( 10 )
what was said in the letter containing the smarting under some remarks respecting libel and also having regard to the motion made by Mr Nelson at the Chamber of Commerce. He now withdraws the letter. He was for his own part quite unwilling to believe that Mr Pitman really wrote this libel knowing it to be false. He could not bring himself to believe that. He thought Mr Pitman had focussed into one letter a lot of rumours of a kind which everybody in a little place like this circulated more or less about everybody. In doing that he did an extremely unwise thing and one which could not be passed over.
In a conference he had on the subject with his client this morning to see what could be done, he found his client had no objection to try the case on the simple charge that the defendant "did maliciously publish a defamatory libel," leaving out the stinging clause knowing it to be false. The two things were very different, and his client and himself appeared before His Worship in as conciliatory a mood as they could.
The offence now charged was one much less gross in a moral point of view than the original charge. Although it was a very unwise act which might bring upon defendant certain penalties, it did not throw the moral obloquy and blame which the heavier charge carried with it. But on public grounds his client did not feel himself satisfied in going further than this.
Mr Francis again appealed to his learned friend to say whether, under all the circumstances of the case, that was not as ample and sufficient and complete satisfaction as the complainant could desire, especially when it was considered that he gave extreme provocation to Mr Pitman, that Mr Nelson had laid himself open, if Mr Pitman was open, to an indictment for libel, that Mr Nelson was himself as open as Mr Pitman to a precisely similar charge with this.
Whatever he said in the Chamber of Commerce, which had been reproduced by the public press, had been stated by Mr Ryrie in the witness box to have been understood as grossly defamatory of Mr Pitman, since it charged him with getting up bogus petitions, which was in fact charging Mr Pitman with a conspiracy that would be a misdemeanour.
If what Mr Nelson said of Mr Pitman were true, he believed Mr Pitman could be indicted for a misdemeanour. Mr Nelson then, for one reason or another, without any cause, made these observations, with which, so far as they reflected on the Government or not was perfectly immaterial to this case, but which so far as they related to Mr Pitman formed an utterly unprovoked and serious charge against Mr Pitman.
"29, QUEEN'S ROAD, "Hongkong, 1st March, 1880.
"Messrs Sharp, Toller and Johnson.
DEAR SIRS,-We have been instructed by Mr John Pitman to express his regret for the hasty letter reflecting upon Mr H. Nelson which he has written to Mr W. Jackson.
Mr Pitman wrote that letter while feelings this attack on him engendered Mr Nelson which he could not but characterise as a very foolish letter. No one defending Mr Pitman could help saying that. The letter had now been withdrawn. That it had no effect on Mr Jackson's mind, Mr Jackson had sworn here in the witness box.
THE LETTER WITHDRAWN.
Mr Francis asked his learned friend to excuse him interrupting him, but now that the letter which the other side had been noticed to produce had been referred to, he might ask whether the withdrawal therein contained was not sufficient for every purpose of justice, sufficient for the full satisfaction of his client.
He read the letter as follows:-
"Yours truly,
"BRERLTON & Worrow."
Mr Hayllar: You are quite welcome to do that.
Mr Francis again appealed to Mr Hayllar for the plaintiff, whether the matter could not end here.
Mr Hayllar said that unfortunately he was in a position to say that it could not end here. The whole thing had been fully discussed and considered, and he was under the instructions of his client-he had no feeling one way or the other and his client was prepared to go on with the case.
With regard to the provocation, other parts of the letter than those which had yet been laid before the Court showed how that provocation had been used.
In all probability, he thought, Mr Pitman did not appreciate the full force of what he was doing when he wrote that letter. He hoped he did not; however, it all came to this; the letter was written, and as it read it appeared a deliberate attempt to ruin-
Mr Francis pressed his point. These paragraphs were not in themselves defamatory. It was only by some particular interpretation that was sought to be placed upon them that they could become so.
As the libel had to be fully set forth with the innuendoes and interpretations put upon it to make it defamatory in this case, all the innuendoes to make these paragraphs defamatory had to be supplied in the charge made against his client.
It was not of course sufficient to say that his client's letter contained insinuations, they had to state what they charged him with writing these insinuations to point to.
Mr Francis read the first paragraph through. He thought it was a very proper question to ask concerning a man in a public position and of a gentleman interested in the concern in which he served.
But there certainly was no libel in it. The only statement in it, if there was any statement in it at all, was that Mr Nelson trafficked in shares. There was nothing libellous in that.
The question was asked whether he left himself time to devote that undivided attention to the affairs of the Bank which the shareholders and the directors had a right to expect.
That feeling was all that was said. The plaintiff says that more is meant, and they must set forth all that they say that means.
They say a libel is implied. That libellous statement must be set forth in the charge.
His Worship would also note that Mr Jackson had told them in the witness-box that there was nothing wrong, nothing illegitimate, nothing in the shape of misconduct, nothing interfering with the proper management of the Bank, in a Bank Manager buying and selling shares, that is trafficking in shares.
Mr Francis quoted from Folkard on Libel, p. 701, to prove that the libellous matter must be set forth in the indictment with all the innuendoes and the applications the complainants allege.
He argued that this was not done in this case, and that he was entitled to have it done.
Mr Francis asked whether the summons was to be amended. The libel complained of was set forth to be in these two paragraphs marked in the copy in the Magistrate's hands.
Reading the two paragraphs he contended there was not therein a single word defamatory in any shape or form whatever.
The innuendo or the explanation, the interpretation of the passage required to make it defamatory, must in accordance with the authorities he had quoted be given to state, plainly what libel they understood or contended was conveyed in the simple words of the letter.
The Magistrate said the rest of the letter could only be taken in explanation of the two passages mainly relied on.
Mr Hayllar said he would explain in a word what was done before in this matter.
With reference to the particular passages of the letter which Mr Johnson had chosen as containing the libel complained of, he did not at all concur on that point.
It was done in this way. Mr Jackson was going away the next day after the case was before the Magistrate here. The letter was sent to Mr Nelson only the day before the matter was last in Court.
There was a postponement then at the request of the gentleman who represented Mr Pitman, and Mr Jackson's evidence, which was all that was taken that day, referred only to these two paragraphs and to their effect on his mind, and not to the effect of the whole letter on his mind.
Mr Francis: Is my learned friend to put in the whole letter?
Mr Hayllar: Certainly,
Mr Francis: Then I ask that the innuendo...
( 11 )