(6)
was desirous of having the case heard now misunderstanding having arisen both in his and Mr Nelson was not here to go on. own mind and in the mind of Mr Johnson Surely that was not Mr Pitman's fault. It as to the hour; they had both believed it struck him that this was rather an extra was to come on at 11 o'clock. At that hour ordinary way of doing things. A gentleman laid a serious charge like this and the same day went away to Shanghai on pleasure and put the gentleman against whom he had made the charge to this inconvenience and humiliation.
about that time.
Mr Brereton: When this summons was
The Magistrate said that if Mr Brereton had at the proper time brought forward the arguments he was now adducing, he was not sure that he would have granted the remand, but an agreement having been made, an understanding come to between the parties, they could not go back on that. The understanding certainly was that the first affair was to lie over three weeks or until Mr Nelson returned, Mr Nelson has not yet returned, but we are here to-day to have the case disposed of.
Mr Brereton again reminded the Magistrate that he had only asked for an adjournment for two days.
The Magistrate reminded Mr Brereton that the other side were ready to go on; the defendant was not. The defendant required an adjournment, and the complainant made it a condition "three weeks or nothing" which was accepted. Certainly it was a very peculiar case, the complainant laying this serious charge and then going away at once, but then all his arrangements had been made before for going.
Mr Brereton: It is a very serious charge to be hanging over any man, it is, in the words of the summons, for that he did on the 29th day of March, 1880, at Victoria in this Colony unlawfully 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, the said John Pitman, then well knowing the said libel to be false, contrary to statute 6 and 7 Victoria, chapter 94, section 4. Now, that is to all intents and purposes criminal charge, and I ask your Worship, when an ordinary criminal charge is brought before you and remanded say for a week from some cause or another, and then comes up again and the prosecutor is not present, would you not as a rule dismiss that charge.
The defendant would suffer no inconvenience by the order applied for,-that he find bail, He presumed Mr Johnson would be satisfied with his personal recognisances.
Mr Johnson insisted on sureties. He had, in Mr Brereton's two letters to him, notice of Mr Pitman's intention to leave for Japan or Shanghai.
Mr Brereton said he had never written or said that Mr Pitman was to leave; he had said he might have to leave.
After some further conversation,
The Magistrate: Yes.
Mr Brereton: Then I ask you to dismiss this case. Several steamers have arrived within the last few days, one arrived yesterday if I mistake not, by which Mr Nelson might have returned to Hongkong if he really desired to prosecute in this case.
Mr Brereton said he was prepared and authorised to assure the Court that Mr Pitman would remain here until the bearing of the case,-any reasonable length of time.
Is Mr Pitman to remain for an indefinite time under this charge to suit the pleasure and convenience of Mr Nelson Were he prevented by any calamity, the break-down of a steamer or wreck or any reasonable excuse from being present here to day, had he shown any desire to be present here to prosecute on the date fixed and been prevented by any unforeseen circumstance, then there would have been some reason for asking that the case might stand over further; but as it is there is none.
The case was ultimately postponed for a fortnight, Mr Pitman entering into his own recognisances in $500.
Under the present circumstances I feel that I am justified in asking the Court to dismiss the summons. We are here all ready. Mr Pitman has surrendered to his recognisances and is here, and Mr Nelson is not here to prosecute the charge.
Wednesday, April 21.
ANOTHER APPLICATION TO DISMISS THE SUMMONS IN THE ABSENCE OF MR NELSON.
Mr Brereton, on the Magistrate attending to-day, shortly after noon, apologised for some
(7)
and Mr Nelson is not here to prosecute the charge.
The Magistrate: Yes. Have you anything to say, Mr Johnson?
Mr Johnson: Yes. I have. Mr Brereton made a great deal of the case having been postponed when he was ready, and of the convenience of Mr Nelson being regarded in the matter, but he seems to have lost sight altogether of the fact that it was entirely for the convenience of Mr Brereton and his client that the case was ever postponed at all. We were here three weeks ago ready to go on, and it was only to suit the convenience of the defendant and his Solicitor, who were not prepared to go on with the case then, that we agreed to any adjournment at all. And we only agreed to an adjournment on the distinct understanding that the adjournment should until the return of Mr Nelson from Shanghai, which would probably be in or about three weeks' time. That was three weeks ago to-day.
Mr Brereton: It was remanded till that day three weeks, or rather from a fortnight from the date when it was last before the Court. That is to-day. This is the first time the word "about has ever been used. I never heard of this agreement to wait till Mr Nelson returned, whenever that might be. I certainly never agreed, never could have agreed, to anything of the kind. I never heard of a remand in vague terms of that sort.
Mr Johnson: That is so, your Worship. It was remanded till Mr Nelson's return, which it was stated would be about three weeks' time.
The Magistrate: You shall certainly have the adjournment you ask for, for two or three days, but I do not see my way to let the case hang over much longer.
Mr Brereton: The case was adjourned for a fortnight on the 7th April. It comes on now for hearing; the prosecutor is not here, and considering the nature of the charge and the absence of the complainant, I ask for the summons to be dismissed.
I ask that the summons be dismissed. Mr Nelson should have made it his business to be down here three days ago.
The Magistrate: I must say that I should not be inclined to go much beyond the three weeks. If the case is not to be heard very soon, the summons should be dismissed.
Mr Johnson: Mr Nelson will be here to-night if the Oxus comes in.
The Magistrate: I can only decide on this point as I decided before, that no precise date was fixed, that it was agreed that the case should be remanded from time to time until Mr Nelson's return in about three weeks' time from the 31st ult.
The Magistrate: Then you can have it to-morrow if you like.
Mr Johnson: I have asked for a remand till Friday, which would be more suitable. I am now informed that Mr Nelson will be
400