Glass House Occupants Should not Throw Stones.

Sir,—Although the election is over and past, yet the canaille of Mr Seymour's committee must jackal-like, try to gnaw the hones of the unsuccessful candidate, and slander his supporters. To be sure, Mr Seymour set them the example at the last former election. Yet it is laughable to find these low-bred suckling Seymourites prating about "Statesmanship and political economy," concerning which their effusion signed "Marina" exhibits them to know as much about such as the average Maori does about astronomy If they must expend their energies, they should do so in a way that would bring them in cash to pay the betel keepers for their brandy, &c., instead of by the exchequer of the Insolvent Court. The £500 reward for burning the Government Buildings is still obtainable, and no doubt a still larger sum may be earned by discovering to the Bank of New Zealand who stole the £3,700. The scapegoat murdoch has been quitted. The jury's solemn verdict declared It was not guilty. The prizes are within their reach. Dare they try to earn them. —I am, &c.,

Disgusted.

It would have been open to the defendant to have pleaded the letter to which this was a reply, in mitigation of damages, but he had not taken that course. Several courses lay open to the defendant, be might have pleaded provocation for acts or writing on the part of the plaintiff towards himself. He might have pleaded that the charges were true. He had not done so, and it was not therefore open to him to prove that Mr Griffiths was guilty of the facts alleged. The only plea was a denial of all the allegations. The most material allegation was: Did these words apply to Mr Griffiths? He could not understand how the defendant proposed to disprove it. The only course open to him was to call other persons, who would say they did not understand that it did mean that The action was not brought with a view of making money, but he hoped if the facts were established to their satisfaction it would be marked by substantial damages, as a lesson to these who conducted newspapers not to as and private characters, unless they are able to come into court and contend that what had been said was true, and to establish it. If Mr Griffiths had not taken this course what would have been said of him in the future.

Christopher James Whitney Griffiths deposed: I am an Auctioneer and Commission Agent residing at Blenheim, and the plaintiff in this action. I have resided here about 16 years. I was before that time in the Bank of New Zealand at Picton. I gave up that appointment about 1864. I was in the Bank three years. There was a person named Murdoch in the Bank. I was teller, and had charge of a quantity of cash; on leaving the Bank I handed it over to Murdoch, and afterwards learned that a large sum was missing. Murdoch was arrested, committed for trial, and tried in the Supreme Court at Nelson. I was the principal witness against him. Murdoch was acquitted. My evidence was that I had handed the money over to him. The amount missing was L3,700. For some years I held the office of Clerk to the Bench at Blenheim. I was clerk at the time of the fire on November 1st, 1876. I occupied at that time a room in the building as clerk. An inquest on the fire was held, I was present, and gave evidence. The result of the inquest was that the origin of the fire was not known, but one witness stated that it originated in my offices. There were a good many rumors about as to the origin of the fire. I was a considerable loser by the fire. I remember a reward being offered in. January 1879 for the discovery of the incendiary. L 500 were offered by Government, and a large sum besides by the Insurance office. A detective was here several weeks at the same time or a little later. I have taken some interest in politics. I was a member of Mr Seymour's committee in the last election, but did not take such an active part as in times past. Mr Seymour was elected. I saw the Express of September 24th, and the letter the subject matter of the libel. I saw the letter "Marina" in the "Times" of September 16th to which it refers. I had nothing to do with the authorship of that letter.

Mr Conolly was about to ask Mr Griffiths what he understood by the letter, when Mr Travers submitted that it would be necessary first to show what circumstances at the trial would justify him in believing that he was meant as the scapegoat of Murdoch.

Examination continued:—I handed to Murdoch several thousands of pounds, and one particular parcel of L3,700—money that technically was not in the cash. It consisted of banknotes issued by other branches of the Bank of New Zealand than Picton. It was the practice in those days for most of the branches to issue their own notes, and every Monday to debit by amount each particular page 4 branch, with all the notes issued by that branch It was that parcel that was missing and that Murdoch was accused of stealing, and the whole point of the defence was whether I had actually handed over that money. A month after I had left the Bank, (August 9th) I was written to by the Manager at Picton, who informed me that several branches of the Bank of New Zealand had written to Picton stating that the amount of certain notes with which they had been debited, and which they properly should have received had not come to hand, and he asked me to come through to Picton and explain it, as I had been the party who had debitted it. This debit was the first debited for some months past. When I received this letter from Picton I at once went through to set; what was the matter. For I could not understand it. I found that one a certain date L3,700 had been debitted to certain branches and I also found that rot one of the branches to whom these amounts had been debited had acknowledged the receipt of the money which should have been transmitted about September 1. I then remembered the fact that I had banded over to Murdoch when I left the Bank all these notes, to the amount of 13,700. Mr Murdoch had been some time in the employ of the Bank, and was acquainted with this practice. I recollected particularly that the money had been handed over to him on account of it being a very large bundle, and unusually large in amount, and entirely different in appearance from any other bundles of notes that we had in the Bank at the time. I also remembered writing the ticket with the figures on the top. When I handed the bundle to Murdoch he counted them all, and in the presence of another clerk. On finding that none of this money had been received, and remembering I had handed it over to Murdoch, and the fact that Murdoch had quarrelled with the manager and got himself dismissed, an action that was entirely unexplained, I went to the manager and told him that Murdoch had stolen the money. Murdoch remained in the Bank till after September I, he was then suspended and resided at Picton. I gave this evidence at the trial. I remember the report of the trial in the Nelson papers it was accurate and pretty full. The point raised was whether I had not myself taken it. The defence denied Murdoch had received it, and that I had taken the money and committed perjury to screen myself. It would be impossible that anyone but Murdoch or myself should have been guilty. The Judge in summing up made some remark about a witness named Blundell: the Counsel for the defence immediately denied cabling any imputation upon him but did not deny casting any imputation upon me.

Mr Travers said the facts shown by Mr Griffiths were that he was teller to the Bank, and on August 9th he voluntarily left the Bank. As teller he had the cash and a certain parcel of branch notes amounting to £3,700, with which each particular branch had been properly debited before handing them over to Mr Griffiths. Mr Murdoch would naturally have seen to the correctness of these entries, and so when Mr Griffiths left the Bank he must have left it under cireum-stances that would have relieved him from any after imputation in connection with this transaction that could have been cast on him He submitted that a scapegoat in the sense his friend imposed it, was a person on whom the sin was cast by the guilty person. There was not a tittle of evidence to justify the smallest suspicion that Mr Griffiths himself was the guilty person, and therefore he could not be considered to be using Murdoch as a scapegoat He submitted Mr Griffiths could not, without showing some suitable guilt attaching to him give such a definition of the word scapegoat."

Mr Conolly said that it was Mr Griffiths who started the prosecution.

His Honor said the question put by Mr Conolly was: "What was the opinion the witness formed upon reading the letter?"

Mr Travers read the case of Danes and Hartley, (Law Journal, volume 18, Exchequer 81) and said that the evidence must not be of mere conjecture, or suspicion, but of circumstances which would justify the sense imputed. He submitted that there was nothing to justify, the connection of Mr Griffiths with the word scapegoat. In the Judge's summing up be referred to Mr Griffiths' evidence, which, he said was given in "a clear, open and ready manner, and in its more material points had received ample confirmation from other witnesses."

Mr Conolly then put the question to Mr Griffiths, who said: "I understood I was meant by the word "scapegoat."

Mr Conolly: Did the Judge say: "If Mr Griffiths was not a felon and a perjurer, then Murdoch was undoubtedly guilty?"

Mr Griffiths: He used those words.

Mr Conolly: In another part occur these words: "The Judge, in summing up the case to the jury said everything which could have been done for the prisoner had been done by his counsel, and the question for the jury now to determine was, 'Did the prisoner receive the notes, as sworn to by Griffiths, and to some extent corroborated by other witnesses, or did he not?' Either the witness Griffiths had perjured himself, and was himself the thief, or the prisoner was page 5 [unclear: ty"] Is that a fair report of what His their said?

Mr Griffiths: It is.

Mr Conolly: "In another part the [unclear: counsel] the defence had said—"Not for one [unclear: mo-] have I ever dreamt of directing suspicion [unclear: ls] Blundell."

Mr Griffiths: When I left the Bank I [unclear: took] from the Bank, and Murdoch [unclear: took] the notes. Mr T. Warren was [unclear: Mana-] it Picton at the time. I was the [unclear: origi-] of the trial, but I do not know [unclear: who] the information. At the inquest on [unclear: the] I was told by several persons that I [unclear: was] When the detective was here [unclear: I] the same report again, and, [unclear: further,] I was going to he arrested on the charge of [unclear: ting] the buildings. Looking at the [unclear: ard] the reference to the fire in [unclear: t] "Glass House Occupants" as refers wise

Case examined by Mr Travers: Mr [unclear: Mur-] was in the Bank on September 3rd, such being teller on that date, and suc-[unclear: led] by Mr Blundell. The practice with the beach notes was resumed for the first that on the occasion on which they were [unclear: ted] Murdoch was about a day or two the Bank at Picton before I left. He was [unclear: t] just previously at Wakamarina. [unclear: There] necessity for him to see the debit of the £3,700 The account of each branch was I [unclear: ed] with the amount of its notes. [unclear: The] were transmitted at the end of the [unclear: th] but there would be no entry showing that [unclear: pting] it be in the letter-bonk. If the [unclear: existed] at the date I handed over [unclear: the] I do know that it would have been [unclear: a] precaution for Murdoch to ascertain [unclear: ber] the debits were correct, as repro-[unclear: ted] by the notes. I do not think it [unclear: was] duty to reseie more than what I [unclear: gave] At the end of the month, when it [unclear: be-] his duty to transmit notes to the [unclear: es,] he would have been able to see [unclear: ber] the notes were there. Murdoch [unclear: did] it the notes for the remaining [unclear: portio] month but omitted to transmit [unclear: the] The various branches wrote, [unclear: be-] the notes sent them did not represent the amount for which they had been debited. I come to the conclusion that Murdoch [unclear: had] them, because I had handed the [unclear: notes] to Murdoch and he had not given them in the accountant. When I told the manager [unclear: d] it was very awkward for me, but he did not accuse me of taking the notes. No the suggested to me at the time the ex[unclear: eacy] of charging Murdoch with the felony. I caver had the smallest doubt that Murdoch [unclear: ilty] I felt that, as the matter lay [unclear: be-] myself and him, if he was not convicted I known suspicion would attach to me. Detective Brown conferred with me about the fire several times when he was here. I acted with him to a certain extent, and gave him all the information I was in possession of. His general conduct when he first came led me to suppose that he was impressed with the rumor he had heard that I was the author of the fire. He told me before he went away that it was ridiculous. I did not mention the rumor to him in a jocular way. I had offered a reward on the part of the insurance offices. When Mr Brown came to me I gave him all the information I could, but I never went to him. The reward was offered by me as Secretary to the Insurance Association. I signed the reward. In my capacity as Secretary I was acting in concert with Detective Brown. I have known the defendant and he and have I been on terms of acquaintanceship. I was a loser by the fire. I may have been indebted to be plaintiff at the time of the fire. I do rot remember his excusing an account of some £20 or £30 I owed him at the time. I am not conscious of any such obligation. I won't contradict Mr Johnson. I do not recollect Mr Johnson or anybody else making me a present at that time. Since the fire I had a clerk named Scaife. I can remember sending him to copy out the items of an account. I never knew till this moment that Mr Johnson excused me on account of my loss. I believe that in the account referred to there was a dispute. I think it was there and then settled. I used to read both papers during the election. I never wrote to Mr Johnson to ask for any explanation or apology or the name of the writer, before issuing the writ for this action. I was not on sufficiently good terms to be able to do so. I think he knew I was going to serve him with a writ, because he settled all his property on his wife the day before.

[An adjournment of half-an-hour then took place.]

On the Court resuming at 2 o'clock, Mr Griffiths's cross-examination was continued. He said: There were two newspapers published in Blenheim at the time of the election, I read the issue of October 3rd of the "Times" containing remarks upon this action. The day of the declaration was the third. I have no knowledge when the writ was served on the defendant' The "Times" supported the party I have been working with. I have taken no proceedings against the editor or proprietor of the "Times" for publishing this, nor have I asked for an apology. I do not know how it appeared in that paper.

Mr Travers submitted that the fact was an important one inasmuch as it showed that on the very day the writ was served, another paper containing the alleged libellous matter, and purporting to give the inuendoes and the meaning of the defendant, had been published. page 6 in Blenheim, and that no steps whatever had been taken against that paper by the defendant.

Mr Conolly objected to the article being put in as evidence.

His Honor then requested to see the article referred to, and after perusing it, said that there could be no doubt that the information was obtained from the plaintiff or his solicitor.

Mr Travers said that the publication of such a matter was very strange. It gave the matter, which the plaintiff alleged to be libellous, for general circulation.

Cross-examination continued: (Mr Johnson's ledger was here produced.) I have no recollection of making the marks against my debits in the book. The debits begin February 24th, but there is no date, but probably it would be February 24th, 1877. The preceding entry is December 9th, 1876. Presuming the entries to be correct it would show a balance of about £70 as being owing from me to Mr Johnson on December 7th, 1876. I cannot say without referring to my books how that amount was discharged. I had acted as musical critique for Mr Johnson on several occasions. I claimed something for services. I never heard that Mr Johnson struck off any money I owed him on the ground of my loss by the fire As far as that goes it would be still an open account.

I have receipts given me by Mr [unclear: John] When I heard of the loss of the bank [unclear: not] had no sense of guilt in my inner [unclear: conse]ness.

Re-examined by Mr Conolly: [unclear: When] handed the notes to Murdoch, I took [unclear: a]ceipt. I left it in the Bank and it [unclear: was]sing. The want of that receipt was that weak point in the evidence against [unclear: Murd] There was no responsibility on the [unclear: part] Murdoch when he took charge [unclear: for] amounts debited, but only for the [unclear: notes.] fortnight after I left I heard Murdoch had quarrelled with the manager and left. He was another fortnight before the loss of the notes was discovered. When the notes want missed, I believe Murdoch was then Sydney. He came back of his own [unclear: ac] and was arrested when he landed. I had nothing to do with bringing Detective [unclear: B] over. The Government reward was [unclear: iss] I think before Brown came and the [unclear: In]ance Companies' reward shortly after. This reward was offered in consequence of [unclear: a] munication from the police to the effect [unclear: that] the reward was received someone [unclear: would] evidence. Brown came to me nearly a was after he had come, he was brought to not by Inspector Emerson in consequence of my marking it was strange he had not [unclear: com] me. Brown appeared to avoid me, I have an idea how became over so long after the affair. I have heard several rumours as for how it was done. At the time of the fire I and Mr Johnson were political friends We became on different sides about the time when the "Times" newspaper started Mr Johnson was then on a rail for some time and afterwards he went over. There was a considerable amount of coolness between in even before Brown came over, and [unclear: coi] with that the rumors of my having set [unclear: fir] the buildings were revived. Nothing even came of those rewards. I do not think then was any evidence obtained. I lost ever thing relating to my business in the office the fire. I was carrying on business as on Auctioneer and Commission Agent at the time. I therefore possess no papers showing the state of my account with Mr [unclear: John] the time of the fire. I should have [unclear: re] any such settlement on the ground of my loss. Unplea and allusions to myself and frequently to appear in the Express The subject of the libel was greatly talked it when it appeared. I heard of Mr [unclear: John] need of settlement on his family [unclear: immed] after and before the serving of the [unclear: w] The writ was pushed on, on that account.

Arthur Penrose Seymour deposed: I [unclear: res] in Picton and am M.H.R. for this [unclear: dist] have been resident in Picton [unclear: since] and own a run in neighbourhood of [unclear: Blea]

[unclear: d] have been three times Superintendent of [unclear: borugh.]. I was Superintendent at the [unclear: ter] part of 1864. I remember [unclear: Murdoch's] I remember reading the account of [unclear: the] in a newspaper. I cannot recall [unclear: ther] I knew the plaintiff at that time. [unclear: mber] the tire at the Government [unclear: ling,] and the reward of £500 offered by the Government. I recollect Detective [unclear: n's] coming I have read the letter, the [unclear: et] matter of this action. I am [unclear: acquain-] with the fact of Murdoch's trial. I have [unclear: s] for thinking that these words apply [unclear: to] person. I should say the summing-up of the Judge, as I read it, necessarily to a [unclear: lay-] like himself, implicated one other person of the thief if Murdoch was not. The [unclear: letter] went on to say: "The jury's solemn [unclear: ict] declared that he was not guilty." [unclear: I] no other reasons for saying who was [unclear: the] person, looking at the summing-up of [unclear: the] as a whole excepting to the plaintiff. The [unclear: ge] relating to the fire related to the [unclear: same] It was currently reported at the [unclear: time] fire that Mr Griffiths set the Government Buildings on fire. At the inquest I [unclear: stood] Griffiths was severely cross-[unclear: ned]

[unclear: examined] by Mr Travers: I [unclear: never] of any rumors about any other [unclear: person] originator of the fire than Mr Griffiths, that was because of that rumor I connect [unclear: the] I put the two together, though they [unclear: ie] separable.

Mr Travers here read the Judge's sum-[unclear: p] at Murdoch's trial, as reported in [unclear: the] "Examiner."]

[unclear: s]-examination continued: The [unclear: Judge,] any opinion, distinctly threw out that [unclear: Mr] was in no way responsible.

[unclear: am] Douglas Hall Baillie deposed: [unclear: I] at Para, and am a member of the [unclear: Legis-] Council. In 1864 I resided at [unclear: Picton,] was Commissioner of Police for the [unclear: Pro-] I Knew Mr Griffiths at the time and [unclear: keh] I remember the robbery at [unclear: the] and Murdoch's trial. I am [unclear: acquainted] the newspaper reports of the trial, and [unclear: dges,] one of the bank officials, [unclear: consulted] The letter signed by "Disgusted" in [unclear: press] I have seen since it was [unclear: puo-] I attributed the allusion to the Bank [unclear: ry] to Mr Griffiths, from the fact that [unclear: the] only pointed to one person other than [unclear: ch,] namely, Griffiths. I remember [unclear: the] at the Government Buildings. I remember the £500 reward offered by the Government Rumors were current after the fire, [unclear: eating] several persons, the plaintiff [unclear: was] of those persons.

[unclear: examined] by Mr Travers: My con-[unclear: tion] of the Judge's language was that if [unclear: eh] was not guilty the plaintiff was. I looked upon the Judge's summing up as a clear affirmation of Murdoch's guilt.

Thomas Williams deposed: I am a brewer residing in Picton. I remember the Bank robbery. I knew Mr Griffiths at that time. I think I read the account of the trial. I saw a letter signed "Disgusted" in the Marlborough Express in September last. In my opinion it alluded to someone. I was under the impression that as the jury had acquitted Mr Murdoch, the only person who could have taken the money was Mr Griffiths, and the letter led me to that conclusion.

Cross-examined by Mr Travers: Mr Blundell and Mr Warren were in the Bank at Picton at the time of the robbery. I knew Mr Griffiths' character, and had no suspicion of him. I have no doubt of Murdoch's guilt. At the time of the fire many persons were pointed at. I cannot form an opinion as to whom the allusion to the fire referred.

Francis Henry Pickering deposed: I am a merchant residing in Blenheim. Formerly I resided in Nelson, and was there at the time of Murdoch's trial. I suppose the word "scapegoat" in the letter signed "Disgusted" refers to someone. The letter refers to Murdoch. I was in court at the latter part of the Judge's summing up, and remember the concluding remarks of the Judge, and so far as I can remember what the Judge said it was to the effect that if Murdoch was acquitted, then the witness Griffiths must be guilty.

Thomas Horton deposed: I am a merchant residing in Blenheim, formerly I was in the Bank of New South Wales. I was in Hokitika at the time of the Bank robbery of 1864. I read the reports of the trial in the Nelson papers. I was here at the time the buildings were burned down. I was here when the letter signed "Disgusted" appeared. The expressions contained in it pointed to one particular person, namely, Mr Griffiths. As the prize for discovering the Bank robber referred to Griffiths, I take it the other does too, more especially as some time after the fire it was reported that Mr Griffiths was the author of the fire. Those rumors were more rife at the time the detective was here.

Cross-examined by Mr Travers: I have only known Mr Griffiths three years. I have been taking no interest in this case. I may have spoken to other people about it. I am giving this account for the first time.

Mr Travers: Will you please to read the commencement of the letter signed "Disgusted"

Mr Horten: "Although the election is over and [unclear: et] the [unclear: ille] of Mr Seymour's Committee-

Mr Travers: Who were the canaille?

Mr Horton: I don't know; there were none on the Committee.

Mr Travers: You were on the Committee? (Laughter.)

Mr Horton: Yes.

Mr Travers: And Mr Griffiths too? (Laughter.)

Mr Horton: Yes.

Witness: The word canaille included the whole Committee, I suppose. I am satisfied Mr Griffiths is not guilty of the robbery. Immediately after the tire one or two people were suspected, but by the time the L 500 were offered those rumors had died away; but suddenly a rumor arose that Mr Griffiths was about to be arrested. I do not believe Mr Griffiths set fire to the Government Buildings. At the time of the publication of the letter I was on the same side as Mr Griffiths. There was a good deal of heat about that election, and a good deal of chaff and badinage. I had some conversation with the last witness, and reported part of what he had said to Mr Rogers.

Albert Pitt deposed: I am a barrister and solicitor, resident at Nelson. I was junior counsel on the prosecution of Murdoch. I have recently looked at a report of the Judge's summing up. I remember the Judge summing up Knowing the whole of the facts at that trial, the letter applied to Mr Griffiths.

Cross-examined by Mr Travers: I have no opinion that Mr Griffiths was guilty of the robbery. The Judge's summing up left in my mind an assurance of Mr Griffiths' innocence.

Joseph Ward deposed: I am a sheep farmer, residing in the Wairau, and have known Mr Griffiths many years. I remember the robbery at Picton. I have seen the letter signed "Disgusted" in the Express. The allusions to the scapegoat pointed to Mr Griffiths in my opinion.

Cross-examined by Mr Travers: I believe Mr Griffiths to be perfectly innocent. I pitched upon Mr Griffiths as being pointed at by the letter, because I knew some other people had doubts as to Mr Griffiths' innocence.

Cyrns Goulter deposed: I am a sheep farmer residing in the district. I read the report of the trial in the Nelson "Examiner." I have seen the letter signed "Disgusted" in the Express. The allusions in it allude to Mr Griffiths. At the time of the fire he heard several persons pointed out as the originators of the fire. When the detective came over he was more particularly pointed at.

Cross-examined by Mr Travers: I am satisfied that Mr Griffiths is innocent. I believe Murdoch was guilty.

William Douslin deposed: I am an architect residing at Blenheim. I remember the trial of Murdoch at Nelson. The allusions in the letter sigued "Disgusted" pointed [unclear: to] Griffiths. During the visit of [unclear: Det] Brown to Blenheim it was current [unclear: repet] that Mr Griffiths was shout to be [unclear: app] handed.

Cross-examined by Mr Travere: I [unclear: did] believe that Mr Griffiths was guilty.

Hubert Patrick Macklin deposed [unclear: l] the Head Master of the [unclear: Blenheim] School. I have resided here 4 years [unclear: a] months. I know the defendant; I [unclear: rem] being in his office a month or two [unclear: bef] letter signed "Disgusted" was [unclear: pub] I used to be in the Express office two or [unclear: th] times every day. On one particular [unclear: occ] there was a conversation about [unclear: Mur] trial; he showed me a printed slip of it. [unclear: T] was before the letter appeared. It was [unclear: pu] into my hand by Mr Johnson, and I [unclear: read] it contained what purported to be a [unclear: repo] Murdoch's trial. Mr Johnson told me about other parties publishing or circulating [unclear: it] was nothing Mr Johnson had anything [unclear: b] with. Mr Johnson did not say why it was being circulated. I understood it [unclear: was] damage Mr Griffiths. I advised Mr [unclear: Jo] as a friend to have nothing to do [unclear: with] remember the fire by which the Government Buildings were burnt down; several [unclear: pe] were pointed to by rumor; I [unclear: rem] Detective Brown coming over and a [unclear: rev] being offered; it was currently reported [unclear: th] Mr Griffiths was going to be arrested [unclear: I] Mr Johnson on the same day as the [unclear: le] "Disgusted" appeared, and I [unclear: expo] with him. I said "How can you [unclear: exp] people to take your part and support [unclear: y] you publish letters of this sort in the [unclear: pap] I said "Supposing Griffiths had been in [unclear: g] 14 years ago it would not have been right to rake it up now." Mr Johnson made [unclear: some] mark about the way Mr Griffiths had been treating him. He did not explain [unclear: what] grievance with Mr Griffiths was. On a [unclear: pre] vious occasion Mr Johnson told me that is believed Mr Griffiths to be the author of say attacks upon him in the other paper. Mr Johnson did not deny that the letter [unclear: re] to Griffiths. I do not think I can [unclear: give] deuce on the conversations we had after that

Cross-examined by Mr [unclear: McNah:] appear in the last gazetted, list of [unclear: teach] a Bl, I believe?

I do.

The letters M.A. also appear after [unclear: B]

Yes.

Are you a Master of Arts?

I am not called upon to say if I am.

Are you a graduate of any university?

I am not called upon to say.

Now, Mr Macklin, did you not, [unclear: when] plying to the Education Board for the appointment in the Borough Schools [unclear: that put] page 9 new hold, represent yourself to be a B.A.?

I did not.

Have you not told anyone you were an M.A. of Durham?

I have not.

At the time of the conversation that you state took place between you and Mr Johnson, were you not in the position of assistant-editor of the Express?

I was not.

Did you not write articles for the Express Then?

I am not prepared to say.

Now, Mr Macklin, answer my question—

Were yon not in the habit of writing articles for the Express at that time? I am not called upon to answer that.

His Honor: I think, Mr Macklin, you had letter answer that question.

I have written articles for that paper.

Were you not in that confidence which exists between the proprietor of a newspaper and his staff?

I was not.

Have you not stated that you were once sab-editor of the Melbourne Age?

I have. I was sub-editor of the Melbourne age about 14 years ago for about ten months.

Who was editor of that paper then?

Mr Levy was the proprietor. There was as regular editor.

Did you not then learn what was the [unclear: uette] between the proprietor of a paper and the staff?

[unclear: ertainly] I did.

Do you mean to say that any copy in the Express office was not open to you by your asking for it?

It was not.

Did you not go to Mr Rogers, or did he some to you?

Neither.

When did you give the information that has [unclear: bled] the plaintiff to examine you as he has?

I have told the story a hundred times.

Have you ever advised Mr Johnson about the action?

I may have. My opinion was that the letter was not a libel.

Did you not advise Mr Johnson to apolo-glse?

I did at one time, but not afterwards. I was doing my best to settle the case for about three months, with both sides.

Were you making those efforts for two months after the letter signed "Disgusted" appeared?

I was. I advised both sides.

Now, Mr Macklin, did you write the following letter to Mr Johnson?—

That is my hand writing.

Did you not also write to Mr Johnson about November 12th, 1879, as follows" I do not believe that there is a libel, nor ground of action, so far as Griffiths is concerned." . . . "Remember my own opinion is that there is no libel, and that if there were the settlement protects everything, and further, I do not believe Griffiths means to rake the affair up in Court."?

I may have.

You said that on reading the letter signed "Disgusted" you at once went and remonstrated with Mr Johnson?

I went at once, but he was not there. I saw him later.

Was Miss Johnson there when you went?

I did not see her.

I believe you used to haunt the Express office at that time?

Yes, if you wish to call my visits there by that name.

As a matter of fact when the letter appeared did you not advise Mr Griffiths to bring an action?

I don't remember, I am not certain. In trying to settle the case I got very angry with both sides.

Did you not offer Mr Griffiths financial assistance as against Mr Johnson or the writer of the letter?

I have no memory of it. I remember saying I would pay a certain amount to have the case settled out of the lodge.

Will you swear you did not offer Mr Griffiths financial assistance?

I will not swear I did not.

Did you not offer to give Mr Johnson £10 or an I.O.U. for that amount? (Laughter.)

I don't remember.

Will you swear you did not?

I will not swear I did not.

By Mr Conolly: I am the Master of the Masonic Lodge here. The plaintiff and defendant are both members. I was trying to settle the case without going to law.

Mr Travers: By subsidising both parties to the amount of L 5 each. (Laughter.)

This concluded the case for the plaintiff, and the Court adjourned till the following morning.

The Court sat at 10 o'clock.

Mr Travers opened the case for the defence. He asked His Honor if there was a case to go to the jury. The evidence adduced in support of the plaintiff was not rational; that is to say, whereas Mr Griffiths must have been guilty of the bank robbery in order to be able to make a scapegoat of Murdoch for his sin, no page 10 one could possibly see that the Glass House letter applied to Griffiths, because he was absolutely innocent. The real criminal was not known or named, excepting as a thief, and everyone concurred in saying Mr Griffiths was not a thief. He submitted that in the absence of anything more cogent than the suggestion that a perfectly innocent man was the thief, that his client was entitled to a non-suit.

Mr Travers cited in support of his contention the case Danes v. Hartley.

His Honor: The question is by no means simple, but after considering the matter I am inclined to think that there is a case to go to the jury. I will reserve the point nevertheless. Of course, even if the defendant was the writer of the article, or knew of it, if the language will not bear the construction put upon it by the plaintiff, then the jury will have to return a verdict for the defendant. It is, however, for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant did point to the plaintiff.

Mr Travers said he did not propose to enter into a lengthy defence. He alluded to His Honor's remark that even if the defendant was the writer of the article or knew of it, if the language would not bear the construction put upon it by the plaintiff, then they would have to return a verdict in favor of the defendant. It was immaterial what the letter intended to convey, if it did not convey the meaning put upon it by the plaintiff. There was something, it was true, in this direction, in the evidence given by Mr Maeklin. Mr Macklin was the nicest Irishman he had ever seen. The only thing he seemed to think to be his duty was to find funds for both sides.—(Laughter,)—He wanted a scrimmage, there was no doubt of that, and to prove the desire he had offered money first one side and then to the other. A capital plan, no doubt, to attain his object. It reminded him of the Kilkenny cats. Mr Macklin reached out one hand and collared one party by the tail, and reached out the other and caught the other party by the tail. Then he drew their tails together, knotted them, and chucked the two infuriated animals across a rail, where he left them to fight until nothing remained but the tails and a bunch of hair.—(Laughter.) Such men as Mr Macklin were the greatest possible boon to gentlemen like himself (Mr Travers) and his friend Mr Conolly.—(Laughter.)—Mr Johnson, when placed in the witness-box would state the circumstances of the interview with Mr Macklin. If a man published defamatory matter concerning another, it was his duty to say so and apologise, but if he does not conceive that the meaning alleged to have been conveyed, is at all to be supported he would naturally say, "I am not going to apologise, for I cannot see that it points to Mr Griffiths." Mr Johnson had not been given an opportunity to apologise, but the writ was slapped at him, and hardly had it been served before a paper, containing the meanings deduced by the plaintiff appeared, so that everyone might Is that it?" "I see it now!" So far, in fact was Mr Johnson from thinking that Mr Griffiths was guilty of burning the Government Buildings, that he had written many articles and paragraphs, all tending to exonerate him from such suspicion.

Samuel Johnson deposed: I am defendant in this action, and was the proprietor and publisher of the Marlborough Express at the time of the publication of Disgusted's letter I was served with a writ on October 3rd at 4 p.m. I glanced over the writ and took it to my solicitor, and was returning from the interview when I found a copy of the "Times" of that evening's date, and my attention was attracted to the article remarking upon the action. I received no communication from the plaintiff or his solicitor prior to the service of the writ. I do not consider that the letter could have been printed after service of the writ. Mr Macklin had been associated with me for some time previously. He tributed to the Express and was frequently in my office. I remember his seeing me on October 3rd. He came into my office and said "That's a bad letter." I said "Where show me?" He pointed to the letter and I said, reading it, "there's nothing in that" It was the first time I read that letter. He said "it applies to Griffiths," and I said "it alludes to no one; it is simply a reply to Marina about the brandy." I did not consider it related to Mr Griffiths, nor have I ever done so. Mr Griffiths had been a contributor to the paper. We had no account between us for the non gratuitions contributions. At the interview with Macklin, I never had a slip relating to Mr Griffiths in my possession. I had a slip in the month of June. A friend of mine told me he had heard something of that sort, and I asked him to lend it to me. He lent it to me in the strictest confidence, and I showed it to Macklin in the strictest confidence also It had nothing to do with this action. Griffiths advertised with me, and there was an account between us. About the time of the fire there was L69 in my books owing me by Mr Griffiths. I repeatedly applied for the money, and had an interview with Mr Griffiths after the fire, and was then asking for money. He asked me what I thought was a fair thing for his services as a constrictor. He did not despute any account against him. He had lost his notes in the fire. I estimated his [unclear: ices] at about L20, but never stated so to him A prior conversation took place after the fire in my own office, we were page 11 On quite friendly terms. He stated how short of money he was owing to losses at the fire and intimated he had lost money there, by cheques that had come back again which had been supposed to be burnt in the fire. At last Interview, I said I would strike off everything Prior to the fire. Griffiths said "Oh, that's too much," and I said "Never mind, my word is passed, so it's over." Our relations were perfectly friendly, and he contioned to be a customer of mine up to the time of the commencement of the "Times." when he became a supporter of that paper I remember the fire and heard rumors affecting Mr Grffiths, but never attached any credit or importance to that. I wrote on the subject. I never saw any reason to associate Mr Griffiths with the Bank robbery. Part of my family have gone to England. I was trying to sever my connection with the paper in order to go to England all last year, and nine months before the action was endeavoring to get Mr Griffiths to sell the paper for me I did dispose of it ultimately, and intended to follow my wife, but could not get away on account, of this action commenced in October last year. I knew nothing of detectire Brown's coming here, and had nothing to do with his coming. I attributed the fire to a different cause than incendiarism.

Cross-examined by Mr Conolly: I opposed an application to have the trial come off at Wellington. It was impossible for me to meet him there, and I objected decidedly. I parted with all my interests in the paper immediately after the letter, but before the writ was served. The report of Murdoch's trial that Mr Macklinad in my office was to all appearance the same as was read in Court yesterday. I am inclined to think it war from the "Colonist." I was never thoroughly acquainted with the details of the trial until three weeks ago. The slip was lent to me by a friend. I was going off to Wellington by steamer, and I asked him for something to read, and he handed me the slip. I do not know how it come into the gentleman's possession. It had nothing to do with this case. I cannot my whether it was a slip or a supplement. It was not a proof sheet; it might have been an extra. I cannot say if it was a re-point I remember now that there was a landing article on the page, commenting on the case. I had no record of the Murdoch trial in my possession. I took the slip over to Wellington in my pocket, and read it on the way. It must have been after my retried I showed it to Mr Macklin, if I did at all. Mr Macklin, when he came to me after the publication of the libel, told me that there had been a row in Club about it and he considered it applied to Griffiths. I replied that I regarded it as an answer to the letter signed "Marina."

This letter ran as follows:—

There was a reference to someone who could drink more brandy than anyone else. That did not refer to me. I understood the allusion to the person who paid for his brandy through the exchequer of the Insolvent Count. I could not understand to whom the phrase commencing "the scapegoat Murdoch" applied, I do not know to whom it applied. I think that the Judge's summing up was a reductios ad absurdum. The person alluded to as paying for his brandy through the Exehcquer of the Bankruptcy Court is not named in the report of Murdoch's trial, and I don't think could have been the person named as Murdoch's scapegoat, nor did any suspicion of the tire point at him. The account between me and Mr Griffiths had been running on some time without a balance being struck He used to contribute in one way or another from 1870. His contributions were voluntary and non-gratuitous. He used to seed critiques of concerts, but he never sent me in any account. I remember Mr Scaife coming to copy the whole account of items I erase It was at my own instance. We were teen on the best of terms, and I am not aware we had one ill word between us since the "Times" was started.

Charles Redwood deposed: I am a sheep farmer residing in the district for over 7 years. I read the trial of Mr Murdoch at the time, and remember the tire and the rumors. I read the letter signed "Disgusted" at the time it appeared. In reading it the allusions in that letter pointed to cosperson in particular. It conveyed to my mind Mr Griffiths.

Caleb Davis deposed: I am a builder residing in Blenheim. I remember Murdoch's trial and the Blenheim fire. There were rumours about different people at the time I remember the letter signed "Disgusted and do not know if it brings any particular person to my mind.

By Mr Conolly: I saw the account of Murdoch's trial for the first time yesterday and the impression left on my mind was that Mr Griffiths was innocent. I do not recollect reading Mr Kingdon's speech. At the time of the trial it was mentioned as unpleasnd for Mr Griffiths that Mnrdoch had been acquitted. When I read the letter "Disgusted" I thought nothing of it. I cannot say who the scapegoat might have been. It the time of the Blenheim fire several name including Mr Griffiths' were mantioned When Brown was here I heard a rumor that Mr Griffiths was about to be arrested.

Mr Travers addressing the jury stated that he did not propose to call any more withes The question for them to consider was whether the alleged construction of the libel had been made out or not. He would refast to the construction as set forth in the declaration, because unless that construction page 13 had been made out to their satisfaction there [unclear: was] no case for the plaintiff. The first thing [unclear: they] must be satisfied of is that the plaintiff a [unclear: the] person and the only one alluded to in [unclear: the] letter. It must not mean that he was not of the several persons alluded to, but the [unclear: plaintiff] only, and secondly that the letter [unclear: pointed] to the Plaintiff in the manner alleged in the [unclear: declaration]. The cause that had produced [unclear: the] letter signed "Disgusted" appeared to be a letter signed "Marina" that [unclear: had] appeared in a rival newspaper. It [unclear: suggested] in its commencement that some of them if [unclear: not] all might set to and replenish [unclear: their] respective exchequers and pay for their dandy by looking out for and discovering a purity person. The letter then went on to my "The 1,500 reward for burning the Government Buildings is still obtainable." The plaintiff alleged that this said he had eased the fire, and that the L 500 reward could be [unclear: ined] by his conviction. That was one [unclear: sined] charge alleged to have been made against the plaintiff. It was a remarkable thing how ever, that the reward was not for the discovery of the incendiary but for Burn-Say the Government Buildings. What was there in that language to say that the plaintiff had caused the fire, and how was it possible a put any such construction on the words and by "Disgusted." It would be putting weaning on the English language that to the least would not be rational. He [unclear: itted] that the words could not bear [unclear: any] construction. It appeared that at the [unclear: est] on the fire it was shown that the fire [unclear: ated] in Mr Griffiths' office, and the [unclear: an] in the Street" said that Griffiths it, but no rational man would case to the conclusion that the words in the letter meant Mr Griffiths. His friend con-[unclear: ted] that that and the subsequent allusion on the Bank robbery put together pointed to Mr Griffiths, but he (Mr Travers) considered that it pointed to the prizes more than anything else. No rational man who read the port of the trial could say that Mr Griffiths was accused of robbery. If anyone was looking for the reward would they find it through Mr Griffiths? Judge Johnson, in his charge to the jury at Murdoch's trial, had exonerated him from all blame. The reward was offered, but it was for the guilty man, and no one had ever ventured to suppose that Mr Griffiths was guilty. Mr Macklin, the funny [unclear: Irish-] (laughter) said that Mr Johnson [unclear: knew] well that it was intended to mean Mr Griffiths Mr Macklin appeared to have played a very funny part throughout the [unclear: saction]. He was equally in the confidence I at both parties, and was urging both on, and and it was only his "benevolence," (loud laughter) benevolence, indeed! He was so benevolent, in fact, that he would sooner pay one side £5 not to give in, but go on, and then give the other side an I.O.U. for L 10 (loud laughter) to go on with the matter also. His (Macklin's) view of settling the affair was to learn as much on one side as he could, and then to go and tell it to the other (laughter). He was at the bottom of the whole affair, without doubt, exciting the one and inciting the other. He was a class of man that had a mistake in his name. The first letter of his name should have been C, and his name, instead of being "Macklin," should have been "Cacklin" (loud laughter, in which Judge, jury, and everyone in Court participated). In the matter of the service of the writ, it was not courteous to have issued it at once as was done, it was usual to write a letter first and ask for an apology. The position was a remarkable one altogether. There was the benevolent Macklin urging on the fight, the lawyers issuing writs, and poor Mr Johnson, just as he gets the writ in his hands, finds the whole of the inuendoes published in extenso in the rival newspaper. The inuendoes, in fact, which could only have been known to the plaintiff, his solicitor, or his clerk, and must have been supplied to the rival parties by one or other of them. But he asked was it worthy, was it right, that a man who had been in business in the place for years, who desired to leave the place and quit the employment of a journalist, should be detained from October 3rd, 1870 till the present time, by a legal procedure threatening L1,000 damages. There was no evidence of despatch on the part of the plaintiff in pushing the case on. The whole of the issues were finally determined by December, and there had been nothing to hinder the case being settled months and months ago if the plaintiff had not deferred to ask for a change of venue. To that proposition the defendant objected, and there was nothing for it but to let it stand over. To the plaintiff the delay could matter little, there was the writ, and it rested with him to withdraw it or let the action go on, and he had kept this sword of Damocles hanging over the defendant's head for more than a year. Was that consistent, he asked, with the conduct they would expect from a man really desirous of ridding himself of an imputation that he alleged had been cast upon him. With regard to damages, he would say a few words, though he could not possibly think that the case was one for damages. It had not, in the first place, been shown that the plaintiff had sustained any loss by the alleged libel either in his business or in his social position. The defendant had not attempted to justify the alleged libel in any way. No special damage was alleged, and in the event of their finding a verdict for page 14 the plaintiff, the smallest coin would be sufficient. If the grievance had been a substantial one, that would not have been enough, the plaintiff, it had been shown, had not suffered either in body or mind, and the most nominal damages would he ample.

Mr Conolly then rose, and in his address to the jury said: He would ask the jurymen to imagine themselves in Mr Griffiths's place, and indirect charges were made against them in a newspaper that they had committed a bank robbery or were guilty of arson. Could they venture to treat it with contempt? If the defendant had treated those charges against him with contempt, it might happen when he was an old man, and the witnesses that had appeared in Court during the trial were dead and gone, someone might revive the charge in a more distinct manner and people would naturally reason "Was not a similar charge brought against you 30 years ago, and did yon take proceedings then?" On the subject of damages, his friend Mr Travers had suggested that the smallest coin in the realm would be sufficient. He begged to differ from that. He had already told them that the action was not brought to make money. He did not want vindictive damages, but he asked them not to give damages [unclear: th] be an insult to his client. He [unclear: consider] manber in which the defendant had conducted his case very much to his credit. He accepted Mr Johnson's evidence with regard to the publication of the libel. He was guilty of negligence, but it had not been done by himself. Under these circumstances he would not be justified in asking for such damages as would amount to the ruin of the defendant. A complaint made on behalf of the plaintiff was that the action had been pushed on so hurriedly. The alleged libel appeared on September 24th 1879, and the writ was issued 9 days afterwards, but though the writ was served there was nothing to have prevented Mr Johnson apologising afterwards. Mr Johnson immediately after it was said that the action was going to be commenced, made everything he had over to his wife, and it was, therefore necessary to push on the writ as much as possible. If the libel pointed to Griffiths and other persons as well, they should find for the defendant, but if it pointed to Mr Griffiths and Mr Griffiths solely, then they should find for the plaintiff. Mr Johnson had stated that the letter was a supposed retaliation for a letter signed "Marina" that had previously appeared in the Marlborough "Times." It was a remarkable fact that the defendant could tell to whom the allusions in that letter alluded, and could also tell to whom the first portion of the letter signed "Disgusted" alluded, but he could not see whom the other allusions pointed at [unclear: T] letter mentions that Murdoch was [unclear: men] the scapegoat for another person [unclear: guilty] that his acquittal was quite proper. [unclear: A] that said that Murdoch was a [unclear: scape] must mean that Griffiths was the guilty person. The question for them to decide what the writer wanted to insiouate. [unclear: T] was no question of Griffiths guilt or [unclear: ins] cence. There was positive evidenca on the part of Macklin that Johnson was [unclear: aw] that the allusions referred to [unclear: Griffiths] suited his friend's purpose to indicate Mr Macklin as if he had been a mischief-maker and guilty of a gross breach of [unclear: confid] but his evidence was clear and distinct the Mr Johnson at the time of the publication of the libel admitted that it applied Shortly before that date Mr Johnson had at opportunity of becoming fully [unclear: acqu] with the circumstances of Murdoch'[unclear: s] Mr Macklin's position as Master of the Masonic Lodge for the district he was is a way a father, and was naturally desires of preventing the partres throwing [unclear: dust] another publicly, and he hardly [unclear: deser] be treated as one of those pests [unclear: of] who my to [unclear: s] on people to [unclear: lawsui] Conolly proceeded to analyse the [unclear: letter] concluded this address by pointing [unclear: out] plaining the several issues.

His Honor in addressing the Jury [unclear: said] the subject was one that rested more [unclear: part] larly than any other class of case [unclear: v] the Jury. It frequently happened that persons endeavoured to clothe a libel in such a way as to hay all the [unclear: desired] and yet be such that it would be [unclear: difficu] first to say that it applied to any [unclear: partic] person. If the letter, the subject matter of the libel, simply said that a reward [unclear: was] open, and no doubt the Bank of New Zealand would give a larger one, there would have been no case to go to the Jury. There was something now in the case, however, and the question was whether the [unclear: language] applicable to the defendant or not. [unclear: West] language such, that if read by the light of a previous acquaintance with the facts of the bank robbery and the burniug of the Government Buildings, they would say that it meant to charge the plaintiff with this offences. It was quite immaterial whether the person reading the letter believed is the plaintiff's complete innocence. The case for the plaintiff depended entirely [unclear: upon] The concluding part of the letter said-and no doubt a still larger sum may be [unclear: earned] discovering to the Bank of New [unclear: Zealand] stole the L 3,700. The scapegoat [unclear: Mur] has been acquitted. The jury's [unclear: sole] verdict oeclared he was not guilty. The prizes are within their reach." This was page 15 said to be the key to the letter. There was [unclear: putably] some years ago a robbery at the [unclear: ton] branch of the Bank of New Zealand, [unclear: n] a person named Murdoch was [unclear: charged] acquitted of the robbery, and it [unclear: appeared] the whole point of the case had been [unclear: ther] the prisoner had received the [unclear: notes] Griffiths or not. It was for them to say [unclear: ther] those facts and the language of the [unclear: ter] in their judgment, was calculated to [unclear: ess] the minds of persons as an imputation [unclear: bery] against Mr Griffiths. Mr [unclear: Macklin] that he had gone to see Mr Johnson [unclear: diately] after the publication of the [unclear: libel] had expostulated about it, and that Mr [unclear: son] acknowleged that Mr Griffiths was the person alluded to, but seemed to excuse [unclear: tify] himself for the letter by [unclear: saying] Mr Griffiths had behaved badly to [unclear: him] had only been said that a reward was [unclear: ed,] although it would cause the idea of Mr Griffiths to appear, that could not be said he a charge against him. They should [unclear: ty] themselves, not merely that the reading of the letter would have the effect of raising in people's minds the picture of Mr Griffiths but they should satisfy themselves that letter contained a direct charge [unclear: against]

letter a few more words from His Honor on [unclear: stion] of damages, the jury retired to [unclear: er] their verdict.

[unclear: Dey] returned into Court three hours after[unclear: iz] at 6.15 p.m., when the [unclear: foreman] Thomas Redwood) stated that they [unclear: were] to agree, and were desirous of obtain-[unclear: lvice] as to the amount of time they [unclear: require] to be locked up, and whether would be allowed refreshments. [unclear: the] Honor: You have already been [unclear: locked] three hours. Three fourths of [unclear: your] ean now agree upon a verdict.

[unclear: man]: I regret, your Honor we cannot

His Honor: Is there no probability of your agreeing?

Foreman: There is a possibility.

His Honor: I regret there is no alternative but for you to go back again.

Immediately after the jury had left the Court Mr Travers stated that now that there was no probability of the jury agreeing, he would like to make a proposition to his friend. He was authorised by the defendant say that if the jury were discharged he would be willing to offer an expression of regret for the publication of the letter.

Mr Conolly: Mr Redwood stated that there was a possibility of the jury agreeing, and I certainly cannot consent to any such proposition.

The jury again returned into Court at 9.30 p.m.

The Foreman said that the jury wished to make a statement. It was that there was no possibility of their agreeing on a verdict, even if kept locked up for an indefinite time. He desired to express the opinion as emphatically as possible that he could see no possibility at all of an agreement being come to.

His Honor: I am not in a position to discharge you at present. You have only been locked up six hours. I fear you must go back again.

At 11.30 p.m., His Honor called the jury into Court and asked the Foreman if they had agreed upon a verdict.

The Foreman said there was no probability of an agreement amongst the jurors.

His Honor then said he would take them as having sat twelve hours, and permit of their discharge.

The jury were then formally discharged and paid, and the case was at end.