TO THE EDITOR ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENTS

Wellington Independent, 12 April 1845, Page 2

TO THE EDITOR ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENTS

Wellington, 10th April, 1845. Sir, —It is with extreme reluctance that I come before the public, but justice to rayself, to Mr. Revans, and to the public, renders it imperatively necessary that I should reply to a letter signed D. Wakefield, inserted in the Wellington Spectator, on the sth instant. • The affirmations attached to Mr. D. Wakefield's deposition, whkh appeared in the New Zealand Spectator, of the 29t,h March last

state that I was the witness, and the only witness present at the interviews .between Mr. Revans and Mr, D. Wakefield, out of which this paper war has arisen; and it is out of this accidental circumstance, that I {eel bound to. take part in enabling the public • to determine the light in which they should regard Mr. D. Wakefield. Had it not been in my power to bear witness that all Mr. Revans has stated is true, and that nearly all Mr. Wakefield has stated is false, an examination of his own letter still proves him to be a most unsuccessful liar, though seemingly much addicted to the bad habit of stating falsehoods. Mr. Wakefield has sworn in his deposition that he gave Mr. Revans no provocation, and he.again repeats in his letter an invention of his own, intended to prejudice Mr. Revans' character, which he solemnly denied to Mr. Revans in my presence, ever having uttered. Mr. Revans subsequently obtained the most positive evidence that Mr. Wakefield had deliberately and wilfully deceived him, surely under the circumstances Mr. Revans had abun !ant provocation for publicly calling Mr. D. Wakefield, as this . gentleman has stated in his deposition, " a liar, a coward, and a scoundrel." The moment Mr. Revans heard the falsehood he sought me, told me what had. been stated, and begged, as I had been present at the period when the base lie was stated to have been uttered, that I would go with him to seek Mr. D. Wakefield, to ascertain whether he really had been guilty of making such a statement, and we immediately* proceeded down the beach, calling at his usual haunts, and at last ascertained that we should most likely find him at Mr. Clifford's house. We proceeded there, and Mr. Revans went in and asked him to step out. In my presence Mr. Revans taxed Mr. j>. Wakefield with the statement in question, who coloured very deeply, and declared that he had never made such a statement, but acknowledged that he bad .repeated the conversation ; he denied that he had ever stated that Mr. Revans boasted of any influence over the Judge—declared repeatedly that " there was no logical connection" between the statements, that he had never drawn any such inference, that none could fairly I c drawn, and he did not suppose any person would have drawn such an inference, and that he believed he was wrong in having repeated thp words in question." I have here endeavoured to give the expressions nearly in the language used by Mr. D. Waken'eld, and which I. am-the better able to do in consequence of Air. Revans requesting me to be "sure and bear tliem'immind. So satisfactory was the that'Mr, Revans accompanied me to take a glass of beer at ■ Barrett's Hotel' with Mr. D. Wakefield, at this fellows expense ; after which we all proceeded to drill, and Mr. Revans drilled alongside*of Mr. D. Wakefield, Mr. Revans, when he called upon, me to seek Mr. D. Wakefield with him, was so highly excited by indignation, that fearing he would assault Mr. Wakefield, I frequently urged upon him to be cool at the interview, and he was perfectly so. Now I would put it to the public, who so well know the impetuosity of Mr. Revans' character, whether they suppose for an instant that Mr. Revans would accept as a satisfactory explanation the reiteration-from a party of a s:atement by which he felt himself so seriously aggrieved. The assertion of Mr. Wakefield carries falsehood on its face ; and I am convinced that, had Mr. D. Wakefield dared to have reiterated the obnoxious falsehood, he would have experienced, instantly, severe personal chastisement; deceit, the weapon of a coward, did prove a great protection to Mr. D. Wakefield on that occasion, for I verily believe, had he not practised it, Mr. Revane would have twisted his nose off his face. Is there a man in Port Nicholson who will believe that Mr. Revans would, unless satisfied with the explanation, have .accepted of Mr. D. Wakefield's hospitality ? So successful was Mr. D, Wakefield in his deception, that Mr. Revans said to me— ,. Smith, it is evident that our friends at the head of the bay have found a mares nest, and as I shall not be on the beach to-morrow, tell them the result of our interview with D. Wakefield," or words to the same effect. Indignation and D. Wakefield Toi/ not a look nor a word evinced indignation at the time is said to have stated Mr. Wakefield's invention—and not only was no indignation exhibited when the statement is said to havevbeen reiterated, but Mr. D. Wakefield treated to beer Mr. Revans' the gentleman who by his " outrage on the administration of justice" had excited his indignatio.ii! Mr. Wakefield says the conversation occurred opposite the Scottish Church, while in fact it took place opposite Messrs. Johnson and Moore's, a long walk from the place he has stated. This worthy man insinuates that Mr. Revans was in the habit ofgettjng drunk —this gross blunder of Mr Wakefield's will

make the public doubt whether he was sober at the time referred to. I must abandon all further remarks on this letter of Mr. D, Wakefield's, or my letter will be too long. I would merely remark finally in reference to it, that it is crammed full of falsehoods and foul insinuations. The following is a brief narrative of what occurred at the interview in question. I accidentally met Mr. Revans on the beach going towards Thorndon Flat, and we walked that way together ; abreast of Johnson and Moore's we were accosted by D. Wakefield which, led us to stop. He stated, ?' Well we have got a rule nisi," to which Mr. Revans replied " I wish you luck of it, if I were a betting man I would give five to one that your clients make no good of it.' , I then had a conversation with Mr. D, Wakefield respecting a case Eager v. M'Farlane, in which I took a good deal of interest being the agent of the latter, and to whom also Mr. D. Wakefield was acting as attorney —that terminated we proceeded to talk of Mr, Barnes , health, the conversation being possibly suggested by our standing opposite the room where he was lying very ill. We then began to talk in a loose strain, and I would take the opportunity ot saying that of all the married mt;n I know, Mr. D. Wakefield is the most partial to particularly smutty and gross language. At this time, if 1 remember correctly, some young women passing and Mr. Revans being no prude and haying joined our conversation, uttered in a moment the expression concerning an event I believe of many bye goue years. It was a mere exclamation, and so immaterial in itself, that had a month have elapsed before I had been required to recall the conversation I doubt if I could have done so. That Mr. Revans was most indiscreet there can be no doubt, and all who have heard the statement agree with me, that the indiscretion consisted not in what he really said, but in stating it in the presence of a Wakefield who might gratify malice, gain a victory, or turn what was said to profit. In the insidious mode peculiar to the man, Mr. D. Wakefield has spoken of me as James Smith. The purpose is plain, he hopes thereby to diminish, if not to destroy the value of ray testimony. This makes it necessary for me to ask who is Mr. Wakefield? If report speaks true, Mr. D. Wakefield was twelve or fourteen years at the English Bar, but his fame has not reached New Zealand. Mr. D. Wakefield is a married man, and has a family, who remain in England; and Mr. D. Wakefield left the shores of England under the name of "BOWLER," and maintained it until hearing of the Wairau Massacre drew from him, at New Plymouth, the declaration of his real name. Falsehood accompanied him to the colony. He has uttered in relation to Mr. Revans what is grossly untrue, and he cannot be got to deny or admit a falsehood in relation to Mr. Riddiford, which has been traced to him, and stops there. As he will not admit or deny the falsehood, it is not unfair to believe that he is its author. And this person is fool enough to imagine, that his statement will be taken as against Mr. Revans , , backed also by mine, the evidence of a perfectly impartial witness. Evidence, such I believe as a court of law would accept, has been furnished to shew, that Mr. Revans did not pretend in any way to have influence over the Judge. But the charge has been asserted by, and it has been printed with the name of D. Wakefield attached, a charge of being influenced has been made against the Judge, and it has been made by, and Mr. D. Wakefield, barrister-at-law is its author, and he alone. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, James Smith.