REGINA V PITMAN.
THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE POLICE COURT.
THE PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS, (Before U. V. Creagh, Esq.)
FIRST DAY.
a very insulting one certainly, and such a letter as should not have been written of a gentleman in such a position as Mr Nelson. But while it was such a letter, admittedly, as should never have been written, it was no libel. The letter said that Mr Nelson had been "trafficking in shares." That was a perfectly legitimate and perfectly proper thing to do; there were very few gentlemen here who had not had some dealings in shares. There was nothing in that letter reflecting on the character of the complainant.
John Pitman to-day appeared on a summons, issued at the instance of H. H. Nelson, of the Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China, charging him in that he "on the 29th day of March 1880 at Victoria in this Colony unlawfully did write and publish and cause and procure to be written and published a certain false scandalous and defamatory libel of and concerning the said Horace Harrington Nelson, he then well knowing the said libel to be false, contrary to statute 6 to 7 Vic. chap. 96, sec. 4," which enacts that "if any person shall maliciously publish any defamatory libel, knowing the same to be false, every such person being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned in the common gaol or house of correction for any term not exceeding two years and to pay such fine as the Court shall award."
Mr A. B. Johnson (of Messrs Sharp, Toller and Johnson) appeared for the complainant; Mr Brereton (of Mr Brereton and Wotton) for the defendant.
Mr Brereton asked His Worship to postpone the case, say until Friday. He had just got his instructions from his client, and the matters out of which the prosecution arose required a deal of consideration.
THE LIBEL AS AT FIRST COMPLAINED OF.
Mr Johnson said he would read the paragraphs of which his client complained. Proceeding to formally open the case, he said this was a summons against Mr John Pitman by Mr H. H. Nelson of the Chartered Mercantile Bank for maliciously publishing a libel concerning him, the complainant, knowing it to be false.
Mr Johnson said it was absolutely necessary that he should proceed to some extent with the case to-day. Mr Jackson, Inspector of the Bank, and Mr Nelson were to proceed to Shanghai, according to present arrangements, to-day. Mr Nelson at home would be away for some three weeks. Mr Jackson would not return, and his evidence must be taken to-day. That evidence was quite formal.
The libel was contained in a letter sent by the defendant to Mr William Jackson, who is the Assistant Chief Manager of the Chartered Mercantile Bank and Secretary, and is now here on special duty, inspecting the Branch Banks. He would not trouble His Worship by reading the whole of the letter, but these were the paragraphs complained of as containing a libel on the complainant.
The Magistrate said this might be done. The evidence Mr Jackson was to give would not affect the case. The fact that it was there on record would not hamper the defendant in any defence he had to put forward.
Mr Johnson said he could not consent to the case being postponed without that evidence being taken to-day.
Further, he would suggest that, having regard to Mr Nelson's public position as one of your staff, some enquiry should be made into the circumstances under which he became possessed of a transfer of certain shares from the late Mr Heaton on the eye...
Mr Brereton admitted that the letter was a very insulting one certainly, and such a letter as should not have been written of a gentleman in such a position as Mr Nelson. He would prefer to have an opportunity of communicating with Mr Nelson's solicitors on the subject, and he hoped that this done the case would not have to be taken by the Court.
The Magistrate said the course suggested by Mr Johnson had better be pursued if Mr Jackson was not to be back here. He had not read or seen the letter himself and knew nothing of it.
Mr Johnson produced the letter.
Mr Brereton said he hoped the letter would not be read.
Mr Johnson said he would have to read the paragraphs of which Mr Nelson complained; that would be necessary to allow the Magistrate having some understanding of the case.
Mr Brereton said the Magistrate could read the letter himself if Mr Johnson handed it up to him.
Page 398