Taid it was a most pernicious system. Mr. Price had told that the giving out of the contracts was in the hands of the Governor, and therefore the paragraph ought to be taken, so far as it referred to the matter of contracts, as referring to the Governor if it referred to any one personally. Mr. Price was not particularised in any way with reference to the giving out of contracts. He then referred to the latter Mr. Price wrote to the Colonial Secretary with reference to stopping the paper supplied to his office. In that letter the following passage occurred-"Apart from the fact that the subscription to this scurrilous paper is a waste of public money I have grave objections to allowing it inside my office on the grounds of decency and decorum, and I cannot but think some responsibility attaches to the Government for the pecuniary support which it renders month after month to a convicted criminal in his abandoned career" A more villainous, scandalous libel than this, he said, was hardly heard of in this world.
The defendant at this point, referring to Mr. Francis, spoke of him as "his learned friend.”
Mr. Francis, interposing, said he wished the defendant would stop calling him his friend. The term was only admissible between barristers. He was not his friend; he would be disgraced to be his friend.
The defendant then referred to Mr. Francis as "his learned enemy," and afterwards as "the learned barrister," and went on with his address. He spoke at considerable length with reference to Mr. Price's letter and the circumstances attending the correspondence, and said the stopping of the paper was the result of an article which commented severely on what he considered to be a waste of public money, namely, the paying of full salary and travelling expenses to Mr. Price during the time he was on leave because he had been going about the country making investigations in the interests of a tramway company. With reference to the expression "a convicted criminal" he said it was true he had served two months in gaol for libelling Mr. D. E. Bandmann, but looking back to that matter he regretted nothing he had said or done. Mr. Price had no right to denounce him to the Government as an abandoned criminal, and though one libel could not be set off against another he thought it ought to be. He referred to the evidence of Mr. Stewart Fraser-Smith and Mr. Rose, and contended that the latter, desirous of keeping his appointment, had deliberately perjured himself and, further, that it was impossible for Mr. Rose, with his family, to live honestly on his salary. He went on to refer in sarcastic terms to Mr. Francis's mode of conducting the prosecution, and the terms in which he had referred to himself. Mr. Francis had done himself credit by rising from the humble position of 8d. a day to his present one, but Mr. Francis should exercise a little judgment and discretion when criticising other people's education and position, especially when those other people were people of whom he knew nothing. Mr. Francis was not there to villify him, or attack him personally, to refer to his education or antecedents; all he had to do was, in the interests of his client, to prove that a libel had been committed. With reference to Mr. Francis's repudiation of his friendship, it had not always been thus; Mr. Francis had been proud of his friendship, and had been proud to have services rendered to him by his (the speaker's) newspaper. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. That was the Latin Mr. Francis had been studying for years. In conclusion he referred to the fact of his not having the benefit of legal assistance, but said he left his case in the hands of the jury with every confidence.
Mr. Francis then replied upon the defence, remarking that he would not take up time with the technical points of law which had been raised, as he had no hesitation in leaving them in his Lordship's hands. Before summing up this in some respects amusing case, he would simply say, with reference to Mr. Fraser-Smith's observations, that he had no recollection of having been at any time rendered any service by the defendant or his paper. He would also, in the interests of the public, correct a mistake he had made; when he (Mr. Francis) left Her Majesty's service he was receiving 4s. 6d. a day, not eightpence. He would just take a glance at the defendant's paper. In the middle of 1882 the defendant was tried and convicted in that court for a criminal libel, and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. From that time to this, as the jury were aware, the defendant had distinguished himself and his paper by his violent and most scurrilous attacks upon Mr. Bandmann and upon the court and jury connected with that case. When Mr. Price returned to the colony the paper was full of these scurrilous and indecent attacks upon Mr. Bandmann and the court and jury in his case. Mr. Francis thought the jury would not consider it astonishing that Mr. Price should desire the supply of the paper to his department to be discontinued, and a grave additional reason for his doing so was that, as the defendant had said, it contained many attacks upon the Surveyor-General and his department. He did not think any of the gentlemen of the jury would be willing to admit into their firms, or place in the hands of their clerks, papers containing scurrilous attacks upon themselves. As to the latter Mr. Price sent to the Colonial Secretary, it was a privileged communication which he had a perfect right to send; and it would probably never have seen the light of day had it not been brought forth by the defendant in this case. As Mr. Price had said, he was perfectly entitled to entertain any opinion he pleased of the defendant or his paper. He thought also that the correctness of that opinion would commend itself to every member of the jury. The defendant had supplied them with a motive for his virulent and malicious attacks on Mr. Price, in the same way that he had shown a motive in the Bandmann case, when he let out that a few words had been spoken by Mr. Bandmann reflecting upon Mr. Fraser-Smith and his paper. In this case the motive had been supplied in the evidence as to the refusal of Mr. Price to continue to take the paper in his department. According to the defendant's own statement, he must have been made at once aware of the letter the Surveyor-General had written to the Colonial Secretary, and hence it was that he had attacked Mr. Price at every point on every possible occasion. In his opening address, not having fixed up what evidence he should call, the defendant described himself as the biggest scoundrel in the world if it was true that he had persistently and maliciously attacked a man of whom he knew nothing personally, and had had no communication whatever, for private motives. In doing so he had pronounced judgment upon himself, for he had shown them his private motives, and he was therefore a scoundrel. No fair comments upon public acts were complained of, and had the defendant simply confined himself to his impertinent remarks and crude opinions upon these matters he would have acted within his legitimate right; but what they did complain of was that the defendant persistently attributed to Mr. Price discreditable motives—that Mr. Price was not guided by public interest in his public works, but by self-interest, ambition, and a desire to secure all the good things for his own pocket. The defendant had not confined himself to Mr. Price's acts, but he had made foul and malicious comments upon supposed and imaginary acts. What did the jury think of a man who told them in open court that he was taken by surprise at these proceedings, because he thought editors of newspapers were protected from any consequences of attacks on public officials by some order from home? The cowardly scoundrel—the defendant had applied the latter term to himself, and he had no hesitation in adding the word "cowardly"—had vented his spite and malice upon Mr. Price because he thought he was protected from any consequences in doing so. Then as to the statement that he had not written the article—not one word of that was heard from the defendant until just at that time.
The defendant—That is not true; I stated it in the Police Court when I first appeared.
His Lordship—I am not aware of that.
The defendant—It has appeared publicly.
His Lordship—I am not aware of that either.
Mr. Francis—I was in the Police Court, and I have no recollection of any such statement having been made; had it been made, it would have been provided against. Not only did he not repudiate it, but he re-published it eleven days afterwards in his overland edition, and he attempts to bolster up the lying falsehoods in that article by a shallow letter written by his own brother in his own office expressing the belief of the public in the insinuations contained in that paragraph. Mr. Francis went on to ask if that was the conduct of a man actuated by a bona fide desire to act for the public good.
Page 62
&
Taid it was a most pernicious system. Mr. Price had told that the giving out of the contracts was in the hands of the Governor, and therefore the paragraph ought to be taken, so far as it referred to the matter of contracts, as referring to the Governor if it referred to any one personally. Mr. Price was not particularised in any way with re- ference to the giving out of contracts. He then referred to the latter Mr. Price wrote to the Colonial Secretary with reference to stopping the paper supplied to his office. In that letter the following passage occurred-"Apart from the fact that the subscription to this scurrilons paper is a waste of public money I have grave objections to allowing it inside my office on the grounds of decency and decorom, and I cannot but think some responsibility attaches to the Government for the pecuniary support which it renders month after month tos convicted criminal in his abandoned career" A more villainous, scandalous libel than this, he said, was heard of in this world.
naver.
The defendant at this point, referring to Mr. Franois, spoke of him as "bis learned friend.”
Mr. Francis, interposin, said he wished the defendant would stop calling him his friend. The term was only admissible between bar. risters. He was not bis friend; he would be disgraced to be his friend.
The defendant then referred to Mr. Franois as his learned enemy," and afterwards as "the learned barrister," and went on with his nd- dress. He spike at considerable length with raference to Me. Price's letter and the sirenm- stances attending the correspondence, and said the stopping of the paper was the result of sa article which commented severely on what he considered to be a waste of publio money, namely, the paying of full salary and travelling expenses to Mr. Price during the time he was on leave because he had been going about the country making investigations in the intereste of a tramway company. With reference to the expression "a convicted criminal" he said it was true he had served two months in gaol for libel- ling Mr. D. E. Bandmann, but looking back to that matter he regretted nothing he had said or done, Mr. Price had no right to denounce him to the Governmaat as an abandoned criminal, and though one libel could not be set off against another he thought it ought to ba. He re- ferred to the evidence of Mr. Stewart Fraser. Smith and Mr. Rose, and contended that the latter, desirous of keeping his appointment, bad deliberately perjured himself and, further, that it was impossible for Mr. Rosa, with his family, to live honestly on his salary. He weat on to refer in sarcastic terms to Mr. Franoia's mode of conducting the prosecution, and the terms in which he had referred to himself. Mr. Franois had done himself credit by rising from the bamble position of 8d. a day to his present oue, but Mr. Francis should exercise a little judgment and discretion when criticising other people's education and position, especially when those other people were people of whom he know nothing. Mr. Francis was not there to villify him, or attack him personally, to refer to his aducation or antecedents; all he had to do was, in the interests of his oli nt, to prove that a libel had been committel. With reference to Mr. Francis's rapadiation of his friendship, it had not always been thus, Mr. Francis had been proud of his friendship, and had been proud to have services rendered to him by his (the speak er's) newspaper. Tempora mutantur, nos et mu- tamur in illis. That was the Latin Mr. Francis bad bean studying for years. In conclusion he referred to the fact of his not having the beneft of legal assistance, but said he left his case in the hands of the jury with every confidence.
Mr. Franois then replied upon the defence, remarking that he would not take up time with the technical points of law which had been raised, as he had no hesitation in leaving them in his Lordship's banda. Before summing 27 this in som respects amusing case, he would simply say, with reference to Mr. Fraser-Smith's observatious, that he had no recollection of hay. ing been at any time rendered any service by the defendant or his paper. He would also, in the interests of the publià, sorrect a mistaks he bad made; when he (Mr. Franois) left Her Majesty's service he was receiving 43. 6d. a day, not eightpence. He would just take a glance at the defendant's paper. In the middle of 1882 the defendant was tried and convicted in that court for a criminal libel, and was sentenced to two
nooths' imprisonment. From that time to this, is the jury were aware, the defendant had dis tinguished himself and his paper by his violent and most soferilous attacks upon Mr. Bandmann and upon the court and jury ounnected with that case. When Mr. Prios returned to the colony the paper was full of these scurrilous and inde ont attacks upon Mr. Bandmann and the sonet and jury in his case, Mr. Francis thought the jury would not consider it astonishing that Mr. Price should desire the supply of the paper to his department to be discontinued, and a grave additional reason for his doing so was that, as the defendant had said, it contained many attacks upon the Surveyor-General and his department. He did not think any of the gentlemen of the jary would be willing to admit into their firms, or place in the hands of their clerks, papers con- taining searrilous attacks upon themselves. A to the latter Mr. Price seat to the Colonial Se. cretary, it was a privileged communication which he had a perfect right to sand; and it would probably never have seen the Heht of day bad it not been brought forth by the defendant in this nasa. As Mr. Price had said, he was perfectly entitled to entertain any opinion he pleased of the defendant or his paper. He thought also that the correctness of that opinion would commend itself to every member of the jury. The defon- laut had supplied them with a motive for his virulent and malicious attacks on Mr. Price, in the same way that he had shown a motive in the Bandınan case, when he let out that a few words had been spoken by Mr. Bandmann re- flasting upon Mr. Fraser-Smith and his paper. In this case the motive had been supplied in the evidence as to the refusal of Mr. Price to oon- tinne to take the paper in his department. Ao- cording to the defendant's own statement, he raust have been made at ones aware of the letter the Surveyor-General had written to the Colonial Secretary, and hence it was that he had attcked Mr. Price at every point on every possible occa sion. In his opening address, not having fixed up what evidence he should call, the defendant described himself as the biggest scoundrel in the world if it was true that he had porsistently and maliciously attackel a man of whom ha know nothing personally, and had had no com. munication whatever, for private motives. In doing so he had pronounced judgment upon him. self, for he had shown them his private motives, and he was therefore a scoundrel. No fair com- ments upon public acts were complained of, and had the defendant simply confined himself to bis impertinent remarks and crude opinions upon these matters he would have acted within his legitimate right; but what they did complain of was that the defendant persistently attributed to Mr. Price discreditable motives that Mr. Price was notguid- el by public interest in bis public works, but by self-interest, ambition, and à desire to secure all the good things for his own pooket. The defen- dant had not confined himself to Mr. Price's acts, but be had made foul and malicious comments upon supposed and imaginary acts. What did the jury think of a man who told them in open court that he was taken by surprise at these pro. ooodings, because he thought editors of newsps- pers ware protected from any consequences of at- tacks on public officials by some order from home? The cowardly sooundrel-the defendant had applied the latter term to himself, and he had no hesitation in adding the word "cowardly" had vented his spite and malice upon Mr. Prico because he thought he was protected from aby consequences in doing so. Then as to the state- ment that he had not written the article-not one word of that was heard from the defendant until just at that time.
The defendant-That is not true; I stated it in the Police Court when I first appeared.
His Lordship-I am not aware of that The defendant-It has appeared publicly, His Lordship-I am not aware of that either. Mr. Francis-I was in the Police Court, and I have no recollection of any such statement having been made; had it been made, it would have been provided against. Not only did he not repudiate it, but he re-published it eleven days afterwards in his overland edition, and he at tempts to bolster up the lying falsehoods in that article by a shallow letter written by his own brother in his own office expressing the belief of the public in the insinuations contain. ed in that paragraph. Mr. Francis went on to ask if that was the conduct of a man actuated by a bona fide desire to act for the public good.
62
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.