44)
trafficker as the letter described him to be. Mr Nelson in the opinion of his employers. As to this alleged trafficking interfering with Mr Nelson's functions as a banker, that was a mere matter of inference; and in view of the specific charges to be substantiated, therefore, the argument that the defendant's mouth had been closed fell to the ground. There was one piece of evidence of some importance to which he had not objected. Defendant's Counsel had asked Mr Nelson whether he was a dealer in those objectionable forms of shares known as time bargains, and Mr Nelson had replied that he never had had one such, and had never had anything to do with a time transaction which depended upon a margin to be paid or received. When the prosecution had brought out such a piece of evidence, brought out by Mr Francis for the defence, nothing could be more calculated to show the extreme recklessness of the charges made. He (Mr Hayllar) had already said that when a libel was defamatory because the writer had not taken the trouble to inquire whether it was false or true, the writer of such a libel committed a very grave offence; and the gravity of this charge was sufficient exoneration for his client for having vindicated his position by a criminal prosecution. They were all exceedingly indebted to His Lordship for shortening the proceedings and saving them from going over the ground as to privileged communication. He hoped that the Jury would come to a right and righteous decision.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SUMS UP.
plaint before you." What are "the circumstances" to which alone he refers, I can only answer the impudent public attack upon himself, Mr Pitman. I therefore impute to Mr Pitman that in his mind anger induced the letter, anger—furor brevis—a strong passion excited by a real or supposed injury.
The Chief Justice, addressing himself first to the question of privileged communication, said there was no ground on which Mr Pitman's letter can be treated as a privileged or protected communication. The letter is therefore open on general grounds for you, gentlemen of the Jury, in your judgment to decide whether it is or is not libellous like any other publication written or printed. I do not, as I shall presently show, approve of Mr Nelson's attack on Mr Pitman, but for the excuse of his anger I still less approve of Mr Pitman's attack, in the dark; for anything Mr Pitman knew, Mr Jackson might have entered on his investigation with a mind poisoned against Mr Nelson unknown to Mr Nelson, by this letter, and every explanation of the Bank transactions might have been coloured by the secret suggestions in the letter. Mr Jackson, in handing the letter to Mr Nelson did what was manly and right. I think Mr Pitman would have shown greater magnanimity if his anger had allowed him to send to Mr Nelson a copy of his letter to Mr Jackson; as he did not in his anger, think fit to do so, it is for you, gentlemen of the Jury, to declare the letter libel or no libel on the evidence before you. Having thus disposed of the question for my decision after able arguments and a reference to a library of cases, I now proceed to present the case on its general aspects to you, gentlemen of the Jury.
Mr Francis put it that he had contended that all the acts alleged of Mr Nelson were done in his public capacity, and it was pregnant with the insinuation that something would come out of it not creditable to Mr Nelson. That was a charge which it would be for the Jury to say was or was not libellous. They would put themselves in the place of Mr Nelson, as if they were the servants of a Company, and say whether the tendency of the statement was or was not to damage Mr N.'s position as a servant.
(45)
Mr Nelson was the agent of the Directors in London, and it was made against him as a servant of that Board, because he was such servant. Francis had ingeniously put it that this was stated because Mr Nelson held a public position; but that was of course subject to the opinion of the Jury on the point. When it was alleged that this was done when Mr Bleston was on the "eve of his embarrassment," that seemed reasonably to point to the suggestion that damage had been done to the general body of creditors; but it was for the Jury to say whether or not this suggestion was pregnant with that insinuation.
His Lordship reminded the Jury that this was so, and then proceeded to analyse and comment upon the letter. The reason given for writing the letter was, in a word, Mr Pitman's anger. Regarding Mr Nelson as a partizan, the defendant came forward to vindicate the Government, seeing that the Government was not able to vindicate itself, from the attack in the Chamber. In His Lordship's opinion, the Government of this Colony did not require any vindication from any private individual, and was quite able to take care of itself, but evidently Mr Pitman did not think that this was so.
Mr Hayllar, in that suave manner of which he was master, had endeavoured to show to the Jury that Mr Nelson's speech was perfectly polite language, and that Mr Pitman ought not to have got into a passion over it. The Jury might be perhaps inclined to acceptance of these bland terms; but they would read the speech itself and judge of its nature for themselves. Some people were very thin-skinned and could not bear the least breath of censure, while others could bear anything, however coarse or fine; but Mr Pitman, who did not seem to be made for much public warfare, felt this very painfully.
Mr Hayllar had done very wisely in confining the question to the real question at issue; and the Jury would therefore not be asked to pronounce upon the statement in the second paragraph that Mr Pitman was on friendly terms with the Government. The third paragraph required the careful consideration of the Jury, and would probably receive all the care as Mr Hayllar had disentangled it from the two first parts.
The inquiry suggested regarding transactions with Mr Heaton implied that Mr Nelson, in his capacity as Bank Manager, had done something which required to be inquired into, that was for the Jury to answer. "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," He read sarcasm in the word "rather." "Who is in the employ of the Japanese Government"—what is that? It may or it may not be to defendant's credit. "Who is more or less mixed up with the Opium Farm:" some regard the Opium Farm as tolerable, and some that it is not tolerable and that anyone who touches it soils his fingers. Is that a gibe? Was it to his credit or not? And the point raised, whether Mr Nelson was "able to devote his undivided attention to the interests of the Bank," was also for the Jury to construe. A trafficker was different from a trader in that a trader might invest his money for years in shares and other concerns; while a trafficker—the word "traffic," as street traffic, had a busy signification—would frequently buy and frequently sell, and had a special significance in view of the past experience in this Colony.
The defendant had pleaded not guilty; and (His Lordship continued) as the letter itself showed the grievous wrong under which the defendant suffered—which, in fact was referred to in the letter from beginning to end—he would look at the Chamber of Commerce report. The Chamber was the most important body in the Colony, and had deservedly great influence both here and at Home.