the plaintiff. I heard from plaintiff that he had had a letter from Tetley from South America. The Bank of New Zealand seized Tetley's property and took charge of the land. I received £900 to do away with any dispute as to the validity of the title, and £400 or £500 for furniture, <&c. That £900 went towards fclie overdraft' for the Awatere property, in which others besides myself were interested. The overdraft is still a matter; of dispute for lawyers. It was a joint account. Tetley was working on the Awatere account. A* the, end of December, 1.868, I saw plaintiff oc the wharf kc Picton, with young Pharazyn, the solicitor. I did not greet him on meeting. He greeted me but I did not return it. We met afterwards and h,e assumed t^ look of injured innocence, and said, " You wpn'|; shake hands with me, What is the reason ? " j said he should know by and by. I remembered abput Tetley's power-of-attorney, and I added that on matters of business where we must meet, I should meet him. A friend, Mr. Seymour, came and talked to me, and Levin came afterwards, and 1 referred him to my solicitor. He said, "If yoa must send me to a solicitor, send me to an honest one. Mr. Conolly is employed by the Bank of New Zealand, and therefore can't give me an honest opinion." I said " I'll chance it." We afterward went to Mr. Conolly. Levin began to tell me, in Mr. Conolly's presence, that I had some erroneous opinions, and that Tetley would be out by next mail. Me spoke of a letter from Mr. Weld, which he said was satisfactory. I had accused him that after having advised us to lend our money to Tetley, he took a mortgage over his whole property just on the eve of Tetley's departure for England. Ho then said to Mr. Conolly, you know Mr. Conolly this is only a substitute for that former mortgage which was sent to you for registration, or something of the kind. My impression is, he said the former mortgage was in 1866; I swear positively he did not say it was given in 1862. We were stopping at the same hotel in Blenheim, and I made charges to him of the same nature and substance as those contained in my letter the other day. I told him that when he advised myself and others to lend Tetley our money, tile latter was deeply in his debt, and that he knew of his extravagant style of Hying. Tetley often boasted of his property being unencumbered,'and I said'that all through he had '■'- been knowingly propping up a man of straw, enabling him to'act the parti of & man of fortune, when really he was an unworthy adventurer ; that we should never have heard of Tetley if he had not played the part of a man of fortune in England ; and that having the knowledge of Tetley's affairs which Mr. Levin had;" when he saw Tetley '6ome ovl'c vifch his retinue, he must have known thft probable result &> Kis'victims of' haj?ing anything to do with him. I said further that he wfca very wrong in'advising us'to'lend'our money to Tetley." 'WLevin said, " I have not my books'hire, tub as far" al I recollect, Tetley was not'indebted -to me' when ho came'oufc last,' but I think he had a smaU'baWncejn his favor."' lam positive that' Levin said thia. x«j spoke about Kekerangu," and he said he paid £5W Quarterly \a "to the \Awafere account through tM BankorNewZfeal^nd^ He said'he always cgnfiaerea Tetley's property sufficient to meet; M denjands,|n4 hehadneVer written off any part of Tptley 9 dsty becauae he took it for good. After these exp#*tiotu I v«i oonTWoad that I wm k error in unpttWl

to Mr. Levin unfair play, and I shook hands with him and admitted I was in error, and at Kekerangu he said, " You see the injustice those things do ; they get talked about, and no doubt you have spoken to friends on the subject.; you should give me a letter to show if any one should repeat the matter" and I accordingly wrote the letter of apology. Mr. Conolw : When did you first hear of the mortgnge of 1862 ? Witness: On the road down from Kekerangu. After I had'written 'he letter of ttpology, L«'»-in said " Timf. mortgage in 1862 or 1863 was only in case of Tetley's death, and it showed the confidenoe we had in him that we never registered it." I said " You can afford to have confidence in a man when you were so well secured." I went with him to the Bank at Blenheim and looked at Tetley's account to show that my statements were correct, and that a great many payments for Kekerangu expenses had been entered against the Awatere property, and about £500 for other expenses, with which the Awatere property had nothing to do. Mr. Murray, of the Bank, looked , over a few pages, and said " I don't see anything about those £SOO quarterly payments you spoke of!" Levin replied, "At any rate our books will show that Tetley drew on us for it, and if he has misappropriated the money you have no right to blame me for it." Afterward I inspected the accounts in Levin's hooks. Mr. Conolly : What did you find ? Witness: The main feature that struck me was that Tetley came out with nothing, and never had anything. The hooks showed he had never brought out any money, and had gone on increasing his balance. I found only one quarterly payment of this £500. After I looked into the accounts, Levin •aid, " Really, now, I think you ought to give me a clean hill," and I said I really cannot, for the whole of the accounts have fully convinced me that the first charges I made were well founded, they show that Tetley was a man of straw, to whom our money should never have been lent. Mr. Levin was in the office, and he said, " It is very hard to blame us just because New Zealand's circumstances have altered, and therefore our advice turned out bad." I replied that I was not so childish as to blame any one for honest advice that circumstances had made turn out bad, but that I did blame him for having virtually fitted out Tetley like a privateer; and that morally, if not legally, he was liable for the damage done by the privateer. It was just after the Alabama affairs. The elder Levin •aid, " What are you going to do, what steps are you going to take ?" I said that remained to be seen, but at any rate I would show both to New Zealand and in England, that men in New-Zealand could not do such things with impunity. I afterwards had a conversation with Mr. Eyes, on board the Airedale. He began by saying that Levin told him, or he had heard, I had written a letter of apology to Levin, and that one heard so much about these things that he wished to hear from me the rights of the case. I told him the story as told by Mr. Eyes. His evidence is substantially correct, except that I never told him I had written toßedfern and Alexander, and the Barings, and the Directors of the Bank of England ; and also that I never went into the terms on which our money was invested. According to my version it was put into his hands at call to be invested. I never said it was invested in sheep, but to be invested in the Awatere property. I never said my money was to be invested with Levin's advice, but that it was so invested. I never said anything of £55,000. I told him I wrote to my brother, who is a sufferer, being a shareholder in the Awatere property, and had asked him to speak to Finlay Hodgson, one of the Baring's firm, and my uncle's adviser, and warn him about Tetley, lest he Bhoiild be living in the same brilliant style as before, and deceive more people. When I arrived in Wellington, I found a steamer was to sail for the North in half-an-hour, and I had no time to call on the plaintiff, but went straight on to Tauranga, and wrote the letter of the lOfch March in a Maori whare. Last year forty working bullocks belonging to Tetley came from Starborough station, and were sold at Kekerangu, thirteen to twenty cows, and a short horn bull. The price I don't remember, but the bull brought £120. Cross-examined by Mr. Attobney-Genebal : I can't swear if the interview at Mr. Levin's office was on the same day that we dined at his house. It may have been some days after, but my impression is it was the same day. My companions did not dine with us, they came after dinner; they came vith the dessert like the children, you know. Mr. Attobney-Genebal : Was it because they were younger than you that they were not asked to dinner ? Witness 11 rather think now it was possibly because they had a smaller sum of money than I had. Mr. Attobney-Genebai.: Ah, did you think so? I suppose the people of New Zealand are not accustomed'to see such wealthy men as you ? Witness: They made the most of us when they did. Mr. Attobney-Genebal : You have told us that no business was talked at the dinner table, was it in consequence of your refined habits that you could not talk business then ? Witness: Not in consequence of my refined habits, but because it is not the habit of gentlemen in England to talk of business at the dinner table. They call it shop. :Mr. Attobney-Genebai : You are quite sure from your habits you could not do so ? Witness: lam quite sure I did not. Now I think of it;, there was a certain amount of business talked. " Mr. Attobney-Genebai : Ah, there was then after all? A : 'Witness: Yes, but I did not know it was business, then—it was praising up Mr. Tetl'ey. Mr. Attobney-Genebal : There was no talk of investing in sheep ? 1 'v^rrafES^: No. We went to Levin's office with the l^ttejra either that mqrning or soon after. I think that morning. Mr. Attobney-Genebai. : You. say after having bpen told to lend your money to Mr. Tetley, you placed it in Mr. Levin's hands to be lent to Tetley. How could you write that letter of 18th March after having lent the money P Witness: I wrote the letter at Mr. Tetley's dictation. The first part was written at his dictation: the second part, about the commission, was written by his advice, to save £25. The money was drawn in Mr. Levin's office in consequence of his advice. The moment we drew the bills we believed the money was virtually lent to Mr. Tetley. We had passed our words to lend it. I never asked Mr. Levin to take care of it. I believed it was lent to Mr. Tetley. I never had any further conversation with Mr. Tetley about the investment. Mr. Attobney-Gekebai.: You have said the rate of interest was to be 12^ per cent. How do you make that agree with the £800 you were all to have on £7,700 ? The interest on that is £962 10s. Witness: The £800 probably represents the interest of some of us. Some of our money was actually drawn and lent to Tetley before that letter of 18th March, 1865, was written. Tetley was not in I the habit of showing his letters to me. I do not know what he wrote to Levin, neither did any of my companions. Respecting Mrs. Wharton's letter, that her son's money was only to be invested with the written advice or consent tif Levin or Tetley, I heard Tetley say thathe Would Write to Mrs. Wharton. 1 knew Mr. Ingles. I knew his brother "at CambridgeI.' I cannot 'remdmber any conversation with Ingles at Kaikburas on1 the subject of my investment, won after'l arrived iri New Zealand;f I never said to him T had'invested my" money in sheep.' I cannot remember Mr.'Eyes giving me' any warning1 against speaking of "Mr. Levjn as I did. I will-not sw&ar he did not warn me; but pdd not recollect his doing so. Italdliimlw'ishedth'efacttbbemMe public that iay letter of apology was obtained under false pretehcei. 'I believe' Mr. Eyes opened the conversation. }>sceivf}d a power-oj-aitorney from Tetjey to act for {{&)',abb'nt a'inonth jbefiijre'h'is departure. • J ha^ not jjateVecf into parteership with hjml>efore, the power-: of-attorne'y was sighed; I swear that* We %* talked'of the 'probability of a partnership. Myself |D.it|iebtl|erp>4neVß^aye'b.eVWd l«»blP \ff tte fltMk'% the gver^raft, but oiur liability W an open fetjoj}'.-" :': "' - ■ • '■ #r. £pQBU|2¥rGESEBAi'; Ho.w many partners W^e-there P : : There were nine or ten of vi, wme here W4 wme in. England. In ftroo I cluwmi tto

overdraft of £13,000 or £14,000. The bank Inspector told us we were liable. When we entered into partnership we left the matter to Tetley. Mr. Attobkey-Genebali : Where is the partnership deed? Witness : Tetley took it with him to England. He wanted to get more young men with money as partners. Mr. Attorney-General : Did not you execute a wool lien to iho banli after TViley went a«av ? WilllO8!<: I g!l«"0 :i jll gjlli-llt '0 Ml- bi k -J il I:'; • which the Sheriff seized, he to^k possession of the Kekerangu sheep. He seized in consequence of that act of mine, which I knew would affect the Kekerangu sheep. I gave the judgment to rectify an error Tetley had made in a wool lien to the bank. I knew at the time the sheriff seized the sheep that they were part of Levin's security. I always considered the Awatere account was in Tetley's name. I had the option of having the property seized, and the sheep sold at half-a-crown a head, or signing a judgment. Wharton, Garforth, and I went to a small farm in Kaikoura. We got supplies from Mr. Levin. We took £1200, £400 each, of our money out of Tetley's hands to start with. The Kaikoura partnership is going on Btill. It is not very profitable. Small farming is not generally. We ''were £554 in debt to Mr. Levin the first year. It is paid. Either me or Tetley paid it. Mr. Attobney-Gexebai : How did you know what was the price of the freehold land at Kekerangu? Witness: I found it out by searching the books in the land office. I have all the details, acres, roods, and perches. Nothing like one-half of the land cost 10s. an acre. Only a very small portion. I have the facts. Mr. Attobney-Geneeal : When Mr. Levin came over to Picton with Mr. Pharazyn had you a conversation with him on going up to Mr. Conolly's ? Witness: Yes, we had some talk. Mr. Attobney-Genebai : Did he not inform you in presence of Mr. Pharazyn of the mortgage of 1862. Witness: Certainly not. Mr. Attobney-Genebal : Do you swear to that ? Witness: I do, decidedly. Had he told me he held an unregistered mortgage in 1862, I should never have written the letter of apology. He spoke of a prior mortgage, but I understood it to be that of 1866. He-never then mentioned 1862, and never, spoke of there having been three mortgages- L addressed my letter of March, 1869, to Mr. Levin in the letter itself, and to Levin and Co. on the cover, because I thought it the official way; and also because I thought if addressed only to himself be might not show it to his partners. I got a number of accounts out of Tetley's box at Kekerangu, which I broke open after I knew he had absconded. I say the money was lent. Any mention of sheep was merely a matter of form. Here the Court adjourned till Friday, at ten o'clook.

THIRD DAY—FRIDAY, November 26. Mr. Beaumont, the defendant, was again placed in the box, and re-examined by Mr. Conoliy. Mr. Conolly: Why did you say you lent the money to Mr. Tetley in January, when it was not paid till March ? Witness: I said bo because I considered that a verbal agreement like that made in Levin's office, to lend money, was binding on a man of honor. No money of mine was placed to Mr. Tetley's credit before March 23,1865. In explanation of my statement, that it was lent in January, I say that I always considered it as virtually lent from the time I verbally agreed to lend it. During the first year or two of my stay in the Colony Tetley did not consult me on matters of business, nor until lately. The Judge : Did Mr. Tetley ever say anything about the terms on which the 7000 ewes, mentioned in your letter of 18th March, 1855, were to be given ? Witness: No, never. He simply considered it, as we all did, as money lent. I think Mr. Tetley's own handwriting will prove that these various sums were simply lent. My money was £3700, reduced to £3300, Wharton's was £2000 reduced to darforth's was £2000, reduced to £1600, because of the £400 each we took out for Kaikoura. Pulleine'a was £2000, making altogether £6500. Mr. Pitt : That, at 12£ per cent., makes about the £800 a-year. Mr. CoNoncY: When you saw Mr. Ingles in Kaikoura first, did you talk of money matters P Witness: I have no recollection of talking on any subject except about Cambridge. We did not talk of money matters. He has spoken to me on the sub-1 ject of this action. He came to Starborough as a friend to induce me to apologise to Mr. Levin, and stop the action, as it was a forgone conclusion that I should lose it. He desired, he said, to save me the expense of the action. He certainly never told me that I admitted to him that mine was an investment in sheep. The Bank Inspector, with respect to our admitting our liability for the overdraft, made certain promises having reference to an adjustment, which, after Tetley returned, of the sums due which werefairly belonging to the partnership property, and those proved to belong to Tetley's private account. At that time I certainly expected Tetley to return. Under the partnership deed Tetley was to be sole manager for two years and to pay ub 10 per cent, on our money. ■ Mr. Conolly ; How much did you invest ? Witness : Myself and my friends invested £22,900, of which sum £12,50|0 was contributed by members of my own family, myself, and my brothers.. In the £22,900 the £7700 already referred to is included. Henry Wharton, examined by Mr. Pitt : I am a sheep farmer, residing at Scarborough, in the Awatere. I came out with Mr. Tetiey. I first saw him in London. He had a house in Jermyn-street, where I have been. He rented a house in AJskpw, Yorkshire, and also had lodgings in York. He lived in some style. I arrived in the Colony in 1865. I know the plaintiff. Tetley often spoke about him to myself and to my mother. He advised her to write that letter for Levin. (Mrs. Wharton's letter read.) I first saw him at his own office about four days after my arrival in the Colony. Beaumont, Garforth, and I went by appointment to meet Tetley and Levin. Pulleine was ill and could not come. Garforth had seen him before I did, and I remember he remarked as a joke as Mr. Levin came 1 " here comes Moses and Son." We three were the first in. Tetley came in with Levin, or very soon ! after him. Tetley introduced me, and after a few minutes Baid to me, " Have you your letter Wharton ?" I gave him my mother's letter, and he and Levin went into the inner office, and took the letter with them, and another letter from Garforth. They both came out together, and Tetley said, " Levin does not at all like the responsibility of advising youne men in such circumstances, but out of a personal regard to myself he will do so." Mr. Levin must have heard him say this. The substance of Mr. Levin's remarks were, that we were to lend our money to Mr. Tetley on sheep until some suitable investment offered. This was said in the presence of all of us. From what passed at this conversation, we were to lend our money to Tetley for two years at 12 J per cent. Tetley explained that it was called an investment in sheep, I that we were to have bo much per cent on sheep. We never received any sheep from Tetley, nor any security. I went into the inner office,1 and signed a draft for the money. A few days after'we'left* Wellington. Some time after this, I received £1700 from home. I wrote a, letter to Mr. Levin authorising him to transfer that sum to Mr. Tetley.' It came out t6 the joint credit of Tetley and^ myself, and'was transferred'to his sole credit. It wasremitited by our' man of business. I waß'in Wellington several times. I was there before this money came but/ eaily in 1§66 or 1867. 1 saw the plaintiff. 'He asked'me how I jiked the cquntry, and also if I thoughY it' Jikely I should get more money frojn'my ifriends at j^pnie. T replied it was likely i' Bnpujci, as My. Tetley b,a4 adyised. it. He remarked, you '^ill soon foe getting quite a gqqd stake in the. coijntyy. T^ejr paid. the. interest sometimes by an order p,n Mr. Levin sqmetimea by cheque on the Ban]* of New Zealand^ J have never been repaid any of my mQney invested with Tetley. I lost altogether about £2500, : Cross*exainined by the Attobney-Gbnebal : I was five or six months under age when I came out. I did not know what arrangements were made at home, they were made chiefly by mother and Mr. Tetley. Itigatfftbitt of «x«hiDg» iaMr. Ui\a!% otto* I

believed it was a bill for the firse £1,000, arid another afterwards at Kekerangu for the second thousand. I am quite certain I signed this second bill at Kekerangu. My impression is that Mr. Tetley filled up the form and I signed it. I believe tiie others also , drew bills of exchange at Kekerangn. We all signed hills there by Tetley's request, and Tetley enclosed thnm in an...'envelope which lie addressed to Levin, and put. stamp* on. Tetley als' wrote a letter to r my nviHii'r a f tl)n sai.l" 1: time, and 1 lye <!L-ct. I tol I him to i-'orn-; t a^civi'v -n fit ?- l-.-it.-r ■ : J !H>ii-:v.i I •;g"< >' ouly one bill of exeliaut;e at Xekerangu. [{shown two bills of Exchange.] Both of these are in my handwriting, all the writing is mine. Mr. Attorney-Gbneb A!: Now do you still adhere to your statement that you signed one bill at Wellington, and only one at Kekerangu ? Witness: I still say that my impression is that I signed something in Wellington, which I believed to be a bill of exchange. Ido not recollect signing that last one. Mr. Attobney-Genebai : Do you deny signing the last one. Witness: Certainly not. Mr. Attobney-Geneeai : Could either of those bills have been signed in Wellington. Witness: No; I could not have signed either of them there according to the date. Mr.. Attorney-(Jenebai. : Then what cornea of your statement that you signed a bill drawing £1,000 there ? Was it not a small oredit that you signed for there ? Witness: There was some small credit, some money coming to me, but I do not think I drew for that in Wellington. I remember that I wrote to my mother from the hotel at Wellington, saying I had drawn on her for the first thousand. I know I signed something. I recollect that the £1,200 for the Kaikoura partnership was to come off our capital. It was arranged with Tetley when we first went down to Kaikoura in June, 1865. Ido not know the time it was done, but I am certain at the time I went to Kaikoura I had drawn for my £2,000. Mr. Attobney-Gknebai : Do not you recollect it waß arranged by Tetley and you that out of your second draft for £1,000, this money should come, and that the sheep arrangement should remain as it was. Witness: No, Ido not remember that. I remember that each of us was to take £400 out of Mb capital, and start the Kaikoura farm with the £1,200. Mr. Attobney-Genebal : Can you explain why those two bills are of different dates, one in February and the other in July. Witness: Yes, because by my mother's letter I could draw for the first £1000 myself by saying that Tetley and Levin advised the investment, but the second £1000 could only be sent on Levin or Tetley or both writing to say that more money was wanted to complete a desirable investment. I said in a letter to my mother that both Tetley and Levin had said they had made a desirable purchase for us. Mr. Attobney-Genebaii : Had you not bought sheep ? Witness : I said we had got sheep on terms. Mr. Attobney-Genebal : Ah, I thought you did. When you were first in Wellington were you in Mr. Levin's house ? Witness : I went there after dinner. I was invited at the office. When we saw Mr. Levin at the office or store, Pulliene was not there. I don't think Garforth went into the room. Beaumont and I went in and lam sure I signed something. [Letter put in and read] : — "Wellington, Bth June, 1865. " Messrs. Levin and Co., "Please place to my credit, out of D. Garforth's and H. Wharton's drafts for £2000, the sum of eight hundred pounds (£800), less 2£ per cent. "J. D. Tetley." I don't recollect the letter; I only know it was arranged that we were each to take £400 out of our principal. It was agreed we should have £200 a-year each, and then Tetley afterwards cut it down to 10 per cent. I was in the habit of drawing when we wanted money. It waß paid sometimes by drafts on Levin, and sometimes by cheques on the bank. We afterwards went into partnership with Tetley, I, Beaumont, and Garforth. It was agreed the investment should be charged, and the money invested in the Awatere property. Tetley always said we could have our money back on paying 2£ per cent. We last got payment of our interest a few months before Tetley left for England. Garforth left us about October, 1866, and the partnership in the Kaikoura property was dissolved. Re-examined by Mr. Conoily : You say etill, after looking at these two bills of exchange that you signed one bill in Wellington ? Witness : I am sure I signed some document something like one of these. I don't remember it' the real dates were put in ; but if they were signed on 19th February, and 15th May, I must have signed both at Kekerangu. Mr. ConoliLY: With respect to this letter, in which you told your mother something about sheep on terms: under what circumstances was that written ? Witness: I wrote it at Mr. Tetley'a dictation, and showed it to him afterwards. It was written in his own dining room. Mr. ConoiiiY: Were the words " sheep on terms" dictated by Tetley ?■ Witness: They were. Mr. Cohoily : Had you either at that time or any other, any document to show that they were sheep on terms ? • Witness: We had. no, document at all, only Tetley's word. Whenever we wanted money we applied to Tetley for it. Whet* in England we first heard of his having done so well in New Zealand by a friend of mine who wrote to my mother. Mrs. Tetley was the daughter of a baronet. Mr. ConoUjY : Was anything said about the price of sheep ? Witness: Both at Mr. Levin's office and at Kekerangu, Tetley said it did not matter about the price of sheep, as it was merely a matter of form. Mr. Conolly : Had you any talk with Tetley at Kekerangu about terms, wool money, or otherwise ? Witness: No; all that was said was merely about a loan, and the rate of interest. Tetley said it did not mean buying the sheep, but was simply a name for lending money. Frederick Arthur Pulleine, sworn: I am a draughtsman and architect, at present residing at Shortland, on the Thames. I came out with Tetley in 1865. I first saw Tetley at Aiskew House, near Beadle, in 1864. He was living there. He camo with Mrs. Tetley to see my father at Kirby Wiske, Yorkshire. He was looked on as a man who had made a good deal of money, and was living in a style which would lead people to believe he had. [Mr. Pulleine's letter produced.] That is my father's letter. I brought it out with me to New Zealand. Tetley introduced me to Mr. Levin at his office. He went with me to the door and said, " this is Mr. Pulleine of whom I spoke to you," and then he left in a hurried manner, as if he had business. I'just' showed Mr. Levinthat letter, and told him it was my father's, and. 1 asked him what was the' best' thing 1 could dp, and Mr. j Levin said "Lericl your money to Mr. Tetley." I gave him the letter to read and he read it. There waunothingßaid'about sheep, there was very little conversation passed. My father told me to, place implicit confidence ih'Mr. Tetley and Mr. Levin* and I did so throughout the whoje transaction, as my father told me. 'Nothing at all was, said about sheep. My father had no knowledge of Mr. Levin except through Tetley's information, My father knew Tetley, they came from the same Riding in Yorkshire. He was residing at Kilburne, in Wensley Dale, before he came to New Zealand. Tetley drew out the hills, and I signed my name. The first bill I signed, ftt Kekerangu, the two others I think at the hank at llenheim. When I drew these bills I got no document or acknowledgment. Tetley told me that money was coming to me, and I signed the drafts he drew up. (Bill produced.) This is all in my handwriting. I filled it up by his order, my impression was I only signed it. I had no occupation previously to my leaving England. I was what at home they term a "mud student." I was learning farming Mr. Conoiiy : After baying signed that bill, what did Tetley give you in exchange ?

to tn> father about it. He add he would give u» 12£ per cent., because as lie paid Mr. Letin 10 per cent., an I 2£ per cent, commission, he might as well give us the ad vantage, and so he would say 12i per cent. I stopped at Kekerangu only a few months. I took no part in the management of the farm. Mr. Conolly : What were you doing there ? Witness: I whs understood to be gaining colonial experience. An ammgement was marfe for a partnership. Ido not eirieinb jr ,whpn it \va« first i Uvd ol' T iig ( Jil th cLe.J in M-n-h -■. A^iA, 1868. 1 have aeon nothiug of my money since. They tell me there are a few sheep from which perhaps something might be got, but I do not know. I put into the partnership the £2,300 that Tetley had. I knew nothing of his accounts except as between ourselves. I saw Mr. Levin in Wellington twice after 1865. The second time was in reference to a transaction! had in Canterbury. I said to him I was surprised at his not cashing an order I had given to a Mr. Liffeton for £100. He said there were no funds. This was sometime in 1866. I enclosed a letter to Mr. Levin with the order, I enclosed my own letter and another written by Mr. Tetley. I went over expressly to Wellington to see about it. He said he could not cash the order, and said something about its being an unbusinesslike proceeding. Cross-examined by the Attobney-Genbbai: Besides the £2300 I put in the partnership, I got out other money which was invested in improvements on some land in the .Awatere, it was all swallowed up. The transaction I went to Canterbury about was to buy horses. I paid for part, and gave an order for the balance of £100. To the best of my belief I put the order, with the two letters, into the envelope. Liffeton saw me do this. I afterwards got from Tetleya cheque on the Bank of New Zealand, or a draft on Mr. Levin for the money, and I gave it to Owen and Smart; Tetley told me it was not a proper way, and I apologised to Mr. Levin for my want of business knowledge. After Tetley went away I knew of the bank overdraft. To the best of my belief Mr. Levin said nothing about investing; he said I should lend the money. Nothing whatever was said about sheep agreements. Nothing was said on the subject of agreements after getting to Kekerangu. I knew my money was there, and I got my interest and bad nothing more to do with the business part; of the matter. I only signed my name. I placed full faith in Mr. Tetley and Mr. Levin, as I, was. told.tqdo. i 1 know a sheep agreement now.l.have seen one....My: father and Tetley: talked a good deal of sheep-farm-ing, and it was resolved that I was either to rent a piece of country or buy a farm, and have a few sheep on it. When we signed the, bills at Kekerangu, Telley I believe drew out one for us all to copy, and partly dictated or read it over to us. Nothing was said about the price of sheep. Ec-examined; When I was drawing for the money Mr. Tetley told me that 12£ per oent was to be the interest I was,to receive. £3000 of mine was laid out in the Awatere, being the £2300, and £700 or £800 on a farm in my occupation at Marathon, in the Awatere. I had also spent a good deal of my own money at Waikawa, in grass seed s and improvements. I have never seen any sheep agreement, or anything like one, in connection with this transaction. Mr. ConoLi.Tr: That will be defendant's case, unless I require to bring evidence to rebut anything my friend may now bring forward on the other side. Continuation op Piaimtife's Case. Plaintiff recalled. Mr. Attobney-Genebal : You told us you met Beaumont at Picton. You heard what he said you stated about Mr. Conolly. Was that correct ? Witness : It was partly true and partly untrue. I said I did not like to go to the Bank Solicitor, for, as he represented the bank, we ought to go to some one who would give us an honest opinion. • . Mr. Conolly : I don't know that my character is at stake in this trial. Examination continued : When Tetley opened an account with ua £1000 was placed to his credit. Mr. Conolly: That should appear in the accounts. The account shows E. D. Wyvill two draft* at £500. It does not commence with these drafts It begins with two transactions amounting to £20 on the other side. Examination continued : In February, 1858, there was a balance due of £25 15s. On the Bth March, 1858, he paid £1000, on 31st March he paid in £490 more. In March, 1866, there wa9 paid on account of Mr. Wyvill £1280. I ascertained that Mr. Wyvill had purchased sheep from Tetley to the amount of £1000. Mr. Attobney-General : You heard what Beaumont said yesterday, as to what took plaoe at your office when he came to examine the books in January, 1869. Is that correct ? Witness ; I don't think I said anything more than asked him if he were satisfied, and he said he would write to me. I have no recollection of his saying that these things were net to be done with impunity, or that I had fitted Tetley out as a privateer. Nothing of the sort look place. The servants Totley brought out were ordinary men and women servants, there certainly was not either a lady's maid oj? a butler. [Two letters of Tetloy's were proposed to be put in, but were objected to, and the Judge disallowed them.] Mr. A TTOBN.EY- Genebal:. Had you either at your office er at your house any conversation in preBence of Beaumont, as to the stipulated price of sheep ? Witness; There never was any price mentioned. Nothing was said that the should only be 225. because they did not require to be delivered. The JUDGE read from his notes the statement of defendant that Tetley had said that it mattered not whether the price was 225. or 235., or £22 or £23, &c. Witness : That is perfectly untrue. Nothing of the sort took place. Mr. Attobney-Genebal : Did you give any advice as to the price of sheep ? Witness: Not orally. I had a letter from Mr. Tetley, in March, 1865. I received drafts enclosed ; these drafts were sent by Tetley. In cross-examination, the accounts for 1857-58 were put in plaintiff's hands; and he said the account commences with two debits : one for £10 3s. and another for £25; and there is, the same day the credits are paid on, a debit of £500 paid out to Trolove, and £570 more by the end of the month, and £273 more in the beginning of next month. Mr. Conolly: And it goes, until the end of May, on the wrong side ? Witness: Generally, squatter's accounts are on the wi'ong side. I heard the evidence of Beaumont, Wharton, and Pulleine, yesterday. I don't recollect any business interview at the office except with Beaumont and Pulleine. All that they have said is not true. Ido not remember any of the others being at the office. Mr. Hunger, Brown, a Juror, put a questipn: What was Tetley'a debt in January, 1865 ? ' Witness: About £i4,4j00, Mr. Brown: Can you state, approximately, the extent of country and the amount ot stock ? Witness: He leased from Major Richmond 9000 sheep, and I think 28,000 acres i from, Mr. Trolove, 8000 sheep, and 18,000, acres; and his o.wn run at Kekerangu, and 9000 or 10,00 ft acres of leasehold, with improvements, I should think that he would have a balance of sheep of his own between Kekerangu and Bichmond Brook of 7100. Mr.CoNOHY; At that time was not the price of stock, and wool, and stations falling ? Witness: No, they did not fall till next ye*?. Henry A. Ingles: lam a sheepfarmer. I came out in 1862. I saw. defendant once at Cambridge. I first saw him in this Colony at the Queen's Hotel, Wellington, and next at my own station at Kaikoura. He stopped at my place a night or two. He told me he had dined with Levin, and had a long yarn with him after dinner, and that Levin had said the best advice a young man could get was to put his money put in sheep. After those questions arose about Tetley's difficulties, I went to see him at Starborough run, in April last. I think I told him about the letter he had written about the sheep arrangement^ i^n. 1,86,5. He simply.pooh-poohed the whole, thing ;' he asiced, " How do you know thatanything i^tFudftat'.nas been shown you ?" I had looked over a good many papers and d^oQiumenU about; tliis matter before I went to Me deferiaant, He said he" never had iheop

you t,o put your money out. on sheep ;" ■ and he said 'he did not recollect telling me amthing about it. Cross-examined by Mr. Conolly : I was first communicated with on the subject of giving evidence in this case fay Mr. Levin about the same time as I mentioned it to Mr. Beaumont. Mr. Levin an) I hud some communication together on the subject, and (lien I went to see Beaumont. Mr. OoNOLivr : Did you and your firm in TB6B pur-c'uis-1 !»omi» lOii^'p from Tetl v, an-1 ' ■!{>• >'■" vc y JnC !■ oil! . (JJI 'i .. i. ii" 1 ? i Witness: Yes; I paid them in bills. Mr. Conolly : Did you meet the bills when they became due? Witness: No ; we renewed them.,-, • Mr. Conolly: Was it not due. about.the second time when you saw Levin, and then went to Beaumont to get'him. > Witness it was due in about a month. Mr. Conolly : Had you or your firm any business connection with Mr, Levin before then1?' , Witness: No. t ; Mr. Conolly : When or where.did Mr. Levin first ask you to give evidence at this trial ? : Witness: At Kekerangu. ~ T Mr. Conolly\: Did Mr. Levin advance you the money to pay off this bill of £740? Witness: He took our bill for that amount. Mr. Conolly : Did he do this act of' kindness before or after he knew you could give this evidence? Witness: After. We had some bother about this bill, which it was not expected we should have to meet; and my brother and I talked of it, and he said the best thing I could do would to go up to Swyncombe and see Mr. Levin, and get his advice. I told him the circumstances, and he said "you are not in a pleasant; position about that bill, and although you got it renewed now, there will be difficulty in keeping it running until the time was up." He offered then to do it for me, and I refused then., The bank had possession of two bills. I then saw I was in a; hole, and; that, although I might be able to renew the bills, still I saw that I might be put In a ho)e at any future time. He advanced the money;after I had seen Mr. Beaumont, and took no security, except the bill of our firm. t .: , , . •;,•;.:. Re-examined by the Attoeney-GbSBBAI.: I Wef got the agreement and the bills, and alaoJßeaumant's guarantee that the bills would be allowed to run. I bought the sheep from Tetley before he left for England, the bills were renewable at the end of six months if desired by seller. I have a note from Beaumont giving a guarantee that the bills would he renewed for a period of three years.: The cheque was drawn by Mr. Levin in my favor. I spoke to Beaumont as to his allowing these bills to be presented. He said he was ignorant of the nature of bills. I had a letter from the Bank stating that they must insist on Messrs. Ingles and Pasley furnishing the money for the bill. . . Mr. Attobney-.Genebal.: Why, do ypu say that the letter was Beaumont's personal guarantee, when he was acting under power-of-attorney for Tetley who sold you the sheep ? '. . : Witness: I looked on it as his guarantee, Our agents are Messrs. Johnston and Co., of Wellington. W. H. Eyes was the next witness. Mr. Attobney-Genebal : We have heard you state that you had a conversation with. Beaumont on board the steamer Airedale. Did you commence that conversation by asking whether he had given, a letter of apology to Levin ? Witness; I could not do that, because I, was not at that time aware that the letter was in existence. The first I heard of it was that he had given it himself. Mr. Attorney-General : You have stated in your evidence that an investment in sheep was mentioned by Beaumont ? Witness: I feel pretty confident that Beaumont mentioned sheep, but I should not like to swear that positively. A De Bathe Brandon, sworn : I am a solicitor and barrister at Wellington. I was acting as solicitor for Messrs. Levin and Co. in 1862, and for some" years before, and up to the present time. I don't think he has employed any other solicitor in his business except myself. (Mortgage of October, 1862, put in.) This was prepared at the time it bears date. Mr, Attobney-Geneeal : Wero you. informed by Mr. Levin that he was going home, and wanted the mortgage merely to make things safe then ? Mr. Conolly : My friend is putting the question too broadly. Mr. Brandon is certainly one of those witnesses that requires no prompting. I accept his evidence of course, but let him tell his own story without suggesting replies. Witness: Mr. Levin did not give me direct instructions to withhold registration ; it has been with me ever since it was drawn. Mr. Levin came and asked me about it in 1866. The mortgage contains a covenant that it should apply equally to Mr. Lavin, or to any partnership concern if he took a partner. There was no registration office in Maryborough Province, which had been separated from Nelson, and, knowing that.it was a temporary matter, I might not have thought it necessary to register it. Persons were not so particular, in 1862, to register as they are now; persons wished to avoid the cost of re-coh-veyance. Mr. Cgnolly : Although you were aware that there was no registration office in Marlborough, yet you knew, did you not, that the Nelson office registered deeds for both Provinces ? Witness: I think a doubt may have suggested itself about the separation of the two Provinces, and the question of the legality of registering in the Nelson office; and I had thought it better not to register at all. I can't speak positively, but Ido not think I registered any other deeds in Nelson. William H. Levin, sworn : I am a member of the firm of Levin and Co. I know defendant. I remember his being in our office in January, 1869, when he came and looted through Tetley's accounts. It was in my father's private room. I was there nearly all the time. • Mr. Attobney-Genebal ; Did you hear him complain about your father having fitted Tetley out as a piratical privateer ? Witness: I think I went out of the room for a few minutes before Beaumont left, but during my presence no such thing was said. He made no statement of taking proceedings against my father. I have been a clerk with my father since 1864. My duties lay in the office; of course, I was out sometimes. Ido not recollect of Mr. Garforth, Mr. Beaumont, and Mr. Wharton coming to the office together. Cross-examined by Mr! Conolly : I can't say they did not come. I did not hear my father ask Mr. Beaumont, in January last, for a clean bill. Mr. Conolly : Did you not say it was too bad to blame us because New Zealand circumstancea had turned out badly ? Witness: I can't swear I did not say something about that, but I don't recollect doing s«. If I did say it, it was in conseqjtten.ce of what ray father had told me before Beaumont had written the letter cf apology. Beaumont did not say in my presence that be was not so childish as to blame anyone for honest advice; nor that my father was-morally and legally responsible for the losses arising from his advice. Arthur Penrose Seymour and Hugh Henry Tytler Stafford gave testimony as to the value of the land held and occupied by Tetley, and the value of the sheep. The freehold land was worth about £1 an acre, with the improvements added to that; anil the interest in leasenold land from the Crown, worth £105 per 1000 acres. In cross-examination, Mr. Seymour said that he thought land bought at ss. an acre in between 1858 and 1863" would be worth £1 I an acre in 1865. - There was a fair mud house on tjhe homestead in 1865. The buildings, tanks, fencing, and other improvements on the freehold, <tc, could not have cost less than £3000, Mr. Stafford's evidence was to a similar effsc«. - This closed the evidence,'and Mr. Conoll^ tfcen addressed the jury for defendant;. H,^ congratulated the jury on the fact that^ after three wearisome days the cw© now approached something like its close. Two, questions 1 the jury had to try, (1,) Was the defendant in business at the time the slander wa» uttered t and (2,)— and itwps the substantial pointf'fdr both parties, —Were the words spoken by defendant true? There was. of course in addition the final issue as to ! damagw, andthathe thoughtthejuir wouldTsxy sasilj dispose of, HtcgatndtdtbjAtJwiMMMtooaxrjißC

on business was virtually departed from, for-ifr«as not attempted to be argued that Mr. Levin re<llj mid practically was> in business at the time alleged, nor 1 dad it been confendeJ that he had been daiiotgecl in business. The Attorney-General hud opnel his case as if th<- plaintiff had held one of the mos? i fty and honourable positions in the colony, nnd n« if the defendant wee r»»rely a contemptible person. Tl' -<>, 'ih« ijliinMff coiv 1 aff. :\ to T<-tt.he sts^xti--- : t:-. ,• - : . course; and the defendant had dove the same tiling. Mr. Conollj then proceeded to remark on the evidence, observing that, making allowance for some small discrepancies in details, so small as only to show the customary difference that often arose in the sound testimony of perfectly credible witnesses, a difference bo trifling as not in the least to affect it in any material point, while at the same time such trivial discrepancies weat to prove the accuracy of the evidence. He pointed out Tetley's position in England, his bringing" out of these young men, their unanimous testimony. that Levin recommended them to lend Tetley. their money, and he finally maintained that it was a loan and nothing more, for the talk about sheep agreement was mere moonshine. There was* no suchagreement. There was no sheep agreement at all, the money was- lent without any security, and it was so lent by the advice of Mr. Levin. The jury were bound by the evidence to declare by . their verdict that that was not a disinterested advice. At the most, without reckoning any other debts, and giving the fullest force to the evidence of the other side, the most the property in possession of Tetley was worth in 1865, was £20,000; and that was valuing land that a short time before had cost ss. an acre, at£l an acre, which it was not worth; against that he owed above £17,000. The whole thing would not have realised that sum; yet Mr. Levin advised these young men to lend this man their money. He touched on the evidence of the defendant's side, explaining certain discrepancies as to the time of the signing the billsiby \vnarton and Pulleine, who were both unaccustomed to business, and knew nothing whatever of bill transactions. He went over the main points in the evidence, characterising, among ether things, what he termed the special providence that brought Mr. Levin and Mr. Ingles together, the one iv search of evidence, the other in need of a bill being done, and both, by a special providence, found what they wanted in each - other. Mr. Levin obtained his evidence, Mr. Ingles secured his bill. He then alluded to the unregistered mortgage, whiAhe said was : a suspioious circumstance, and there was no doubt that Mr. Tetley and Mr. Levjn colluded together to enable Tetley to- keep up false appearances. Mr. Beaumont, he showed, was a highly educated man, his letter showed his power and intellect, and yet, newly from his university, he could hardly be expected to be aware of the pitfalls prepared for him. Look at the standard of commercial morality; and »ay if,—when a trust was reposed in a man whose duty it was, having accepted that trust, to faithfully perform it, and save-. the property of strangers from being wasted, —it was right that such a proceeding should pass with impunity. Or were they prepared to say that if a man who, having been injured hy such a proceeding', should speak the truth about it, he is to be cast in damages because of that truth; or could the 1 jury believe, in the circumstances, that plaintiff was ' injured ? He did not believe they could, nov did ho bolieve, taking all the facts into account, that the jury would forget these facts, or bring pecuniary punishment on his client because he had dared to raise his voice against the great merchant of Wellington. ■ Mr. Attorney-Gehebai. then addressed the jury at great length for the plaintiff on the whole case, contending that, literally, the jury were trying a merchant of high position and of unblemished repu- ■ tation for an indictable offence. Mr. Levin had openly and unreservedly, courted that trial. He put himself; his books, hfc business, and his character before them* and was willing and ready to have put in many facts and documents whioh could have completely shown that he was the victim of Tetley aa well as others. The charge of conspiracy is utterly without foundation, and it must have been so to Beaumont's own knowledge. But that charge had been preferred, and he believed the jury would find it was triumphantly rebutted. Still there it was, and it was not for tho jury to shrink from the duty they had before them of really trying that charge. They might say that the advice given was imprudent, unwise, and not business-like ; at the very utmost they could say no more. They might say that it was imprudent management of his own affairs by which he lost so much by Tetley; but there was not a shadow of ground for the charce of conspiracy or collusion. Judged by his own evidence, it might perhaps be said that Mr. Levin had acted with great unwise. He confided too much in Tetley, who was highly, recommended, and plaintiff was too much prepossessed in his favor. If he confided in Tetley's honor for all those years from 1862 to 1868, he paid highly for it. Was. he or his firm benefitted by the payment into his account of their money ? Had he stopped Tetley'a credit after that payment, there might have been some reason for dreaming of such a charge; but what did he do ? The accounts would show that if this money were paid in to the credit of Tetley's account, it was paid out again, and the account went on increasing on the debit side, until from £9000 in 1865 it rose to over £21,000 in 1868, was that like a conspiracy to defraud, was that like collusion, to obtain and benefit by these young men's money? No reasonable person would believe it; neither did ifc show, in fact, it disproved the proposition, thti aa tho defendant accused plaintiff of doing, there was an agreement which was entered into for the purpose of swindling these young men. That was the issue for the jury to try, and there was not one tittle of evidence to show that there was any just reason for such an accusation. Why should the plaintiff be anxious to conspire ? The receipt of that money did stop him from advancing more money to Tetley,, because he believed in his honesty; so he went on still advancing, aa he had already shown, and as the accouits proved; and if he had thought Tetley was not trustworthy, if he had supposed his account was not good,, would he have continued such advances? Certainly not. Mr. Levin had plenty of clients tq who*u he could lend his money at 12 % per cent. Yet we were told that plaintiff fitted out letley to delude young men, and bring some £7000 to him, to be paid away again on behalf of Tetley. The thing would be absurd if it were not base to circulate such a slander. Could they find any motive why Mr. Levin should enter into such a vile conspiracy ? Why, in 1866, on retiring from the partnership, he took ttovee-fourths of Tetley's debt, instead of: one-half, which he was only bound to take; he took; three-fourths because he believed him financially safe,, and the debt good, and this was after he had given, the advice he did give, advice given, it must be remembered while yet sheep farming waa profitable and before wool and sheep had declined in price, as they did in after years.' Only half the ease, not half had been heard. Had we j^pn pemitted to veadbonajide correspondence, he iflld have exposed beyond doubt, the utter ab»ujrdity*of the charge against his client. He then, defended the witness Ingles from the accusation that he had sold himself and his evidence, «fta that Levin had suborned him. It was perfectly untrue,, he contended, that Beaumont had himself been, guilty of an injustice to Ingles, by undertaking-to,keep the bill running three years, and! then putting it into the bank for discount. He.aßuded to the unregistered mortgage of which so much had been made. It was natural that a man should endeavour to get some security for a debt due by a person about to go. to England, and it was also perfectly natural that* as the mortgage was merely temporary, the plaintiff did not get it registered, as it was customary then not to register deeds, especially if they w.e»e of a temporary nature. After referring to several other points, the learned gentleman concluded a long speech, which lasted nearly three hours, by saying that a charge like this to a man in the high commercial standing of Mr. Levin, was a charge worse than one involving life it£el£ He had lived1, till now as the head of a large tad commercial firm/without a blenusb tn{wi reputation,,and: though death, was a fearful thinf/iidtap shame like what" was slanderously sought fci* tflxed to his. client's smm made life itself teteM. He now left Mr. Ljrm'iaMUthe budaof 4t jjV&feSlr «w*

vinceri fclfl! they would not. be actuated by any feelings of sympathy. Certainly they would have no sympathy v»ittifra'nd—nofiynipathy withdisiipnesty.yet they roust have sympathy with, they must do justice to, a man who loved his. honor dearer than his life. ITS * Honor, in summing up, said the time had now conn when lhe rase might.be viewed in an aspect probably diffident-from that in which it would he virAved by the piissious of the contending parties. The case had oxcited much feeling on both sides, a feeling -which Bofaieil in some degree to be even infusoc! in the. counsel on either side. We must now look ab the case coldly* and in absence of all feeling, leaving strict impartiality torule. He. would condense and put in the briefest way before the jury, the leading facts of the case. The charge was that plaintiff had colluded with Tetley to defraud certain young gentlomen of their money. This could have been effected in only one of two ways, either by a factitious credit given to Tetley for a series of years, or it is narrowed down to a single transaction effected in Wellington—the arrangement and advice as to the lending of the money. He would here say a few words on the 6ubject of factitious credit. With commercial men secrecy is one essential element in tran« sections, as it is between banker and customer. The credit supplied by a banker to a customer depends entirely on the hanker and his views of profits. They have no duty except that. The giving .of credit by a banker'involves no duties toward third parties in the accommodation he gives a customer, that question is not taken into account; the general public frequently suffers by such a policy; but it is the policy of bankers generally as we see it. The banker is the secured creditor, and he could take his 20s. in the pound from any source he can get it, while the bones of the estate were left to the geneial body of creditors. That might not be satisfactory to the public, but it was the practice. Therefore, if the case stood on this alone, that plaintiff found it convenient to accommod te Tetley to the full extent of his means, and thereby to'enable him to live expensively in England, there was nothing in the charge that was warrantable, as applied to that fact. The mere fact that a man has large sums of money at his command; that fact alone was often very delusive, for it frequently happened that the man so circumstanced was merely a man of straw, behind whom was some capitalist. It was the duty of people interested to nscertain for themselves whether the actual circumstances were what they seemed from outward appearances to be. That could be done by preference to the person's bank ; the banker then took up the position of responsibility. Hi 9 Honor then went through the main points in the evidence, prefacing his doing so by the remark that xlthough there were some discrepancies in the evi'ence they were not really important, and more had been made of those that did exist, by the plaintiff's i-ounsel than they deserved. Tndeed, considering iho strength of the passions aroused, and the magnitude of interests involved on both sides by the present action, he considered the amount of cross swearing was small. Where such cross swearing did appear it was of comparatively trivial importance, for in essentials the evidence generally was concurrent. Ife then referred to the evidence of the transaction at Wellington in Mr. Levin's office, noted the concurrent testimony of the defendant's witnesses respecting t hose interviews, and mentioned the trifling circumstance sworn to by Mr. Wharton that Garforth, who hud seen Mr. Levin before, had remarked, "here ■ onies Moses and Son," a not unnatural remark with young men fresh from London, and tinged with a •.'■ejudice which, although he could not tell why it . xisted, yet still did exist in England towards a ••m-tain class of religionists. That remark was one of tiiose trifles that tend to fix an event, and to call to mind the contemporary circumstances. He believed : hose interviews did take place, and that plaintiff had s-on the letters, and, as was fairly argued \j defendant's counsel, it was exceedingly pro'.jible that a merchant with many large transactions should not remember such details after ii lapse of years, while on the other hand it was most natural that young men new to the country, and in ■m interview of such interest to themselves, would li ive fixsd on their memory these minor details that i> aintiff would be likely to pass over without observation. Although the Attorney-General made rather uiiich of what he termed the superlative contempt which he said was exhibited by defendant towards Wellington society, and censured his demeanor in the witness-box, yet, on the whole, that so-called con•cinpt was nothing more than those airs which are •mnetimes u?ed by English county gentility, the bloom of which had not yet been rubbed off the defendant. No doubt it was mistaken, unwise, to exhibit '\cm in the witness box, but to ?ay that a man who thought himself above talking business at the table, in commercial society, and who sneered at " shop," was therefore not to be believed on his oath, as the ntorney-General endeavored to show, was not a justifiable conclusion. No doubt it was true that . iie defendant gave his evidence very tartly, and in s.-nie eases he answered the Attorney-General flipimntly ; .but at the same time it should be taken into a msidoration whether or not there was any provocation for tartness or flippancy in the reply. He briefly dismissed the argument that the money was invested in sheep, whether purchased on terms or on agreement. There was too much made in arguing that point on both sides. The fact was there was no purchase, no agreement; the money evidently was lent, the testimony went to prove that, and there was no evidence at all of the existence of any agreement, or of the delivery of any sheep. If, as Mr. Levin understood, he did advise these young men to buy sheep, and believed they had bought them on his adrice, he would, seeing that he had accepted the office of adviser, have been liable to some censure that he did not see to their security. It would have been his duty to do so after accepting such a referrence. We now come to the point of Tetley's condition in 1865, or rather of, plaintiff's opinion of that condition. Now, what was his knowledge of this subject? Plaintiff declared he believed in Tetley's solvency, and it was insisted by his counsel that he had full trust in Tetley. It mattered not whether that trust was sound and warrantable, but whether it was honest; or whether at the time he gave that advice, he knew ib would end in the sacrifice of these young men. That was a question for the jury, did they think it probable? As to the unregistered mortgage, it wbb customary for creditors to secure themselves, and in answer to the accusation respecting this nonregistration and to the charge of collusion against plaintiff, the Attorney-General insisted on the heavy loss actually made by the firm and by plaintiff himself, as evidence of their bona fides. Miss Hort and Mr. Bell were treated in the same way. Miss Hort lost all her sheep ; and Mr. Bell escaped loss only by means of his sheep having been sold and the price having been advanced by the plaintiff's firm. Did the jury from these facts believe that the plaintiff was a fellow victim with these young men ? That also was for them to decide. One question was, wa9 Tetley a swindler from the beginning?. He, (the Judge) was not disposed to think so, but to belie ?e that he was earnest at the outset. Men were, generally sincere and honest until there came the great struggle between temptation and honesty, until extravagance and difficulties led them into evil, and blinded them to honesty. Mr. Levin's advice was not at all needed by these young men. Tetley had them fairly hooked and landed and bagged. A« to the question of the loan, plaintiff argued that the transaction did not take place at Wellington, that ifc did not. take place until just before that letter of defendau/t's was written, the letter of 18th March, in which he tffid he had got cheep on terms. Whatever force there might be in that letter, he thought there was no do#jb of the transaction being a loan. The tivong ground fty&en up by defendant was the heavy balance against, Tetley in 1865, when the loan was entered into. Mr. j Conolly put it, and not unfairly, that what with the £17,000 due, and the number of theep , and property that actually could be placed against ii.: Tetlfv wns barply solvent in 1865, and, Mr, Conolly added, Mr. Levin must have known it.' JLf Tetioy was able to take in his friend, the defendant, an acute man, a sarcastic, incredulous man; who, whatever his failings, wus certainly,alive to his own interests, and able to protect himself—if such a man as this became a blind victim to Tetley,'who ran up an enormous balance at the Bank of New

Zealand, without his knowledge, was he not able to deceive others, and to inspire the plaintiff, an acuto man of business, with confidence ? With respect to the unregistered mortgage, its non-registration wa« argued as a proof of lhe unbounded confidence plaintiff had in Tetioy. It was for the jury to consider whether Mr. Brandon's explanation satisfied them on that point. His honor then alluded to defendant's letter, of lOih MHrch, 1865, and remarked that a great dial had been said about the nature of the security ; but he had no doubt it had been a> ranged between Tetley and defendant, and his companions, that the investment was only to be a money loan, for which they were to have £800 a-yenr, and no doubt it was a money loan. He (the Judge) agreed with the Attorney-General, that in 1865 no man could be deemed a conspirator for recommending sheep on terms, in the cirenrastauces of the time. Sheep on terms were considered a good security then, and might be so now, except for one objection, that sheep were endowed with four legs. Defendant's business relations with Tetley became close and intimate, and yet he deceived him to the last. He would not load the jury witb the evidence. The cause had been distinguished by an immense deal of episodical matter, each witness seeming to have a little matter specially belonging to himself, without their bringing much enlightenment to the jury. H« had expressed himself strongly on the question of the factitious credit, afforded to Tetley by plaintiff, and the power for evil that permitted. The case hinged on that point, and on the transaction at Wellington. There was talk in these days of separation from the mother country. He hoped it might not come to pass; but there was one inheritance of the mother country, which, whether separation came or not, he hoped they might never lose, and that was the strict unbiassed probity of the British Courts of justice. Absolute impartiality, no matter who were the parties, no matter what was the cause, was the grand distinguishing feature of these tribunals; and he was fully persuaded that the jury would not forget that fact, but would, as he had advised at theoutset, consider the wholequestion coldly, and not be deterred or swayed in their verdict by the thought of the consequences to the parties, momentous as these were. Great as were the stakes, and unequal also though they might be, the jury had not to consider these, but to return a verdict according to the evidence. The jury then retired, and after at? absence of an hour returned, when the foreman reported that there was not the slightest chance of their agreeing. The Judge: Are you quite sure of that, Mr. Foreman ? The Foreman : Quite sure, your Honor. The Judge : Well, you must go back again. I can't discharge you without consent of parties, until you have been locked up twelve hours. The Statute says twelve hours or more. I think twelve hours long enough. Gentlemen, you had better return to your room. At half-past two on Saturday morning, the parties consented to the discbarge of the jury without a verdict, and the case came to an end.

[As the secrets of the jury room have been partially published, we may state o.i good authority, that when the jury retired, they were about equally divided; but soon after eleven of them were favorable to a merely nominal verdict for plaintiff, who had shown no special damage, only one juror refusing to consent, holding out for a verdict for the defendant. The result was that his resolute determination produced discharge without a verdict.]

Produce. Flax Wool Kauri Gum ... Tallow Gold ... ... Silver Quantity. 201 tons 6 cwts. 314 bales 293 tons 10 cwts. 31 „ 10 „ 7,240 ozb. , 235 lbs Value. ... £5,173 ... 5,450 ... 12,827 ... 1,100 ... 19,650 700 Total ... £44,909

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TC18691224.2.25.1

Bibliographic details

SUPREME COURT., The Colonist, Volume XIII, Issue 1278, 24 December 1869, Supplement

Word Count
28,679

SUPREME COURT. The Colonist, Volume XIII, Issue 1278, 24 December 1869, Supplement

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.

Working