61
- I don't want to know how many drinks you have; I want to know what your bill at the Hong-kong Hotel and other hotels is.--$1.50 or $2.
You do a little money lending business, Mr. Rose-No, I don't.
You swear that ?-Yes.
Is that your signature (handing in a letter) ?→→ Oh, Yes. I know all about that. That is money I advanced to a man from another party.
The letter put in was to the effect that having received from Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith the sum of $200 the writer had handed over to that person the articles belonging to the person to whom the letter was addressed, which he had been holding as security. The witness was cross-examined at some length on this, but he said he was simply acting for a third party.
Now, according to the details which you have given the court your expenses amount to $90, and your income to $88. Do you mean to tell us that you have been in the Surveyor-General's Department for three years and have had a loss of $2 a month all that time?
Witness-Have you deducted the $10 a month for the room?
Well, let us deduct that. Have you been working at a profit of $8 a month -No, I have not. I have had other income besides,
What was that ?-Parties who owed me money from the Oriental have paid me.
But what I mean is, you have been working in the Surveyor-General's department for three and a half years at a salary which leaves you actually a loser at the end of the month?-No, I can make ends meet.
And you simply make ends meet ?---And save $2 a month besides. I have had other money from the Government for doing extra services.
You are of course aware, Mr. Rose, your appointment, such as it is, depended upon the evidence you have given in the box this morning?-I don't know. I have never thought of it.
You swear that has had nothing to do with the answers given to the questions put by the learned counsel and myself?-It has not.
This closed the cross-examination.
Mr. Francis-I have nothing to say to Mr. Rose except to apologise for having had to put him in the box and expose him to impertinence.
Defendant-We are here merely to elucidate the truth, and I believe it was done in the Tichborne case-Dr. Kenealy was allowed to call rebutting evidence. I am sorry to inconvenience your Lordship and the jury, but I am prepared, if you give me till to-morrow morning, to prove that the whole of the evidence given by this witness is false. It was allowed in the Tichborne case.
His Lordship-It must have been under very peculiar circumstances.
Defendant-It was.
His Lordship-What are the peculiar circumstances in this case? You called evidence in support of the statement. You called your brother, you might have called any other witness you pleased, but you did not.
Defendant-But who could have imagined that matters which I knew myself to be true--that the man would have come forward to swear what he has done.
His Lordship-You could have called other witnesses, and you could have called him if you had chosen.
Defendant-Not at all. You will note I put a question to him with regard to a conversation I had with him a few weeks ago, Mr. Rose asked me whether I would not do my best to keep his name and the names of the other foremen out of this case.
His Lordship-How does it bear on this case? We are not trying the members of the Surveyor-General's Department. The question is whether you have committed a libel on Mr. Price.
Defendant-That is the charge.
His Lordship-I am not trying a charge against Mr. Rose.
Defendant-I am not saying you are, my lord. I simply contend that paragraph was based on information supplied by Mr. Rose and others. However, if your Lordship refuses my application the matter is finished.
His Lordship-I don't mean that it has really anything to do with the case.
Defendant then addressed the jury. He contended that it was the right of every public writer to criticise the public acts of every public man so long as he did so fairly and without malice, even although the person criticised be severely and harshly dealt with, and even although some of the allegations may not be founded on fact. In the present instance the truth or falsehood of the alleged libel had nothing to do with the case. Had he pleaded justification he would have had to prove the allegations. He did not shrink from doing so through fear or anything of that kind, but simply because he did not consider that the Supreme Court of Hongkong, where he was being tried on a criminal information for libel, was the proper place to investigate the affairs of a public department, as the investigation belonged more properly to the Government. It was that, and that alone, which caused him to withdraw the plea of justification which he put in and to which certain technical objections were raised by the learned counsel. Having pleaded only not guilty he had no right to bring forward anything as to the truth of what was stated.
He then referred to the decisions in several reported cases, bearing on the law of libel, contending that under those decisions he was justified in what he had done.
His Lordship said that in all the cases referred to the parties who were prosecuting had themselves brought before the world the matter upon which the comment was made, and asked the defendant if he had any case which showed a newspaper was justified in raking up a scandalous statement, supposing the jury found the paragraph libellous.
The defendant said he really did not know any case that dealt with the point raised by his Lordship.
His Lordship-Surely you see the distinction.
Defendant-Well, it may be that I simply take an ordinary common sense view of it apart altogether from legal practice and technicalities.
His Lordship-It is not a technicality. It is a matter in which the first principles of justice are involved. I simply point it out to you because I am unwilling-
Defendant-I thoroughly understand what your Lordship means.
His Lordship said it was the public acts of a man that might be commented on.
Defendant-That is what I am contending for.
His Lordship-Well, I don't see how you can say this is a public act of Mr. Price's. Assuming it to be true that somebody belonging to the Surveyor-General's office stated that Mr. Price liked to keep all the good things to himself, and assuming that was found to be libellous, how could you say it was a public act of Mr. Price's, on which you could comment.
Defendant-I should say it was a proper matter to call attention to, for an investigation--a matter in which the public had an interest.
His Lordship-You have no authority for that?
Defendant-I think it is laid down by the judges in the cases I have quoted.
His Lordship-In those cases they were referring to the circumstances they had before them.
Defendant-Well, I am sure your Lordship will be able to lay the law down much more clearly than I can to the jury.
His Lordship-I shall endeavour to do it as fairly as I can, Mr. Fraser Smith.
Defendant then resumed his address. He repeated that he was away at the time the paragraph in question appeared and knew nothing about it, which he thought would go a long way in relieving the minds of the jury of any idea that he was actuated by malice or improper motives. With reference to the reappearance of the paragraph in the mail issue, he referred to the routine of the office and said he very seldom saw what articles were set aside for the mail paper, and this one did not come before his notice. He had previously remonstrated with his brother for what he thought was a very silly thing to do -not to lay himself open to an action, because he was under the impression at the time an embargo had been laid on officials taking any action in the law courts but to publish the paragraph as it stood. As to the paragraph being republished in the mail paper, the matter never crossed his mind. Perhaps he ought to have seen to it, but he was quite prepared to stand the responsibility of the republication. He quite agreed with everything in the paragraph except the very injudicious reference to what Mr. Rose had told his brother. He referred to Mr. Price's evidence as to the practice adopted in giving out contracts, and said