(4)
of his (Mr H's) embarrassments about a thing wrong in the manager of a Bank buying shares if he has money to pay for them. "It may indeed be doubted whether Mr Nelson as a regular trafficker in shares and other concerns is able to devote that undivided attention to the interests of the Bank which its shareholders expect and whether such occupation is within the legitimate sphere of action of a Manager of a Chartered Bank."
The letter was put in evidence but not read. It appeared to be understood that only the part which was read in Court should be published.
The case stands remanded for a week and will be adjourned from week to week, the Magistrate explained, until he heard from the parties. The Court, it was stated, has only the power to remand a case for eight days at a time.
He (Mr Johnson) need hardly say that these paragraphs were utterly false and malicious, and the mere fact of their being addressed to Mr William Jackson during his temporary stay here, in his (Mr Johnson's) opinion, aggravated the offence. Mr Jackson answered the letter yesterday, and then handed it over to Mr Nelson.
The Magistrate asked what was the date of the letter.
Mr Johnson said the letter was dated the 29th. Mr Nelson on receiving the letter felt bound to take the proceedings that had been taken.
He (Mr Johnson) did not intend to proceed with the case, after what had occurred, further than was absolutely necessary, but he would call Mr Jackson and take his evidence.
Page 399
SECOND DAY,
Wednesday, April 7.
APPLICATION TO DISMISS THE SUMMONS REFUSED.
Further proceedings were taken to-day. Mr Brereton, who appeared for the defendant, reminded the Magistrate that when this case was last before the Court he applied for an adjournment for two days, for coming before the Magistrate would be hoping that in the meantime the necessity would be removed. He wrote a conciliatory letter to the complainant, which he hoped would have had the effect of ending the matter, and he made it part of the letter that if Mr Nelson chose to proceed with the case, that he would remain, as Mr Pitman might have to go to Japan.
MR JACKSON'S EVIDENCE.
Mr William Jackson sworn said I am in the service of the Chartered Mercantile Bank and am at present inspecting the Branch Banks in the East. I received this letter produced some time in the afternoon of Monday, the 29th. It is signed John Pitman. It came with the chit book; one of the boys brought it. I answered the letter yesterday. I have read the paragraphs you read. There is certainly no truth in them. There is no truth in the statement that Mr Nelson has been a trafficker in shares and has not devoted his attention to the Bank.
Mr Brereton: The letter does not say that he has not. It is a mere expression of opinion.
Mr Johnson: (to witness)-Are you as Inspector perfectly satisfied with Mr Nelson's management of the Bank?
Witness: Certainly.
Mr Brereton, in cross examination: You have been manager of a Bank here yourself?
Witness: I have.
Mr Brereton: You have purchased shares?
Witness: I had better say I have, for I dare say I have.
Mr Brereton: You have sold shares?
Witness: Yes, I do not have them now.
Mr Brereton: Do you consider that there is anything wrong in the manager of a Bank buying shares?
Witness: I do not think there is any.
The Magistrate said all this might be a very good argument if it had not been agreed, when the case was last before the Court, that the further proceedings in this case should be held over until Mr Nelson's return from Shanghai in three weeks' time.
Mr Brereton said he had only asked for an adjournment for two days as he had only then, when the case was last before his Worship, received his instructions from his client. From what he had been able to see of the case then he believed distinctly that it was a case which should not come before the Court at all.
(5)
The Magistrate said he would be very willing to suit the convenience of the defendant, but that was the Law on the subject.
He reminded the defence that further proceedings were taken to-day. Mr Brereton, who appeared for the defendant, reminded the Magistrate that when this case was last before the Court he applied for an adjournment for two days, hoping that in the meantime the necessity for coming before the Magistrate would be removed. He wrote a conciliatory letter to the complainant, which he hoped would have had the effect of ending the matter, and he made it part of the letter that if Mr Nelson chose to proceed with the case, he would remain, as Mr Pitman might have to go to Japan. That letter Mr Nelson received, he believed, on board the steamer by which he went to Shanghai, and he decided to proceed with the case and to proceed to Shanghai at the same time.
Mr Johnson objected to the case being disposed of otherwise than as had been agreed upon. He reminded His Worship that the case was last before the Court, and it was upon a certain course that the case was then agreed to be held.
The proposal for dismissing the summons was refused. It was only at the request of the defendant's Solicitor, an adjournment came from the other side.
Mr Brereton said he only asked for an adjournment for two days, and that for the simple reason that he had only had his instructions from his client shortly before coming into Court, his appearance when the case came on.
The Magistrate said his mind was particularly clear as to how the adjournment came about. The defendant was not ready and applied for an adjournment; plaintiff was ready to go on with the case then.
Mr Creagh said it was distinctly agreed that the case should be postponed from week to week till Mr Nelson's return, which would probably mean for three weeks' time, and we are ready to go on now. If Mr Pitman gave bail now, the case could be remanded for any length of time and until his return from Japan; without that it could only be adjourned from week to week, until and if you adjourn the case then it must be for three weeks, until our client returns from Shanghai.
The case was by agreement adjourned for three weeks from that day, and he did not desire unless by agreement to reopen it now.
Mr Johnson said he was certainly not prepared to go on with it now; how could he be?
Mr Creagh, the Magistrate, referred the parties to Section 36 of No. 14 of 1845, which is as follows:--
"Any Magistrate, if he shall think fit, may remand any person who shall be charged before him with any felony or misdemeanor upon his personal recognizance (with or without sureties) and every such recognizance shall be conditional for the appearance of such person before the same or some other Magistrate, for further examination, or to surrender himself to take his trial at the Supreme Court, at a day and place to be therein mentioned, and the Magistrate shall be at liberty from time to time to enlarge every such recognizance to such further time as he shall appoint, and every such recognizance which shall not be enlarged shall be discharged without fee or reward, when the party shall have appeared according to the condition thereof: Provided always, that when any Magistrate shall take the recognizance of any person to appear at the Supreme Court, the Magistrate shall be bound to return the depositions taken in the case, and to bind over the witnesses to appear and give evidence in like manner as if he had committed the party to take his trial at such Court."
Mr Creagh said it was quite customary for an order to enter into recognizances to be made in summons cases.
Mr Brereton here said that Mr Pitman had no intention of going away without applying to the Court. He had at the same time an objection to entering into recognizances as was desired.
Mr Pitman would have to give bail of course. This quite removed the force of the argument brought forward by the defence that Mr Pitman would be inconvenienced.
Mr Johnson was not sure. Mr Pitman had told the Court he was likely to leave the Colony for Japan.
The Court was aware that the clause provided for the defendant being bound over with or without sureties.
Mr Brereton said that if Mr Pitman had to go to Japan he would come again before the Court. He argued this was not a case in which the Court could fairly call upon him for bail. It was simply a summons and nothing had been proved.
Mr Creagh said it was quite customary for an order to enter into recognizances to be made in summons cases, and he presumed Mr Johnson would be satisfied with Mr Pitman's personal recognizances.
Page 400