( 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 )
( 10 )
what was said in the letter containing the smarting under some remarks respecting libol and also having regard to the mo-him made by Mr Nelson at the Chamber of He now withdraws the letter. tive of the charge itself. He was for his Commerce.
own part quite unwilling to believe that Although we can well understand that Mr Mr Pitman really wrote this libel know Nelson feels angry, we really do not see ing it to be false. He could not bring anything in the letter injurious to his himself to believe that. He thought Mr character as a gentleman and a Bank Pitman bad focussed into one letter a lot Manager. There is nothing wrong in bay- of rumours of a kind which everybody ing and selling shares, nor was there any. knew in a little place like this circulated thing improper in the transaction respect. more or less about everybody. In doing ing the late Mr Heaton, if in fact it over that he did an extremely unwise thing and took place. Mr Nelson's character stands one which could not be passed over. In so deservedly high that we think he can a conference he had on the subject with his afford to pass the matter over, and we trust client this morning to see what could be under the circumstances of the case that done, be found his client had no objection that gentleman's good sense will induce him to try the case on the simple charge that to adopt this course, especially as be in the the defendant" did maliefonely publish a first instance gave some provocation to Mr defamatory libel," leaving out the stinging Pitraan. Should Mr Nelson decline to clause knowing it to be false." The two adopt this course, we would propose that things were very different, and his client he should delay his departure to Shanghai and himself appeared before His Worship in until the case shall be disposed of, as Mr as conciliatory a mood as they could. The Pitman bas calls upon him that may reader offence now charged was one much less it necessary for him to proceed to Japan five weeks, so gross in a moral point of view than the and remain there for four original charge. Although it was a very that should Mr Nelson leave for Shanghai unwise act which might bring upon defen- to-day, he (Mr Pitman) may not be here on dant certain penalties, it did not throw the his return. moral obloquy and blame which the heavier charge carried with it. But on public grounds his client did not feel himself
Mr Francis again appealed to his learned satisfied in going further than this. Ferfriend to say whether, under all the cir Bonally, he (Mr Hayllar) always endear cumstancen of tho case, that was not as oured to throw oil on the troubled waters, and he was sure his learned friend Mr Francis would do the same to the fullest extent in his power; it was their duty to see that personal matters were not exag gerated.
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 at tempt to ruin-
THE LETTRE 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 pur- pose of justice, sufficient for the full satis faction of his client.He read the letter as follows:-
"Yours truly,
"BRERLTON & Worrow."
ample and sufficient and complete satisfac- tion as the complainant could desire, espé- cially when it was considered that he gave extreme provocation to Mr Pitman, that Mr Nelson had laid himself open, if Me 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 Chainber of Commerce, which had been reproduced by the public press, had been stated by Mr Ryrie in the witness box to bave been understood as grossly defamatory of Mir 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. 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 agianst Mr Pitman. Under the
If what
"29, QUEEN'S ROAD, "Hongkong, 1st March, 1880. "Mesars 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. Hfeelings this attack on him engendered Mr Nelson which he has written to Mr W. Pitman wrote what he could not but cha- Jackson. Mr Pitman wrote that letter while racterise as a very foolish letter. No one
( 11 )
defending Mr Pitman could help saying innuendoes to make these paragraphs de- that. The letter had now been withdrawn. famatory had to be supplied in the charge That it had no effect on Mr Jackson's made against his client. It was not of mind, Mr Jackson had sworn here in the course sufficient to say that his client's witness box. He appealed to his learned letter contained insinuations, they bad to friend on the other side,-ought not thut state what they charged him with writing to terminate this case ? He could only these insinuations to point to. Mr Francis say that if the proceedings were continued read the first paragraph through. Ho Mr Pitman must take sach steps as he may thought it was a very proper question to be advised to take to protect himself as ask concerning a man in a public posi- against Mr Nelson.
tion and of a gentleman interested in the Mr Hayllar: You are quite welcome to concern in which he served. But there do that.
certainly was no libel in it. The only Mr Francis again appealed to Mr Hayllar statement in it, if there was any state- for the plaintiff, whether the matter could ment in it at all, was that Mr Nelson not end here.
trafficked in shares. There was nothing
Mfr Hayllar said that unfortunately he libellons in that. The question was ask- was in a position to say that it could noted whether he left himself time to devote end here. The whole thing had been fully that undivided attention to the affairs of discussed and considered, and he was under the Bank which the shareholders and the the instructions of his client-he had no directors had a right to expect. That feeling one way or the other and his client was all that was said. The plaintiff says was prepared to go on with the case. With that more is meant, and they must sot regard to the provocation, other parts of forth all that they say that means. They the letter than those which had yet been say a libel is implied. That libellous state- laid before the Court showed how that pro- ment must be aet forth in the charge. vocation had been used.
Elis Worship would also note that tr Jackson had told them in the witness- box that there was nothing wrong, now thing illegitimate, nothing in the shape of misconduct, nothing interfering with the proper management of the Bauk, in a Bank Mr Hayllar: The whole must go in now. Manager buying and selling shares, that is Mr Francia said there were only these trafficking in shares. Mr Francis quoted two paragraphs complained of on the last from Forehand on Libel, p. 701, to "prove day as containing libel. He submitted to that the libellous matter must be set forth the Magistrate that on the face of the letter in the indictment with all the inuuendoes there was no malies in the letter. Unless and the applications the complainants al- the innuendo or explanation required to lege. He argued that this was not done show what libel was meant by these words, in this case, and that he was entitled to there was no libel set forth in the charge. 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 para- graphs marked in the copy in the Magis trate's hands.
He quoted authorities on this piont. Read- Mr Hayller said he would explain in a ing the two paragraphs he contended word what was done before in this matter. there was not therein a single word defa! With reference to the particular passages matory in any shape or form whatever, of the letter which Mr Johnson had chosen The innuendo or the explanation, the in. as containing the libel complained of, he terpretation of the passago required to did not at all concar on that point. It was make it defamatory, must in accordance done in this way. Mr Jackson was going with the authorities he had quoted be given away the next day after the case was on to state, plainly what libel they understood before the Magistrate here. The letter or contended was conveyed in the simple was sent to Mr Nelson only the day before words of the letter.
the matter was last in Court. There was
The Magistrate said the rest of the letter a postponement then at the request of the could only be taken in explanation of the gentleman who represented Mr Pitman, two passages mainly relied on,
Mr Francis pressed his point. These paragraphs were not in themselves defama tory. It was only by some particular in- terpretation 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
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 lottor 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 in-
بلوک
402
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.