UOT
(8)
here in a day or two. To what time do you ask that the case be now adjourned?
Mr Brereton: If the case is to be again remanded, I must ask that the evidence of Mr Ryrie be taken now. He may be going away to Japan, indeed his intention is to go to-morrow.
Mr Johnson: You cannot take a newspaper report and ask a casual hearer to swear to it in this way.
Mr Brereton: I can produce the newspaper reporter.
Mr Johnson: What is this evidence?
Mr Brereton: It is evidence that may become most pertinent to the case if your Worship does not hold as I believe there will be sufficient reason adduced before you for your holding that there is absolutely nothing in the letter in the shape of a libel.
The Magistrate: That is the proper way to prove the accuracy of the report.
Mr Brereton: I simply wanted the witness to speak generally as to his belief in the accuracy of this report and to say what was to be understood by it. I cannot ask witness to repeat what Mr Nelson said on that occasion, on the 23rd of Feb.
Did you ever know of any prodigy who recollected the words of a whole speech some three months after it was delivered?
Mr Brereton: I have a case here exactly similar. There was a gross libel, a very gross libel, but the question of provocation came in. I have the Queen's Bench case here.
The Magistrate: I do not see there can be any objection to taking Mr Ryrie's evidence if it is on a material point and if he is going away from Hongkong.
Mr Johnson: I have no objection.
HON. P. RYKIE'S EVIDENCE,
Mr P. Ryrie was then sworn. The following is his examination-in-chief by Mr Brereton, question and answer:
You are a merchant and a member of the Chamber of Commerce of Hongkong?
I am.
The annual meeting of the Chamber of Commerce took place on the 23rd February last?-On the 23rd February.
You were present on that occasion?-I was.
Mr. Brereton: I shall read you a short speech that was made on that occasion from the official report, and you can say whether the report is correct, whether you remember that speech being made.
Mr Johnson: I object to that being done.
Mr Brereton, to witness: You heard Mr Nelson make a speech that day?
Witness: Yes.
The Magistrate: What is that you are to quote from?
Mr Brereton: It is the report published by authority. It is entitled "Report of the Committee of the Hongkong General Chamber of Commerce for the year ending 31st December 1879, presented to the members at the annual meeting held on the 23rd February, 1880." It is the official report; Mr Ryrie knows that because he is one of the members of the Committee.
Mr Johnson: You will note my objection, your Worship.
The Magistrate: I have done so.
Mr Ryrie's examination resumed:—You are a member of the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce?-I am.
You are able to say that this is the official report (the Chamber "book" produced) of the Chamber of Commerce?-Yes.
Mr Nelson is a member of the Chamber too?-He is Vice-President.
You will listen to the following paragraph which I read from the "official report"—
Mr Nelson: "In the absence of any communication from the Government on the subject, the Chamber is hardly entitled to consider that the question is before them. I learn from Chinese sources that the Memorial which was presented the other day was got up by a gentleman rather well known in the Colony, who is in the employ of the Japanese Government, and who is more or less mixed up with the Opium Farm and other matters in the Colony, and who is on very intimate and friendly terms with the head of the Government in Hongkong. Now bearing in mind the manner in which equally spontaneous expressions of opinion on other matters have been utilised in the Colony, I think one may justly come to the conclusion something is to be done in this matter, and I think, in the absence of any communication from the Government, it is not unbecoming on the part of the Chamber to invite some little amount of confidence in the matter, supposing anything is being done. I suggest the Secretary put himself in communication with the Government and make an inquiry whether anything is being done."
When did you first know anything was going to be sent?-I did not know anything whatever about something going to be sent.
Now, Mr Ryrie, is that a correct report of what Mr Nelson said on that occasion?
It is.
Did you know when it was written?-I did not.
Can you say from your knowledge of public business and general experience of the Colony to whom that speech applied? Who is this gentleman said to be in the employ of the Japanese Government and so intimate with the Governor?-I understood it to be Mr Pitman; moreover that it was intended to point to Mr Pitman.
I suppose you are able to say that it was so far as the routine Magisterial work is pretty generally known by those present that it was a reference to Mr Pitman?-All the gentlemen who spoke with me afterwards agreed that it was Mr Pitman who was referred to, and that it could be no one else.
Now, I would ask you what construction did you put upon that speech?-My construction is that it was an imputation on Mr Pitman that he was getting a memorial drawn up for purposes of his own or such purposes as suited him, and moreover it struck me that it was an imputation upon the Executive—which I considered very wrong—that it could be influenced by such a statement.
That the petition was a spurious one?-That was the impression it presented to my mind.
That the petition for the legalisation of the Japanese yen in this Colony was not a voluntary bona fide petition from those who signed it? That was, to my mind, the impression the speech was calculated and intended to produce. That it was a "got-up" affair altogether. He used the word "got-up". He said it was a "got-up" petition.
The Magistrate: That it was a sham petition?
Witness: Yes.
Mr Brereton: The meaning of "got-up" we all know,
The Magistrate: You understood from what Mr Nelson said that the defendant in this case had got up a sham petition respecting the legalisation of the Japanese yen in this Colony?
Witness: Yes. That is it.
(9)
Never saw it?-Never.
You are quite ignorant of its contents? Except so far as I have heard of them at the Club,
Cross-examined by Mr Johnson: I think you have seen this letter containing the libels complained of before, have you not?-I have not.
Mr Johnson: Oh, of course.
The case at this point was adjourned till Friday, when, it being Mr Creagh's off-day so far as the routine Magisterial work is concerned, he said he could be at the disposal of the parties all day.
FOURTH DAY.
Friday, April 28.
The case came on again to-day.
THE FINAL HEARING IN THE POLICE COURT: THE ACCUSED COMMITTED TO THE SESSIONS.
The prosecution was now conducted by T. C. Hayllar, Q.C., instructed by Mr A. B. Johnson, of Messrs Sharp, Toller and Johnson; and the defendant was now represented by Mr J. J. Francis, instructed by Mr Brereton, of Messrs Brereton and Wotton.
37
Mr Hayllar said he appeared for the complainant, Mr Nelson. This was a very painful case. His client was made the subject of a letter, which, he thought very naturally, exasperated him and brought him before His Worship really to apply, as much on public as on private grounds, that the gentleman who wrote it be committed for trial for publishing a false and malicious libel knowing it to be false.
The matter had been before His Worship three or four times; he (Counsel) had had an opportunity of reading from the newspapers here, the China Mail and the Daily Press, the reports of the proceedings, by which he saw that a letter which his side had been called upon to produce had been mentioned.