+1
Intimations.
WATSON & CO.
FAMILY
AND DISPENSING CHEMISTS, WHOLESALE AND RETAIL DRUGGISTS, DRUGGISTS' SUNDRYMEN, FERFUMERS,
IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS
OY
MANILA CIGARS, WINE AND SPIRIT MERCHANTS, AND MANUFACTURERS
07
AERATED
WATER S
THE HONGKONG-DISPENSARY, 'ESTABLISHED A.D, 1841.
THE SHANGHAI PHARMACY, 24, NANKIN ROAD, SHANGHAL. BOTICA INGLESA, 14, ESCOLTA, MANILA.
THE CANTON DISPENSARY, CANTON. THE DISPENSARY, FOOCHOW.
[3
The Hongkong Telegraph
HONOKONG, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1883.
THE PRICE v. FRASER-SMITH LIBEL CASE.
(Continued from yesterday,) The hearing of this case was resumed on Thursday morning, the 29th ulto.
Mr. Fraser-Smith said that, before commencing the hearing, he begged to call his lordship's at tention to what purported to be a report of Wednesday's proceedings which appeared in the China Mait
i
The Chief Justice replied that he could not take any notice of that unless by affidavit.
Mr. Fraser-Smith said he begged to bring to his lordship's netice Mr. Francis' action in the. Bandmann case.
THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1883.
Is it not a fact that you have collected those accounts? I have not.
And you have not paid them to Mr. Millar?-1 collected no accounts. One hill the party asked me to take, and pay the money over to Mr. Millar. Then you did collect bills for Mr. Millar? His Lordship That's not collecting, Defendant-1 submit with all due deference it His Lordship-If some one called you in and asked you to pay money to Mr. Millar, you would not call that collecting.
is.
Defendant-I certainly should, my lord. Defendant-And you did not collect any ac counts and keep the money to yourself ?--Na.
Did you get a bill from Mr. Millar against one of the houses in Gough Street for the sum of $13 Not that I remember.
1.
You think it's likely you may have?-Very likely Mr. Millar may have given me a bill for $13+
Then, as a matter of fact; you have collected an account for Mr. Millar That's not likely, or I would remember it.
Did you collect the money -I don't think Is it not a fact that you did collect $13, paid Mr. Millar $10, and kept $3 for yourself
it.
No.
málice,
were not to take any notice of the innuendocs, Deferdant I want a plain answer, and would conversation I had with him a few weeks ago out holding a man up to ridicule and contempt. Smith started his paper in 1882, and in the the paragraph libellous primu facis, then they enjela you to be careful.
Mr. Rose anked me a short time since if I would He had read somewhere that if one person middle of that year was tried and convicted of a Witness-I did not:
not do my best to keep his name and other per libelled another, redress would not be given after criminal libel and sentenced to two months' im- and the defendant was entitled to the verdict. sons' out of the case.
the other had libelled him in return. They had prisonment. Since then he had made vile and His lordship then dwelt at considerable length on the meanings and applications of the term Defendant-Quite sure? Witness-Quite-aure-
His lordship What has that" to do with it? a letter produced by Dr. Stewart, Acting Colonial,scandalous attacks on Bandmann, on the judge, I am not trying Mr. Rose. The question is, Secretary, written to him by Mr. Price, in which on the Court, and on the Jury, and he did not think jobbery, quoting authorities on the subject, and whether you have committed a libel on Mr the following passage occurred" Apart from that they (the jury) would consider it astonishing explaining the case in the World, referred to by .
the fact that the subscription to this scurrilous that Mr.Price should have requested that the pa- the defendant, in which Mr. Gladstone was Price.
Defendant-That is the charge. I am not paper is a waste of public money, I have grave per should not be supplied to his department. A charged with having been guilty of "an abomin saying your lordship is trying Mr. Rose. objections to allowing it inside my office on graver reason was, that it contained attacks on abic job" in appointing. Mr. Godley to the Per simply contend that the paragraph was based the grounds of decency and decorum, and the Surveyor General himself, and he (Mrmanent Under-Secretaryship of the India Office. on information supplied by Mr. Rose and others, carinot but think some responsibility attaches Francis) did not think they (the jury) would put In detailing the circumstances of this so-called but if your lordship refuses the application, to the Govemment for the pecuniary supa paper into their clerks' hands which reflected job, Sir George Phillippo alluded several times port which it readers month after month to on themselves. Mr. Price's letter to the Colto Mr. Labouchere as being editor of the World, the matter is finished...
His lordship-I don't see that it really affects a convicted criminal in his abandoned carcer." onial Secretary was justified, and privileged. which showed that judges as well as editors A more villainous, scandalous libel was never. He was perfectly entitled to give his opinion are not infallible. As to the term jobbery, the case.
Mr. Fraser-Smith then addressed the juryHe heard of in this world. A more unjustifiable, of Mr. Fraser-Smith and his paper, and his lordship leh the jury to form their own be (Mr. Francis) thought the jury would be of opinion of its meaning as applied to Mr. Price, said that the issues of the case were very simple, uncalled-for, vindictive, villainous fetter was and very easily explained. The first matter for never penned by an officer of any Government. the same view. The defendant had himself remarking that it was for them to say whether furnished the key to his virulent attack on Mr. it was used. in a defamatory sense or not. The consideration was, was the paragraph a libel? His learned friend→
Mr. Francis here jumped up excitedly, and Price, as in the Bandmann case.be supplied defence set up appeared to be that deferftlant Was it, taken in the ordinary sense in which any intelligent reader would construe it, a libel, d de said he was not his (Mr. Fraser-Smith's) friend, the motive when he said that something had denied writing the article, that it was no libel, been spoken by Mr. Bandmann reflecting on and that if it were, it was a fair comment on the famatory libel, on Mr. Price? Then if it was and would think it a disgrace to be his friend.
Mr. Fraser-Smith, continuing, referred to Mr. himself and his paper. He bitterly resented Mr. public acts of a public man. As to the defendant's not, it was their duty to return a verdict of "not guilty." They were the judges of the case, Francis as his "learned enemy," and said the Frice's refusal to take his paper, and hence it statement and the evidence he produced to prove and it was for them to say whether it was learned barister made a very long speech yester was that he had persistently attacked Mr. Price, that he had not written the article and had not written with
The question of day holding up the virtues, and speaking on every occasion. In his opening address he sanctioned its publication, his lordship was not law and privilege was in the hands of the eulogistically of Mr. Price. Until he read designated himself as the greatest scoundrel in sure whether this was brought forward as a judge. He (defendant) was perfectly confident the letter referred to, he (defendant)-thought the world if he maliciously attacked a person of defence, as defendant had actually defended all Was what be was whom he know nothing personally, and with the paragraph, and maintained that it was that the judge would lay down the law fairly, the Hon. Mr. Price
whom he had had no communication whatever, for for the public interest that it should have and that they (the jury) would consider the case painted. He would leave it to the jury's ownL
private motives. He had thus pronounced judg been published. The Chief Justice then dealt with justice and common sense. Since 1866 It sense of justice, and to their manliness as had been laid down in all the law Courts of Englishmen, if they could find it possible, in ment on himself, for he had shown them his primost exhaustively with the legal bearings of the England that public writers could censure the the face of that scandalous, defamatory and in-vate motives, and was therefore a scoundrel. Let case, quoting and detailing the cases referred to acts of public men, so long as it was done. famous letter, that he could libel Mr. Price. Mr. him use his right as he pleased. They did not com- by defendant,-Campbell v. Spottiswoode, Hunter honestly, fairly, and without malice, even Fraser-Smith then explained the circumstances plain of his fair comments on the works at Cause. Sharpe, Wason v. Walter, Henwood v. Harri although the latter might be harshly dealt with in which the letter originated, and said that if way Bay or the Tytam waterworks, but they sdn Hart Guinpach, and others. His lordship and the allegations not be founded on fact. Hi Mr. Price considered the government subscrip- complained that he charged Mfr. Price with being also gave various definitions of what constituted lordship would tell them that the truth or false. tion to the Telegraph a waste of public money, animated by self-interest, by ambition, and a libel as distinguished from slander, and dealt. hood of the alleged libel had nothing to do with as a legislative councilier he would be justified desire to keep all the good things to be made for with privilege from its various aspects, quoting. the case.
on the most recent cases. In reference to de Had he pleaded Justification, frem in advocating in the proper place and in a pro- his own pocket. These were the things they extensively from the recognised authorities fendant's observations about this prosecution' which he did not shrink through fear or anything per manner that it should be discontinued asked the jury to say were libellous and defama
unquestionable, but to state as acts of public man things which were not, and to base press, Sir George Phillippo joined issue, and a foul and malicious comment on those im after sketching the history of the "Fourth aginary acts, that he had no right to do, and Estate in its relations to the law from an that what the public had to fear was not the of that they complained. What could the early, period, expressed his firm conviction jury think of a man who told them that he was taken by surprise at these proceedings, because loss of any liberty of the press, but what he he feared that if absolute liberties were granted he imagined editors of newspapers were, pro characterised as the tyranny of the press, as to newspapers they would usurp functions which tected from any consequences of attacks on officials by an order from home? The coward- ly scoundrel-he had applied the latter term belonged only to the Law. His lordship, at consid- to himself, and he (Mr. Francis) did not hesitate erable length, endeavored to show the jury that to add "cowardly"-thought he might attack no person, expect perhaps an infant, could hope Mr. Price without fear of consequences. He to enjoy absolute liberty; nobody could act as he would not again attack Mr. Bandmann, but he at- pleased.. A great deal had been said about malice tacked Mr. Price because hethought he was shield- and bis lordship explained the different signif ed by a government order. He did not repudiate cations of malice In, law and malice in fact, responsibility for the paragraph, but deliber-expressing the opinion that it was a great ately re-published it in the overland mall issue.pity the word malice had been allowed As to the statement that he had not written the maintain. Its place in informations &c., as
of mischief misleading those who would article, nothing was heard of that from the defen was, term, calculated to do a great deal dant until now.
interpret its meaning literally. In the case the question of malice was only material to the de- Kence of privilege.lf this alleged bela a privileged communication, then the question of
wholeoftheevidence
Defendant-How much rent do you pay ? Witness-$28, including taxes. How much does it cost you for the schooling of your children, and for servants have children all at school. The expense is. 88 a month. I keep a cook and pay him $5 or $6, but I am not sure of the exact sum, as I think my wife pays it. I pay a houseboy sa a month. by Government.
I have no amah. My chair coolies are allowed of that sort, as the learned counsel had alleged, but he was not justified in writing that infamous tory, Mr. Fraser-Smith's right to comment being an attempt. to' muzzle the liberties of the
a
he would have had prove the truth of allibel. Was there anything in his (defendant's) letter to call for that? It would be for the jury How much does your compradore's bill gener-the allegations, but he did not do so, as be ally amount to for self, wife, and 5 children, a did not think the Supreme Court was the to say if Mr. Price was justified in writing that month About $80 a month whole expenses. proper place to try a matter which should be letter, a letter which, owing to defects in the It is your house bill I want?—I can't say unless investigated by the Government. That was Government departments, was publicly discussed I make up the account at home,
his reason for pleading only "not guilty." in the colony a week after it was written. What What does your "chow" bill cost you?-30. He had, therefore, no power to bring forward a nicething for an apostle of decency and decorum Beer and wine?- a month..
any witnesses as to the truth or falsehood of to tell the Government that he (defendant) was Washing? My wife does all the washing what was said to be libellous. Had he plead-convicted criminal! It was true he was convicted herself, except white shirts. It would be about ed justification, he would have had to prove and underwent the punishment of his heinous every allegation, but that he had not attempted crime, but he could look back on everything he $1 a month.
Firewood for cooking and other purposes. I to do. What was done, was done legitimately, did in the Bandmann case, without regret, suppose you have to cook your food-I don't and was what every one had a right to do. As His and was not sorry for a single line he wrote about know the amount. My wife would. As I have lordship would deal exhaustively with the legal the fellow, though he hoped he had a little more a weak stomach, I could not digest anything raw, aspects of the case, he would only refer to one more sense now. He did not think that Mr. Price $2 for firewood, I should say.
or two cases. Mr. Fraser-Smith then read the was justified in calling him a convicted criminal Other incidental expenses in connection with decisions in some cases bearing on the question, pursuing an abandoned career. Mr. Price's the house Lamp oil so cents a month. and said that that was the law of libel with regard Libelling him, however, would not justify Chief Justice How much does it cost you for clothing for to the present case. In the case. referred to by him in libelling Mr. Price. Mr. Francis said he did not remember.
self and family?-$too a year,
Mr. Francis yesterday, Campbell v. Spottiswoode, Sir John: Smale laid it down that one libel Mr. Fraser-Smith wished to call his lord-
That would be $81 month?-Iscarcely think the main principles laid down by Chief Justice should be used as a set-off against another Cockburn were retracted three years afterwards, That, however, had more to do with the ship's attention to a gross misstatement in the it is so much as $84 a month.
Mr. Fraser-Smith said that was not true, that Judge than with the jury. He believed China Mall report which might prejudice the Before you went to the Surveyor General's retracted entirely.
he stated so in the Police Court when he first the stopping of the paper by Mr. Price was in case, though he did not believe for A-moment-Department-throo-years ago, you were part pro-
His Lordship said he was not aware of that. that the jury, who were intelligent men, would prictor of the Oriental Hotel, and compounded
consequence of an article in the Telegraph.com-appeared to answer the charge-of-libel.
be influenced by it.
or compromised with your creditors. You don't
menting severely on what he (defendant) consi- dated Council that Mr. Wide, who andere Fraser Smith remarked that it had ap-jury, 1 he wholeofthe evidence was then traversed The Chiel Justice remarked he had not seen the--owe anything-now-No-
When you left the Oriental Hotel you were
peared in the public papers. China Mail, and could not take any notice of the matter unless brought before him in a proper not able to pay your liabilities-No.
And you commenced work in the Surveyor. General's Department a poor man?--I did not put all my private money into the hotel business.
manner.
Mr. Francis then put in a copy of the mall issue of the Telegraph of the 14th September, in which, he said, there was a republication of the libellous paragraph of the 3rd idem. He put it in to show that the original publication was not a more accident as it was deliberately re- peated in a publication which appeared some days later.
Mr. Edward Rose, overseer of waterworks in the Surveyor General's Department, was then called by the prosecution, and examined by Mr.
Francis..
water-
He said he had been employed as overseer of waterworks in the Surveyor-General's Depart- ment three years and a half, and that he had no connection with the waterworks going on at Tylam, his duties being solely confined to the Pakfolum reservoir. He did not remember ever having had any conversation with Mr. Robert Fraser-Smith, or Mr. Stuart Fraser-Smith, or both together, about the Tytam works. He never told either of them that he would probably make something out of these works, nor that he might make more but that too strict an eye was kept on him since Mr. Price's return. He never said that Mr. Price liked to keep the good things to his own cheek, neither to either of the brothers nor to anyone else in the colony, and never had any conversa. tion with either gentlemen that would afford any basis for such a statement. He lived next to Mr. Fraser-Smith's office on Peddar's Hill. He never spoke to either brother about delays in paying contractors employed by the Surveyor-General's Department, nor did he ever suggest to. Mr. Stuart Fraser-Smith that if he wrote about the matter in the
e paper, the contractors would be willing to pay him a percentage on the amount of their billi He never at any time took Mr. Stuart Fraser-Smith and introduced him to two or three contractors who complained of delay Mr. Stuart in the payment of their money. Fraser-Smith had been up several times at bis (witness's) house, and generally had a drink of something. He (witness) had five of a family. Mr. Stuart Fraser-Smith had not been in the habit of having champagne at his house, but he had some there, three or four times during a couple of years. His salary, with allowances, was $88 a month. He paid $28 à month for rent, but let one room for sto, which had been occupied except during the last two months. He certainly did not live beyond his income of $88 a month. He had saved some money of his own. He had no idea that his mode of living and scale of expenditure were being dis cussed by Mr. Stuart Fraser-Smith and his
friends outside.
Cross examined by defendant-Will you swear, Mr. Rose, that you have never at any time had any conversation either with my brother or inyacif respecting the Surveyer General's De- partment? I said I'kadn't.
Defendant-Do you remember about threa weeks ago speaking to me on the subject on your way to the Masonic lodge?-No.
What is your salary?-Pay $68; allowance for chair $13; and $5 from the Fire Brigade.
Defendant-According to the list you have given, your monthly expenditure, without any extras, doctor's bills, &c, amounts to $86.50
mouth.
Witness-I don't pay for doctors or medicine. The Government allows them.
Well, without any extras your expenses amount to $86.50, and your salary and allowances to $88. That would leave you $1.
His Lordship I don't see how you make that out. He gets $10 a month for one of his rooms,
Defendant-1 forgot that, my lord. Defendant-You say you let a room for $10 a month. How long has it been let?-All the time, except 2 months.
Never been vacant 7-If it has been vacant, I have been paid for it.
Do you remember what amount of fees you pay a month to masonic lodges 1-1 pay $1 a month to the United Service Lodge, and to the United Service Chapter 50 cents.
You are a frequent visitor at the Hongkong Hotel ?-No. I go there sometimes.
What is your bill there a month and at other hotels 7-About $2.
You do a little money-lending, Mr. Rose No, I don't.
You swear that Yes. Defendant-Is that your signature ? (handing him a paper.)
Witness-Oh, yes. I know all about that. That is money I advanced to a man from an other party.
The paper put in was to the effect, that la con- sideration of receiving from Mr. Stuart Fraser Smith the sum of $150, the witness had handed over to the person the articles belonging to him which he (witness) had been holding as security, Defendant-What do you mean by saying you don't do any money-leading-Another per son furnished the money,
Defendant-And in addition to this did you not retain a silver watch ?-No. I did not.
According to the details you have given, your expenses amount to $90 and your income to $88. Do you mean to say you have been in the Surveyor General's Department for 1 years at loss of $2 a month -Deduct the to for the room.
For, a profit of $8 then, you have been staying in the Surveyor General's Department 7-I have other income.
Defendant-What Other people owed me money from the Oriental Hotel.
And you are satisfied to put by a couple of dollars a month 2-Yes, I bave had other money from the government-for extra services.
You are aware, Mr. Rose, that your appoint- ment depended on the denial you have given in the box this morning I never thought of it,
You swear it has nothing to do with the answers you have given to the questions put by the learned counsel and myself -Certainly
His lordshipreinarked that in all these cases the parties who prosecuted bad themselves brought the matter upon which the comment was made before the world, and asked if the defendant had any case showing that a newspaper writer had the right to comment on a private act. In the case of Wason v. Walter, Mr. Wason sent a petition to the House of Lords, and the Times commented on it.
Mr. Fraser-Smith did not know exactly-aný case that dealt with the precise point.
His lordship remarked that surely he (the defendant) saw the distinction.
Mr. Franer-Smith said it might be that he simply took an ordinary common-sense view of the inatter apart from legal practice and technicalities.
His lordship contended there was no techni- cality. It was a matter in which the first prin. ciples of Justice were involved. He simply pointed it out because he was unwilling
Mr. Fraser-Smith said he thoroughly under stood what his lordship meant.
His lordship observed that it was the public acts of a man which might be commented upon. Mr. Fraser-Smith said that was what he was contending for.
•
His lordship sald, he had no authority for
that,
circumstances
Mr. Fraser-Smith thought it was laid down by the judges in the cases he had quoted,
eju korip pointed out that in those cases the judges were referring they had before them.
Mr. Fraser-Smith was sure his lordship would be able to lay down the law to the jury much more clearly than he could.
it
His lordship said he was not aware of that
either..
Mr. Francis, continuing, said he was in the Police Court, and had no recollection of such a stalement having been made, and that had it been, he would have provided against it. The defendant endeavored to bolster up the article by a abam letter written by his brother in his office.. Was that the conduct, of a man or of a scoundrelt What could be more false or treach erous than to endeavour to make people belleve that the outside public supported him in his views? It was a fraud and a swindle on the public, and instead of withdrawing the imputa tions, he reiterated and repeated them, except the last few words, The article asserted that Mr Price acted from base and corrupt motives, and Mr. Fraser-Smith-said he stood by it. He would, ask if the man who wrote the letter signed "Hudibras," who was not able to put two lines of good English together, could have written the paragraph?
Mr. Fraser-Smith observed that it was not to evidence that the writer of the paragraph was the writer of the letter signed "Hudibras."
His Lordship said the jury might fairly draw that conclusion.
in the Legislative Council that Mr. Price, who was
by his lordship, who dealt with the matters at home on leave and had his leave considerably
brought forward at great length, carefully submit extended, should receive full salary and
ting point after point to the jury's consideration. travelling allowances. For doing what? Look ing after the interests of a private Tramway
He expressed regret that defendant had not Company! He considered it his duty, in the
on his return from Macao disclaimed any interests of the public, to write strongly on
intention of bringing any improper accusations that matter. They (the jury) had heard
against Mr Price, as had he done so, there the evidence given by his brother, and his
would probably have been no case for libel cross-examination by Mr. Francis, and it
brought before the Court. Astegarded the de was for them to judge whether his brother
fendant's observations on the special jury, his lordship had to say that that was a matter for the uselessly, needlessly perjured himself, or told the truth. It was a matter for their own
discretion of the Attorney General, in which he judgment. They had also heard Mr. Rose in
had no power to interfere. At the same time" the witness box, and the only conclusion they
ho was not prepared to say that, had it reste could come to was that, naturally desirous of
with himself, he would have acted other keeping his appointment, he perjured him
wise. At all events, he could not see how self from beginning to end. Otherwise be (de-
defendant could consider it unfair that he was fondant) and his brother bad deliberately foisted
tried by gentlemen the pick of the colony. The a parcel of lies on them. Either Mr. Rose was
gentlemen of the jury would assuredly do their not the witness of truth, or be (defendant) and
duty, and whatever their verdict, he was quite his brother had perjured themselves to an extent
satisfied that neither the prosecutor nor the defendant could have just cause to grum bardly possible amongst human kind. He did
ble. As defendant had publicly stated in the His lordship replied that he did not see how that not wish particularly to blame Mr. Rose for try
Police Court that he did not impute bribery and corruption to Mr. Price, his lordship was sorry was a public act of Mr. Price. He did not see, being his best to keep his employment, and he cause a person went into his (defendant's) office was sorry that Mr. Francis did not think it
that Mr. Fraser-Smith, in the course of his ad. dress, had said that he withdrew his plen and said Mr. Price kept things to his own check, necessary to disprove his (defendant's) brother's how that could be called a public act of Mr. Price evidence by calling Mr. Bowdler, the assistant
Surveyor-General, or the Colonial Secretary who Mr. Francis, continuing his address, said he of Justification, because he considered that upon which he (defendant) could comment,
Mr. Fraser-Smith stated that in his opinion it had the claims of the contractors investigated. had no hesitation in asking the jury to say that the Supreme Court was not the place to Mr. Stuart Fraser-Smith was the writer of investigate the charges against the Surveyor was a proper matter to call attention to, for in- No, they thought it quite sufficient to get Mr.
Rose, under the fear of death, in that witness "Hudibras." He refused to say who wrote, the General's department, but that it was a matter vestigation, and ons in which the public had an
box. Did they (the jury) think, looking at the letter, as it would criminate himself, and for the Secretary of State. He had hoped interest.
afterwards he said it would criminate no one that all charges against Mr. Price's honor had there was certainly nothing in matter from, a common-sense view, that Mr. Rose made nothing out of his appointment but but himself. Had the jury any hesitation in been abandoned his pay, spending 886 a month out of888 These saying he wrote it? He would ask them to evidence before them to establish such charges. things had been the talk of the colony for years. compare the style of "Hudibras with the para-The defendant had said that if he had pleaded He did not know what responsibility attached graph, and say who wrote them. He did not juste legatione mave proved a truth the evidence of the defendant as to his of every allegation made, and illat If he to the Government in
men to such temptations. It was utterly impossible for having been at Macas when the letter was pab had failed in any one point the a man in Mr. Rose's position to honestly keepbimished, of much value. Mr. Stuart Fraser must have gode against him That self and his family respectably on 860 a month. Smith was unable to furnish the date of the was not so. His lordship then quoted the case He thought he had just reason to complain of alleged conversation with Mr. Rose. He would of Lambery Pasha against Labouchere, in which His lordship said he should endeavor to do so the manner in which Mr. Francis had ask what had poor Mr. Rose done, what the defendant obtained a verdict by proving conducted this case, He (defendant) had offence had he given to those Comican bro the substantial points of his charges, although as fairly as he could.
Mr. Fraser-Smith said he was quite sure of that, not received that courtesy from Mr. Francis thers, or why did they bring his name falling to prove everything. If Me Fraser and resuming his address to the jury, observed which is supposed to be associated with into the case man who had nothing to do Smith had proved Mr. Frice guilty of one was not necessary that he should traverse at great the bar. hir. Francis had referred to defen- with the Tytam water works? It was a palpable single instance of bribery of corruption, that length the evidence brought forward in the case. dant's want of ability, and lack of educs falsehood of Mr. Stuart Fraser-Smith to say that would have been sufficient to entitle him to a Their own intellegenge would show them how tion. He did not dispute that Mr. Francis Mr. Rose told him what had been alleged, when verdict under a ples of justification. His lord. things stood as well as anything he could say. End burnt the midnight oil, in his abstruse studies the latter was utterly unconnected with, the ship again referred exhaustively to the legal He had already told them that the paragraph of Roman history, and he had certainly done Tytan waterworks. Which of the two did the points, dealing especially with what constituted was not written by him, nor with his sanction, himself great credit by rising from 8d. a day up to jury believe? One of the other was a perjured privilege in the case of a public writer, quoting but he was legally responsible as the printer his present position; but he should exercise some liar, sind which of them did the fury think had all the known authorities on the subject. and publisher. This must, however, go a long little discretion when criticising other people's lied? Mr. Stuart Fraser-Smith's statement bore conclusion, he read over the paragraph contain way to show them that there was no abilities and position, of which he knew nothing, the stamp of falsehood. Mr. Rose utterly denied ing the alleged libels, and placed his malice on his part. As to the paragraph appear- He was sorry that Mr. Francis' want of temper having made the alleged statement. The defence what the several references meant before the ing in the mail issue of the Tigraph of 14th and ignorance of the usages of good society shook itself, 1st that the defendant did not write Jury. The questions for their consideration Sopt, ho intended to ask if it was not should have led him to insult him (defendant) the articles and that it was not written through were whether or not, the article was libellous- trus that he seldom looked at paragraphs so frequently as he had done. A more scandalous malice. The question was did the defen-were the words defamatory in themselves, or going into the mail issue. The first be remark than "your precious brother was never dant publish it? Did he take all necessary could they reasonably bear the auction knew of it was when he received a summons heard in a Court of Justice, and his lordship, precautions. Campbell's Act provided that placed on them by the protection and if so, When he returned from Macao he remonttiated usually so lenient to the bar, told the learned when ignorante of publication was pleaded whether they were of opinion that defondant ne with his brother for doing such a silly thing barrister that he was not justified in using as a defence, it was necessary to show that the public writer was rustified to writing of Mr. As to the paragraph appearing in the malade, Mr. Francis was not there to vilify, or to publisher had taken all necessary precautions Price as a public oficer in that way: Ale it never cpased bis mind; but he was, quite rail at him or his antecedents. All he had He asked the jury to find the defendant guilty ofhether he was justified: The using the ine
to stand the responsibility of the to do was to prove, in the interests of his cilent, a false lying and cowardly libel and should formation: to write as had been done,
he had received It republication. With the greater portion of that he had been guilty of a defamatory libel they find him guilty be. Would be found i gality fidering the manner the paragraph he entirely agreed; all except He was glad that Mr. Francis had so nobly ne- of a meaner offence than that of any prisoner at Jury bellore Miri Stuart the very injudicious reference to what Mr. Rose pudiated having any friendship with him. There told his brother. It was for the jury to say what was a time when the learned barrister was proud The learned counsel's ferocious cloquence hav-Mr. Edward Rose? If they thoug meaning was to be attached to it whether it of his friendship, and when he was glad to bave ing became utterly used up at this point, he was not capable, was intended to be defamatory and libellous or services rendered him by the Telegraph. Tem was fain to fall back on out great dramatis, in placed on it by the not. They had heard Mr. Price's evidence, and boramutantur, sinos mutamur in illi that was troducing a very trite quotation from Shake not defamatory no doubt were amaged to learn that a great many the Latin Mr. Francis had been so assiduously speare, with Francisonian variations and com the defend contracts were arranged, and not given cut to studying for years." In justice to himself, in fus-ments, commencing with the well-known lines. pubila: competition. Mr. Price thought the tice to his lordship, in justice to the learned pro-He who steals my purse, steals trash c system a good one. He (Mr. Fraser-Smith) fession of which Mr. Francis was a member, he The burner of midnight all, however to thought otherwise, and, that it led to extensive deemed it his duly to animadvert on what he con- drew 4/6d,instead of 8d. a day when he lef jobbery and corruption. The practice was a sidered was disgraceful and scandalqua. Now he Her Majesty Service, and is not an art most pernicious one. Mr. Price said that all had done, Hewas perfectly well aware that he had with the usages of good society,, falled large contracts were given out to public come not put his defence before them as it might have make any impression in the gentiensen off
with some impatience to his petition, and then contradicted himself. He been put by more competent bands and jury by his turgid eloquence The Court,
for defin was a fait comment, and was not intended to and Mr. Price he would have engaged counsel apply to the Surveyor General any more than For his shortcomings he would crave the july's to the Colonial Secretary's office. A great indulgence, and whatever the verdict might be, The Court re-assemb -portion of the eloquence of Mr. Franciin he was ure they would belleve that he had been Chief Justice summed up the case, defence of Mr. Price, should have been in de actuated by toyd fide motives. He had broken which lasted exactly three hours fence of His Excellency the Governor. If there no law, and only did what his position fairly on was any allegation of malveration or competitled him to do in the best interests of the tion, it would seem to apply to the Gover public, the data from nor, and not to Mr. Price. Mr. Price was not Mr. Francis, replying upon the whole case, said his address on this account being p mentioned in any way. giving out contracts he would leave entirely, in his lordship's hands Bringing the paragraph in which the alleged There was nothing in the paragraph that could be the references made to cases. Before summing libels were contained under the notes of the construed into libel, or anything approaching to it up the preopt somewhat amusing case, he would: Jury, the Chief Justice laid it down that they were Any clever barrister could twist an adverse observe that he had no recollection of having not bound to consider the instiendoes attached. sentence against anybody into a Ubel. He was ever been rendered services by the Telegraph. to certain passages in the article but deld that tions not a barrister himself, but he would have no He would also correct a mistake of the defendant. the prosecution were bound to Band or fall by
and could not explain them fuiky difficulty in showing a libel in any adverse When he (Mr. Francis) left Her Majesty's service these innuendoes, in
in any other way. If the jury did not consider criticism." One could not write adversely with he was drawing 4/6 a day, not 8d. Mr. Fraser
the bar convicted of larcency
"
You swear you did not express a hope that your name or that of any other foreman-would not be introduced into the case?--No, You said at your gate that we fellows need not fear that we would be brought into it.
Then you did have some conversation with my brother and myself on the subject -No; only what I have just said.
And you positively swear that you never at any time had any conversation with any one connected with our office?-Not about the Sur veyor General's Department. Certainly not. the subject of contractors not receiving their money at the proper time?-Certainly not.
Was the statement made on oath yesterday. by my brother that you took him to a contrac tor; false? Yes. I never took him to any con-
not.
This closed the witness's cross-examination, Mr. Francis I have nothing to say to Mr. Rose, except to apologies for having had to put him in the box, and for exposing him to im pertinence.
Defendant-We are here for justice and to got at the truth.-If my memory is not at fault, in the Tichborne case Dr. Kenealy was allowed to call re-rebutting evidence, and if your lordship will give me till to-morrow. I will prove that what the last witness says is catirely false. If your lord. ship refers to Castro's case, you will find, 1 rebutting evidence.
And you have never spoken to my brother on think, that Dr. Kenealy was allowed to call - the defendant) contended that the paragraph If he had the colossal "weath of Mr. Francis Tumbled
tractor.
Have you ever received a "cumshaw" or "squeeze" from contractors for works -Never Did you overlook the repairing of Gough Street some two years ago, in connection with the waterworks?—Yes.
Was Mr. Andrew Millar the contractor for that work?I think so. It was Mr. Millar,
Did you volunteer to collect some private accounts for Mr. Millar in connection with piping supplied to houses in Gough Street?-Net that I know of
His lordship The circumstances must have been peculiar.
DefendantThey wore.
His lordship-What are the peculiar circum stances in this case? You have called your brother, and could have called any other wit nesses you pleased, but you did not.
Defendant Who could have imagined that in matters which I know myself to be true, the man would have come forward and sworn what he has done, hava
His lordship You could have called other witnesses, and him had you chosen.
Defendant-Not at all Your Lordship will note I put a question to him with regard to a
that owing to the low bose ndich ship spoke, it was impossible in the Box to follow him clearly, a vérbatim
view of