THE HUTT TARRING CASE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 3428, 23 September 1885, Page 3

THE HUTT TARRING CASE.

THE COLONIAL SKORETARY EXAMINED. SCENE IN COURT. [By Teleouaph.] WELiisaTOJf, Sept 22. The Hult tarring case vms again called on this morning, when James Waldon appeared on remand, charged with assaulting Sidney Mnnro Muir. The Hon. P. A. Buckley deposed that he knew the accused, who entered Government service as messenger on 12th June, and remained as such until Slst July. Ho had known accused for 19 or 20 years. Ho did nut see accused at the Hutt m August. To his knowledge accused was not at the Uutfc after tho dato ho left the Government. Ho left tho service on tho 31st July. Witness did not see accused at tke Hutt. Accused sometimes went to wait at witnesses table on the occasion of dinner parties. Witness was About to refer to the reason why acouscd had left the Government service, when Mr Travers said ho did not wish to hear anything on that point. Witness after saying that he was anxious that he should bo allowed to explain, asserted that there wa> no member of the l?gal profession m the colony who hod so degraded himself as Mr Travers had done. Mr Buckley then ex* plained that accused had left tho Government service becauso he considered that ho was put upon by other messenters m the Government buildings. On tho night of tho 19th August, when tho assault was alleged to huve been commuted, accusod was at a room m Parliament building. That was about 10 p. m , and there was no tar about acouscd then. William Alfred FiUherbort deposed that ho lived at the Lower Hutt, next to Mr Buckley's. Ho recollected accused obtaining permission from him to go through his grounds. He did not know whether aoousec) availed himself of tho permission. Tho day after tho tarring took placo lie met accused m Wellington. Accused asked him whether he had heard about the affair. Accused taid that a man named Muir had beon tarred ut tho Hutt. Accused further said that he had been told about the affair by a man named Wyles, a surveyor. Charles Millward, messenger iv tho Legislative Council, deposed, that iv August he saw accusod with a pair of handcuffs m liis possession. Ho did not oak accused what tho handcuffs were for ; ho did not suppose accused intended to use them on members of tho Legislature. He believed he naw tho handcuffs m accused's possession before tho Hutt tarring took place. James Capper, also a messenger m tho Legislative Council, gave evidence that two or throo weeks ago bo saw a pair of handcuffs m Walden's possession. Being an old sailor, ho was rominded of old times — (laughter) — and ho said to acoused " Halloa, old friends there !" Accused informed him that ho intended to disposo of the handcuffs to n largo steamer m port which had had a lot of trouble with the men, and which required several pairs. Tho handcuffs m accused's possession wero a very rusty old pair. Henry Argyle, m the employ of Mr Buckley as serf ant, deposed to finding ft tar pot and brush behind tho summer house on Mr Buckley's premises on the 21st Auguat. Constable Hurknett, stationed at the Hutt, gavo evidenco that he had received tho tar pot and broth produced from Mrs Buckley and Mr H. S. FiUherbort. On tho night of the iOth.Augu.it he wa» at the Hutt, Bo did

not see accused at tho Hutt on that day. He had made S'archint; enquiries m reference to the cab, but he had not been able to find ont anything. He did not know very much about Muir. He understood iluir was not possessed of very much means. Tar pots were very common at tho Lower Hutt. Edward Mclntosh, plumber, livng at the Lower Hutt, deposed that he recollected seeing a cab standing at tho Lower Hutt about nine o'clock on the evening of tho 19th August. Each of the horses had a cover over it. As ho passed the carriage he said to the driver " Good night !" Tho carriage looked like a landau. When be passed the carriage, the driver wns standing at the horses' heads. Ho was not ablo to recognise the horses, or the carriage ngnin. By Mr Stafford: Last night Mr Robert Orr, Mr Travers's clerk, offered to gii-o him £20 if ho could recognise tho cab. Mr Onsaid, " If you can givo mo any information that will convict tho cabman, we will give you £20" The Station Master at tho Lower Hutt wns present. Mv Travors hero excitedly nsked tho protection of the Court, remarking that a person behind him (pointing to tho Hon. P. A. Buckley), was using his name to other members of the profession m connection with the bribe. Mr Buckley, rising excitedly, replied : This person has as much right to bo hero as you have. Mr Travels : You havo no right to speak m po insolent, a manner. Mr Buckley : The insolence is all on your part. How dare you address nio as ' this person.' Your insolonco is beyond measure His Worship : I c;innot allow this. Mr Travora : Your Worship, this person who is sitting behind mo spoke out m the hearing of members of the profession m this Court, associating my name with this supposed offer by Mr Orr. Mr Buckley : I did. Mr Travors : Whether Mr Orr made tho offer or not I know no more than tho man m tho moon, but this person (with an omphasis on ' person ') has no right to associate my name with anything of the kind. lum not m the habit 'of suborning witnesses at all, and I never had a suspicion cast upon me as is cast on me by this man. Mr Stafford : What is this to be turned into? Mr Travevs : Your client should go out of the room. Let him leave the Court. Mr Stafford (to Mr Travers) : You hare taken any amount of liberty that you ought not to havo taken. Mr Buckley rose, amid uproar. His Worship : Take your Beat, sir. Mr Buckley (still standing, and m great wrath) : This fellow says what is His Worship : Bo good enough to take your sent. Mr Bnckloy (still standing) : Had it not been for tho respect m which 1 hold this Court, I should hare had something to say m a manner not pleasant to this fellow. Mr Travers : Hang me : state what you like, you vagabond ; my character is above suspicion. (Laughter and uproar.) Mr Buckley : You ruffian ; repeat those words outside the Court. His Worship : I am sorry that men who ought to know hotter, and who happen to have business m this Court, should consider this a matter for laughter. It is a very, very serious matter indeed, and ono I look upon with very grnve regret. To see gentlemen m tho position those gentlemen occupy, making imputations of dishonorable conduct ono to the other, is to me very disgraceful. I know there is somo excitability of tempor, but they ought to endeavor to restrain it. For my part I must say that I am entirely at a loss to understand why tho counsel for tho defence m this matter has persistently imputed to the counsel for the prosecution personal motives m his action. I wns very much surprised when Mr Buckley went into tho box and imputed to Mr Travers animosity nnd personal feeling. Mr Travers is only acting as counsel for the prosecution, and should be treated with proper courtesy. At the same time I must ask Mr Travels to avoid using on his part angry words, which only call forth a reply. Mr Travers : I wish to state, and I call upon you to support what I have said, that throughout the whole of this case I have not asked a single question calculated to justify the language and conduct of Mr Stafford. I have been hero performing a duty, and I believe within tho strict rules of my duty, and I have not asked a single question of a single witness beyond what was necessary, and if < counsel is to bo bullied by gentlemen m this position there is verj little hope of any perton coming within their reach nchioving justice. Mr Stafford : I must say, m my own defence, that I havo persistently pursued an entirely different course from the other side, that of koeping behind tho scenes and from tho public gazo ono thing more important than this — something whicli is moro important to tho parties interested. I say my friend has brought v person here knowing the degrading sphere surrounding him, and he ought not to have done so. Ono can pardon tho feeling of Mr Buckley, if my friend was degraded by his client m the manner m which lie has been degraded. I say ho ought to havo been ashamed of himself for bringing him here. His Worship : I hope this Court Vi ill not lower its dignity by counsel at its table making it an arena for personalities and conduct which amongst gentlemen is to be regretted, Ido hope our proceedings will be characterised by something like ordinary rules of courtesy and gentlemanly intercourse. I do not want to cay any more, because I feel very strongly there has been a certain amount of " tone." Mr Travera : By mo, air ? His Worship : I do not say that. Mr Stafford : By me, eir ? His Worship : I would rather nol say. Tho next witness colled was E. T. Gillon. Mr Gully appeared for Mr Gillon, and said : Mr Gillon, your Worship, has an objection to his evidence being taken, and I would nsk permission to state tho reason of his objeotion. I do not know whether Mr Travcrs has any objection. The matter to somo oxtent involves a question of law. Mr Wnrdell, E.M. : Have you auy objection to giving evidence ? Mr Gillon : I havo absolutely. I wish Mr Gully to state the grounds of my objection. Mr Gully : In tho first place, your Worship, Ihavetocal!yourattentiontothel32ndseclion of tho Justices' of tho Peace Act. I shall ask you to rule whether Mr Qillon is compelled to answer a questions concerning tliia cose. He has a right under tho section to refuse to answer questions, provided ho lan offer a just excuse for such refusal. Now, I propose to submit to you that thore is a good reason for his refusal to givo evidence. In tho first placo I havo to state ho has absolutely no knowledge or any information relating to thia case except what ho hog obtained m his pro feflaional capacity as Editor of the livening Post. Tho result of tbo enquiries ho has mado may oif may not bo material m this investigation, but m any caao I think him justified m refusing to givo evidence I wish to Btafo most positively thut Mr Gillon's refusal to givo evideneo ia fully a matter of principle, and has nothing whatever to do with this particular enquiry. Thore is no personal roason for his refusal to giro evidence, his objection being based solely on a principle which ho thinkß should be such m nil cases. Communications which pass through tho hands of newspaper editors aro confidential! as are tho results of enquiries which gentlemen of the Press make, and I think it I'alher an extraordinary thing that they should be called to justify paragraphs which they may havo written. There is question of public policy involved m Mr Gillon's refusal to givo evidence, and I think he should be shielded by the Court. If you rule thut he is obliged to'give oridenen it will bo impossible for members of tho Prca« to carry on their business m a manner which will'be conducive to the public interests. If the result of tho enquiries which they may mako are to bo made public a grout deal of unpleasantness will he caused. I hopo your Worship will recognise that tho objootion its not made out of any disrespect for the Court but simply os a matter of policy on behalf of the profession to which he belongs. His feeling m the matter, I may cay, is shared by most of th« loading newspaper men throughout New Zealand, whom he has consulted. I submit that tho objection is one that may fairly bo put furwurd. If information is given to nowspapors on tho tacit undorstnnding that it shall not be divulged by them, it is very important that they should not bo oblina to repeat it m a court of Jur again.

Your Worship, I contend that my client is perfectly justified m refusing to answer questions relative to enquiries he has made m his capacity as editor of a newspaper. His Worship : Do you mean to say that any information given to tho Editor of a newspaper by an accused person is privileged ? Mr Gully : I am not putting tho matter to you as a mutter of law ; strictly speaking, I must admit, that the editor of a paper is not privileged. Your Worship ha 3 discretionary power m the matter, and it is for you to say whether my client must give his evidence. His Worship : I must decide against him. The only jfet excuse for refusing to give evidonce is that tho persons so refusing is privileged at law. I must hold that Mr Qillon is not privileged. Mi- Gully -. It is tho first timo m my limited experience that a newspaper editor has been subpoenaed as Mr Gillon has beon. Mr Gillon : It is out of no disrespect to tho Court, uor from any wish to defeat the ends of justice that I decline to answer any questions as to information given to mo confidentially as a journalist, but as a matter of principle, m regard to my profession, and personal honor as regards myself. I know nothing of the case except what has been told me as a journalist. I am one of tho oldest journalists m the colony, and I havo never known a newspaper man put m the witness-box under such circumstances. I decline to bo forced into the position of a private detectivo, spy, or informer. I have consulted most of the leading members of my profession m the colony, who nil concur m tho view I take. His Worship : Newspaper men assumo to themselves a position whicli is rather a peculiar one. You are not protected iv regard to any admissions made to you by accused. Do you object to bo sworn, Mr Gillon ? Mr Gillon : No, as I wi»h to state on oath that I personally know nothing about affair. Witness was then sworn, and aaid ho had no conversation with the accused before the tarring at tho Hutt, but ho declined to say whether ho had a conversation with him or with anyone else m referonco to it after the affair took place. Mr Travors : You decline to say as a matter of principle whether you have had a conversation with accused since tho tarring took place ? Mr Gillon : Yes I consider that my own personal honor and that of ray profession are involved. I know of no similar outrage being committed as putting a newspaper man m a witness-box to divulge information obtained by him m his. professional capacity. Mr Travers : You cay you uover heard of a similar instance ; what about a libel action ? Mr Gillon : Of course m a case of libel m which his own paper is concerned an editor has been called iv evidence beforo now. Mr Trovers : Havo you not known a publisher asked to give up the name of the writer. Mr Gillon : Yeß, I have known them asked j but I never knew any respectable publisher or journalist givo up the name of anyone who had acted m good fuith towards the paper. Witness, m reply to further questions, said the paragraph m tho Evening Post of 21st August was written by hiiu. The information was obtained from a dozen different people. He declined to say who those persons wero. Mr Travel's said that as tho public would suffer through the Evening Post being deprived of its editor, he would not ask His Worship to commit Mr Gillon for contempt of Court, m refusing to answer some questions put to him. Mr Gillon thon left the box. Mr W. R. Waters was called, but Mr Travers said that he would dispense with that gentleman's evidence, and closo the case for the prosecution. Mr Stafford then applied for an adjournment of the case until to-morrow (Wednesday) week. Mr Travers offered no objection, and the application was granted.