And reprint it in your Mail issue ?—I really don't know.
It refers to me -It speaks for itself. And you dare to call me a "welsher" ?—I am prepared to maintain the truth of every allegation in that article.
You dare to say I obtained money under false pretences ---That is about the inference to be drawn.
Say "Yes" or "No "--Yes, decidedly yes. You mean to say I obtained money under false pretences from Mr. Grimble 7-I do not.
You have sworn it-I said what I said, and no doubt his lordship Mus taken it down.
His lordship-1 took it that you did not get the money. But you had better repeat the ques
tion.
Defendant-You accuse me of obtaining money under false pretences by a trick- accuse you of buying shares "on time" for which you could not pay unless they went up in the market.
Answer "Yes" or "No." Did you accuse me of trying to get money by a trick, by buying shares for which I could not pay (No answer). You accuse me of being a "welsher."--No, I drew an illustration which places you in reality “in the same position as a “welsher" on a race- course, I said you are a "welsher" on the "Rialta." And that I should be ducked in a horse-pond and so on ?—I think you deserve it, if you” ask my opinion.
Are you quite aware what "welsher" means? Thoroughly.
It is just as you put it down in the paper 2---| Exactly.
What is the legal definition of a "welsher -I am not here to give legal definitions, but to answer questions.
It is one who obtains money by trickery Exactly; a" welsher" is a fraudulent bookmaker, who bets when he has not money to pay if be loses, the same as you in your share business, when you could not pay if the market went against you.
2.
Did you not give us a legal definition at the Police Court?
His lordship-As far as I am aware there is no legal definition,
Plaintiff hire quared one to shew, that it was
a man who get money by fṛ, ud.
His lordship-No, you are wrong. Defendant ipologised—his.lawyer was away. His lordship-Mr, Dennys is assisting you, leave it to him.
NO APOLOGY, (Defendant to plaintiff) Did not I ask you in my letter to apologise humbly and straightfor. | wordly
Plaintiff—Apologise to you¦ ̈ No, I certainly shall not i
JUSTIFICATION.
|
|
|
|
|
THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1889.
Where did you derive your information about my buying shares and having no money to pay for them From the newspaper reporte
His lordship-It does not necessarily follow that it was an actual repudiation--a wan may repudiata, without being a swindler.
Complainant-I knew ibat he had boughtsharea far beyond—ten, twenty times, beyond his means, Defendant-Do your say on youroath that it was impossible for me in have taken up all the shares ?—Quite impossible.
Here are the reports in the 'China Mail and Daily Press. Point out where I repudiated my habilny, to pay, any difference-}tere in and instance—"Don't you remember me saying you could carry them over the end of September or sell them at my riak, bút that I would not take them?"
Well, what is the meaning of that 7-1 takė it that you repudiated them.
Did I repudiate my liability to pay the difference ?There is nothing here to shew that you said you would. You simply said you would not take them up.
'"To sell them at my risk,” what does that mean? You ought to know, you are an accountant-You repudiated the risk here.
Complainant, at his lordship's suggestion, sel e ed as the test report that is the China Mail and his lordship read it to the jury. *
Defendant Were you not present in Court during the hearing ?--I heard the Judge sum up,
You were here when I addressed the judge During a portion of the lime.
And my address, to the ludge is referred to In the leader. You say it was "sufficiert to make an alligator die of laughter (laughter) | Now, being a foreigner, perhaps I don't quite understand that; do you mean you were an alligator? It may be a want of knowledge of the English language on any part-It was intended as a little witticism at your expense
At this point the Court adjourned tỵ tiffin On resuming -
Defendant asked plaintiff if he was not, aware that the shares involved should have been delivered to Mr. B njamin -I do not know.
You know that Benjamin became a defaulter?
-I don't know him.
You sold him some shares at the end of August-1 do not know him.
You sold him then on time?-One month, wasn't it? One month, or two months, 1 forget now. They were guaranteed by Mr. Andrew, my
broker.
Will not you swear that he could not take | them up?-1 was informed by someone of that,
and looked in Mr. Andrew for pu ment,
Mr Philipo or cred-all that had nothing to do with the case.
Complainant-1 did not base my criticism on Benjamin's part in the case—I didn't even know he was in it.
His lordship-He also says that he knew nothing of your share transactions; isn't that enough for you, Mr Brandt ?
You wrote this paragraph on the 45th Septem- ber-"The share dealing case of Brandt v. Grimble, partly heard before Mr. A. G. Wise, Acting Puisne Judge, in the Summary Court yesterday, will require some criticism later on. At present we can only carefully peruse the -evidence-and-smile-serenely."-You-say-you--Defendant-Well, you wrote-a-long-leader-
took particular notice of the evidence I pre-
sunic so,
Will you point out where my "swindling " came in, as shown by the evidence -No.
You won't ?-I don't think it is my business
to do that I am here to answer questions.
I shall put in your repert of the case."
His lordsbip-I cannot take a newspaper
report.
V
GRIMBLE.
about it, didn't you? Did you know, Mr. Grimble? Yes.
How old was he ?-26 or 27, I should say. His lordship-We are not concerned with Grimble's character.
Defendant-I am charged with swindling a
boy.
His lordship-1 don't think so. Complainant-He is charged with nothing of
His lordship (after reading the leader)-I do not see that it is suggested by the article.
Defendant-It is not a full report-it is gar-the sort. 1.
bled.
Plaintiff It is a summarised report,
Is it substantially true ?—Yes. The article was based on that report.
His lordship-And on that solely ?--Yes. Defendant handed up the two papers con taining the proceedings on the 24th and 18th September, and said-Will you please point out where anything in the shape of swindling comes In ?
Plaintiff Am I called upon to answer His lordship thought it was a fair question. But the term "swindling" could not be used.
Defendant-Obtaining money by · fraud-
"welsherism."
Plaintiff In summing-up Mr. Justice Wise said "there was evidence before him that about the 27th August plaintiff distinctly gave the de- fendant notice that he did not intend to take up
the shares."
His lordship-ls that a justification of your assertion that he was a “welsber" }
Plaintiff-Oh no; that was based on private His lordship-You said it was solely based
opinion.
on this report. ››
Plaintiff Supported by outside evidence, of course. It goes right through it; the whole tenor of the evidence prove that this man bought shares which he had no chance of taking up,
Defendant-Then you go and write a long leader, and yet cannot point out a single place in this report where the charge of being a "welsher" comes in? I have already justified the illustration which I used..
His lordship-I understand that you base your leader on the information abewn in your own reports and those of the other papers, in which
|
Brandt-He says "Grimble is, comparatively speaking, a mere lad-a Hongkong-bred youth who, spoiled from his infancy upwards, imagined that the whole ability, and smartness in the colony was concentrated in his own person," He is a married man, isn't be ?--Yes.
He held a responsible position as a book keeper of a Company-of several companies, in
fact?I do not know about that; I do know of the Duck Company.
He was an extensive operator on the share market ?-He had that reputation, and of being
one of the most successful.
He won about $200,000 on the share market? -On paper, about half that, I believe.
AN OLD LETTER.
I must again refer, you to that-letter of the 10th December, 1883.
His lordship -For what purpose? his personal animosity against me, I want to DefendantTo show the commencement of show animosity.
1.
Mr. Phillippe--I have no objection, though it is marked "Private."
The Deputy Registrar then read the letter, which was as follows:-
Hongkong Telegraph,
10th December: 1883. (Private)
|
|
¦
your riding him when he was not fit to walk. It broke his "en ), and raptu ed his inside.
You may th`e was a little barrier between us? -Yes, and worse than that,
-- Wariettuan that ! Then I was a double soundrel?--Yes, and worse than that.
:
Then I was a treble scoundrel?, His lordship-N- ver mind that. Defendant-After that we had no intercourse no personal associations of any kind 7-You called on me orce after you were convicted in the Police Court of a blackguardly assault on Mr. Nickals, and you called with Dr. Ruegg after the Potant explosion in 1884, and wished me to let bye-gones be bye-gones. You wanted me to help you in your trouble with the Roce Club, "
You got blown up in the Volani ? His lordship What has that got to do with iz 2.
Defend n-There was no anituus mm my part, (To plaintiff) You were bidly hurt, and people thought you were going to die? You thought so yourself, didn't you? N, 1 never did.
Well I calle on you, and asked you to make up old things?-Yes, you called with Dr. Ruegg ard asked iue to hep jou about..e Jckey Club trouble,
And you received me in a friendly spirit ?- Very friendly.
And a month afterwards one of these tro- rinus libels appsåred in your paper, calling me all sorts of names?—I don't admit anything of the kind.
A DIVERSION.
You quite omitted to Live me an explanation of this phrase about the alligater, "
His Indship-You mean what your remarks were to call for it. It requires no explanation in i'self..
Defendant It may be something very.enor mous. I have heard of "crocodile's tears" but never of his laughter (laughter).,
His lordship The laugher comes first, and then the tears (renewed laughter).
Defendant-Now you said that on the even- ing of the issue of your paper of the gth October you went to Mano -Yes. I lelt about! six
o'clock.
And the paper was issued about the same time ?-Between six and seven,
Do you recollect that you, had a libel case against Mr. Price-he prosecuted you some years ago cimically Yes.
|
started he was a partner of the firm who printed the paper.
Defendant-He gave evidence against you -Only technical evidence,
it.
You say here he lied for the other side-1 did not. If you can't read English 1 carinot help
How many years ago "Was Wicking's case About eight.
ני
And Lübeck was only with you six months, yet you remember him Why should I forget
an old friend?.
Who lied for the other side, and made you lose the case You make a mistake-it was de Souza who lied, not Lübeck,
Mr. Murray-Bain gave evidence, against you, too, didn't he?--Yes.
And ever since you have rather severely criticised him, haven't you ?—I don't know that I have.
You called him a "lying scoundrel," didn't you ?—I never did.
And a Fried Fish Wrapper man ? - I have called his paper that.
His lordship-That is only ridicule, you know, Defendant-suppase I need not read any more extracts-I understand I may use them in addressing the jury?
His lordship-But it does not follow that shall; in fact, I shant.
BRANDT DOESN'T DOX. Defendant-Are you aware that, I was never a prize-fighter in my life?-No.
Do you know that I was?-Na,
Do you remember, on the 23rd February; 1836, referring to a suit brought against menst saying that the disclosures were "most dánfag- ing," and that the Crown Prosecutor had been already informed meaning that a criminal in- formation had bren laid against m: 7-Yes,
Was any information laid against me in the matter?-1 don't know anything at all about that I simply published an item
news and commented upon it.
Do you know who gave you the information? -I do not
Wasn't it Mr. Bidwell? I should say not decidently not. I rather fancy it was Mr. Caldwell,
Are not you aware that no information was ever laid I am not aware of anything,
should have heard of it if it had. It was pre- Was the case ever proceeded with P-Noy we
bably "squared."
And it so happened that on that occasion you That concluded the cross-examination, were at Macho, too Yes, very singularly. Mr. Philippo- After all this, let me ask you
Yes, very strange -Well, not so very strange. Have not you for some time past hen writing And about a week ago you had a 14-orantides pa gambing in shares ?-Ye;, for a rather a very strong paragraph, about Mr. considerable-tas.. Berkeley in your paper, for which you after words apologised? Then, again, you were at Macao -Very' singularly, I was
His lordship-Perhaps Mr. Fraser-Smith goes to Macan often ?
Delendant-I have us d the word "coward," and I have got to justify it in some way.
Plaintiff Oh! I see you think I ran away 7. That is just about it.
THE "HONGKONG TELEGRAPH.” Your paper has got a very wide circulation.? -The largest of any English paper in China.
Now, being the editor and proprietor of such a widely circulated paper, doesn't it strike you that you have a weapon of defence in your hands which is denied to another ?
www
4.
Were you the first to introduce the nane Rialto Yes it is simply a phrase, that' is all, meaning the share market.
Were you writing for the public interest?
Yes.
Do you identify the defendant's writing in the alleged libél—I do.
In the course of your articles on share. gambling did you fairly comment on the case of Brandt and Grimble? To the best of my ability I commented fairly and truly,
L
*
"not at home.”-
Mr. Herbst,
TON
His lordship-You can tell that to the jury as a matter of comment-it only lengthens the inquiry.
Defendant-Are not you aware that both the Daily Press and China Mail editors point-blank refuse any communications respecting yourself or your paper That is simply untrue; they. extend the same courtesies to my journal as to` any other-the recognised courtesies betweenI knew that it was a letter he had sent to Mr newspapers,
Don't they refuse to put anything in from any correspondents which in any way reflects on your actions or conduct in any way?-That is quite untrue--I was complainant in n libel suit brought against the editor of the China Mail for something.published about myself only a few weeks ago,
Bus that had nothing to do with his paper, it was simply comment?
His loidship-Never mind that How can he know what the other editors do?
Fraser-Smith, Mr. Rapp and Mr. Humphreys
were present
His lordship-There is nothing to shew that you have not...
Defendant-Here, is my account with you for August. Are not there go Sugars there sold to Benjamin at $297 for the 31st August, and 50 Sugars bought from Grimble for that date i $296-2-Yea.
is lordship-Looking at these two transac tions and the report of the ense, apparently Grirable and the money in hard and paid him self, and you were suing for the balance held back.. W
Defendant-I have never been unable to pay my losses if the market went down.-Would there have been either a profit or a loss if Mr. Benjamin had taken up the shares ?--No, the} would have been square.
Grimble had purchased 100 Sugars for the end of September, at $306; and I wanted him to carry these 50 aver as part of that 100, and you said I could?-My partner said he thought It would be all right.
And nothing happened until ently in August, af er Grimble had been sick, and he told me he would not carry them over. 1 then told you I did not see my way to take them up, being quite unprepared after being told they would be carried over. Yes,
And I told you I considered him bound by your partner's arrangement? Yes, but Mr. Gubbay only made a suggestion, he did not promise, because he had not seen Grimble. When he did, Grimble refused to agree.
His lordship-The transaction would have paid at the end of August, wouldn't it? Yes. been concluded if the "difference" had been Defendant-Did I ever refuse to pay the proper difference?—No.
Through Berjantin's failure my clear loss was how much -$1,500.
Did pay that on the 31st August 7-Yes. You know I got judgment in the Grimble case Yes.
His lordship-That is not within the witness's kodwledge.
Defendant--I want to shew that Griruble was Bankrupt and an abscond.r. (To wilness) You say I have had considerable transactions with you during the last few months ?—Yes
Something like $400,000 --Yes, somewhere
about that.
Forshares bought and sold ?—Yes.
And amongst those transactions there were
Fy f cash ?—Yes, Fur considerable sums-nearly $10,000.
Ye:
Do I owe you any money ?—No. „M Brandt then addressed, the jury at great longbrean by rending his pleadings, said that he had shewn many fibell ut para. set out at the commencement, and continuing, graphs, extending over many years, and his chief difficulty would be to prove that they were libellous, because in respect to a great many of of an accused criminal. There was difficulty in them his mouth was shut, being in the position
proving the libel in those infamous, and dathaging, and insulting references made to him in the plaintiff's paper. He admitted indeed be had never cross-examined to the contrary that he did write the letter in question; he adhered to We have heard a good deal about "Brownie.it, and was not ashamed of it. The provoca Is that Mr. Brandı?--I don't know, ·
that he wondered tion was so enormous THE PUBLICATION.
at the mildness of the terms he had used- Mrs. Fraser-Smith then proved the receipt of they showed how great was his self-control, plaintiff. the letter from the defendant, in the absence of the under the circumstances. The prosecutor posed as antifured person-injured by a man who Cross-examined-I wrote in the chil-book simply nonght to vindicate his own character, preslin self-defence; he had dared to accuse him store-keeper, Queen's (the speaker) of the most monstrous things, Road, said I remember meeting Brandt near putting him on a level with people worse than He had a letter, of which, he read the touch, but left to the public to beat and punish, my shop on the morning of the toth October highway-robbers-men whom the police did not
only chance he had of contradicting him, by beginning to me, before I was called away. He did this, and then refused the speaker the closing his columns to his reply. With respect to the plea of privilege, he referred to the plain- although couched in friendly terms, contained a tiff's letter of December 1883, which, he said, hidden threat, in the reference to enemies. The plaintiff wanted Second Violin, a pony which had just won the Champions at Shanghai, and for which he (Brandt) had just refused three thousand dollars. He demanded it, making no offer as to purchase, as his price for keeping quiet evidence which he insinuated, he und got. But he (defendant) saw through it, and defied him to.de his worst. Ever since that time he had been doing his worst, whenever he had a chance. In his leader of 9th October he. insinuated dishonesty and dishonorable con- doct," and in December last, 'in a
Para graph, he classed the speaker with prize fighters, and slandered his mother, whom be knew he held in great reverence, Mr. Fraser (Brand) began business here, when his credit was most delicate, by saying that be had an action against him for $7,500, and was about to be subjected to a criminal charge. That was enough to ruin many beginners. Although Mr. Fraser-Smith had denied it, he got his informa tion from Mr. Bidwell He(defendant) came down
man-but he was dead now, and here, he might mention, chiefly to prosecute that was no use saying, more. That paragraph was most damiting, and hurt delcadant greatly. He then read the leader of the 9th October, and com.
talking to the d-fendant on the verandah of the Mr. A. B. Rodyk, solicitor, said I remember: Victoria Hotel no, the roth October, about an article published in the Telegraph the night before. He shewed me a press copy of a letter he had sent in reply, and read it to me.
Cross-examined-You may have said you were very much!! cui.up" about the article, and I asked you what you were going to do. You said the article was rather hot. I had had conversa tions with you previously about business malten, hur du have never consulted me professionally, nor did I consider that you were doing so on this occasion, I would not have acted for you. Mr.
·Fraser-Smith is chairman or director of several companies in which I am interested.
witten a more circumspect letter, he admitted. It was tras. Mr. Murray Bain, Mr. Bandmann, He sl the plaintiff was a wholesale libeller. the Prince of Wales-
His lordship-You can't go into that it is not material.
Defendant, in conclusion, submitted that Mr.- he attacked anybody, was a coward. He left Fraser-Smih, by always going to Macao when
expressing confidence in the result. his lordship to direct the jury, and sat down
Mr. Phillippo, in closing the plaintiff's case, asked if it was necessary to deal further with the gross allegations in the letter. He had only justified his plea of " nne guilty" by saying that Mr. Fraser-Smith had abused bis position as edito o gratify his spite, but he had not proved It.
He had pleaded justification, and failed to show that ane single thing in his letter was true, He had failed to shew, too, that his letter was for the public good. He... apologise, but he did not he went about that said he gave Mr. Fraser-Smith a chance to very day to every 'public plate-hotels, shops, etc., and published, the letter to all who cared to read. He had said that he came triumphantly out of the Grimble case. He sued for $oo, and got $300 was that a triumph?..
THE SUMMING-UP, ·,
His lordship, whose summing up was somet times inaudible, said-Cases of this kind, of course, are very often the subject of conversation and you (the jury) may have talked about this matter or ant, but I wish to ask you to put aside anything you may have heard, and confine your attention to the evidence alone. It is exceedingly necessary, in comparatively small Colonies like this, that juries should not be allowed to speak about the, cases, but wherever there is public interest there is sure to be a good deal of gossip. You must not consider any circum- stances connected with the case other than those which appear in evidence. This is a criminal prosecution for libel. Ta libel without justifi cation is "a criminal offence. There are two defences in this case, which máy ba independent to a certain extent, and it may be as well to direct you attention to the issue. First the defendant pleads not guilty." The publication is practically admitted, and it is prored, so that that is not an issue, although the mode and extent of publication may be a matter for your consideration. The libel must be un- lawfully and maliciously published-that is an issue under the plea of "not guilty," And another one-in fact the serious, the vital question, will be one that arises from that malicious intent. You have heard, in a vague way, the word privilege," and it is necessary, you a short explanation. in connection with this plea, that I should give
THE LAW OF LIDEL There are certain occasions in connet- tion with the publication of a libel which are stated to be privileged. But it does, not mean that the man is privileged to say what be likesit means that, whereas in an ordinary which are privileged malice must be proved, and case malice may be assumed, in certain cases
privileged or not, and the duty of the jury it is for the Judge to tell the jury whether it is to say that actual malice has been proved, Where a person has a legitimate interest to protect in a publication, and where a man's is so far privileged that any fair vindication of character is personally attacked, the occasion his character will be excused. If his intention is to vindicate his character, the law will not assume that it was done maliciously-there is a reason for it. But he must not make
that a peg on which to hang a malicious attack on another person; if he has an ulterior object, that is, to malign another person, he may be punished.. I shall tell you) that this libel was privileged, as a vindication of the defendant's character, but it will be for you to consider whether, instead of merely vindicating his character, it was a malicioas nitack on the character of the prosecutor. I shall have a word or two to say about that, and also about the mode and extent of the publication. You may think that it was perfectly reasonable; as the defendant has suggested, or that it was not, but it will be for you to decide whether there is actual malice proved against the defendant, or whether, considering the nature of the attack made on him, than the nature of an attack on the prosecutor, Then there is the plea of justification. Defere although some of the reflections may be true.
dant takes that as a second or alternative delence, if he fails on the plea of "not guilty." Libel is not the less a libel because it is true. In civil actions a man cannot recover if the libel
there is an old saying, which you are ap reputation-it is true. But in criminal casOR
doubt familar with "The greater the truth, the greater the libel." It used to be the case that no justification could be pleaded in answer, but the Legislature, in its wisdom, bas decided that the truth may be pleaded. But it does not, in itself, amount to a defence, because although it may be, true it may be an offence, as bringing about a breach of the peace. But if it is for the public benefit that it is published, then that is a defence. It must be true and for the public advantage.
THE ISSUES.
Defendant-It is a matter of notoriety. His lordship-I shall stop the questions an they are put if you go on in this way; I am
there is no remedy for anyone who is attacked. willing to give you every latitude.
Defendant- only asked that to shew that His lordship-That is a matter of comment. Defendant-We cannot defend ourselves-the you laid the information in this case you had ather papers are closed to us. (To plaintiff) When | Hotel bar on the 10th October. He said he had. Smith commenced his attacks just after he is true, because there is no damage done to his already received my writ against you for damages against you in the Civil Court ?—Yes, I had,,
A COOL SUGGESTION.
Now when you write your articles you are not people or ins l'utions, are you? very particular in your expressions against | His lordship-You cannot expect him to answer that question. Call his attention to any article you rely upon.
Defendant-I want to shew that he is a wholesale reviler."
Mr. G. R2 Lammert, auctioneer, said "The defendant read a letter to me in the Hongkong sent the original to Mr. Fraser-Smith: It Was the day after the article had appeared.
the German expression in the letter, means. He who touches pitch soils himself." There were several people in the bar at the time, but they would not be likely to hear him read it. Mr. Webber was there.) sa mga nag alger and spoke about the article, asking you what you Cross-examined---I asked you to have a drink,
were going to do. Then you shewed me the letter, and said you had sent the original that morning and given Mr. Fraser-Smith a chance to apologies
|
there may possibly be faller reports? In the the time he has been in training. You A His lordship-Well, produce an 'aricle, and You also said you had told him the truth plainl?, mented upon it at length. He complained that
Daily Press there is.
'
Defendant-You have painted out something Mr Justice Wise saying that I repudiated the contracts ?--Yes.
Have you been told anything that would shew that I refused to pay the "difference "--that': I repudiated my liability You distinctly gave notice that you would not take the shares up... t Did I ever say I would not pay the dis
feience I don't know.
Does the evidence shew that I paid it ---No.
ample amount of my money in his hands to pay mple amount of my money in his hands to say any possible difference-some $3,000, on the 31st August ?—I have not seen it.
shew it to him.
Defendant-If he would admit it, it would wa ime (laughter)
His lordship As I told you befe, this curse- further, unless you are in a psition to prove of cross-examination does not carry you a step. that it is libel,
already heard, I got out of my libel case with DRAR BRANDY-AS you doubtless have fying colors. I shall be glad to have" O'd Fiddle as oon after Foochow Racca as you like. a forinight's rest after his arrival, considering It would be as well to let him have
good enough, but you must decide that yourself jet me have one more posy if you thinksit afer you are here. I should, in consideration of one-half of the old moke's winnings, reserve the right to claim you to ride Second Violin special reason for riding something, In your own when required, unless, of course, you had a
stable, presuming that you have a stable. There has been some talk about your coming downHIGH TREASUN, here, and I have heard ugly words: said about you more than once. You have romé may happen you can rely on my doing nothing enemies, but they can do nothing, and, whatever. to harm you. I felt very bitterly against you. His lordship-All this is placing the jury at a
last Spring--not without cause. But, however, that is all past and gone, and I am not the man to great disadvantage, Mr. Brandts you plead Justi- cherisha life-long animosity, or to injure anyone fication, and then come here and examine on maliciously, I mention this so that you need not this. Pray remember that I have never read be afraid to make whatever arrangements you this case. If you were going into the evidence think proper with any other person in Heng you should have got the judge's notes.
Long Bur Imast have "Old Fiddle" You will bet DefendanI was told 1 could not they were glad hear that at least two of my sub, griffins Lis own property. I shall get evidenco on there flyers. All being well. I shall be with them point in other ways.
His lordship You come here into Cout thoroughly unprepared, and put this pleading in at the last moment, when you might have put i in a month ago,
Defendant-The plaicliff had ample notice of this. I gave notice several times that I was. going to prove my letter, and I was continually stopped by the Magistrate.
N
and asked him to put it in the paper. Youland was called "an infliction," as though he were I are on hies dly terms, and have been as the damallpox, and afterwards explained his I shall leave both these issues to you, I shall quainted, for any years, allerlei ole palič | transiċilon with Grimble, which want of space ask for a verdict on each issue on the question of Supposing an article of this kind had appeared - prévents us from reporting. He was going on malice--malo fides or bond fides—but the first I done That cry hard to say have got Hilordship said--Now, now you keep going justification is proved or not. It has not been about you, inste d of me, what would you have to late that Grimble had run away, when shall ask your verdict about is whether this temper, you ki and, I don't know what 1 on talking about things that are not proved-1 proved to be material at all-in saying which I madmotage should haza piele, daughter,) i naboen verberi 30% shall really llave to stop you. You keep saying do not cast the least reflection on the defendant; Defendant-Suppose he cl's the Prince of Mr.B. infilter, asid remesebe a great deal about your mouth being shut- everyone must feel that his remarks were ex- Wales Tummy" (loud laughter), or Her defendants caning inta-my shop on the xort wish it were shut a great deal more.
ceedingly pertinent, and although I had to stop her seventeen millions from the ba d-working to Mr. Eraseebmlib. Avent T address) Afer dealing with the remainder of your time rather than casting any reflection on Majesty the Queen "Mr. Guelph, receiving October and reading me part of a letter addrested Defendant apologised, and proceeded with bis him once or twice it was with a view of studying. British public"-have I to prove a librl like Defendant Didn't I come lo to have this su tharllendes be took up the letter on which the general course of his defence. But now let that? (renewed laughter) When he talks of the of clothes tried on this suit lam wearing up the prosecution was founded, and referred me mention what seems to be material in this disgusting details of the doings of prostitutes. “Boulevard. Coom-up-my-lux, and, goes into My, Libel Suit, as I call it (bughter)-Ye) 14 categorically to his statements therein. He said case. There are several expressions which are mentioned the article published the night before that the constant persecution to which he had made the subject of Justification—which he has you a step farther, and you have taken all the
His lordship--All these things do not carry Wotton, of the Phra Chom Klao, the high vile," and got to be tolerated in any respectable to take a general view, and say whether or not it and said it whilst dining with Chpinin been subjected' showed that the paper was felt called upon, to fus ify. I shall advise you morning at Dogo enkel MPY
before, and that be asked me what sort of a family. ME. Murray-Bain' had been called a is true in substance and in fact. If he had had Mageing AntiquF INSTANCES:
the maiden Libeller," that in bis mind he would have seen how useless man you werden you wild you had written lying scoundrel" Defendant banded in an at idle on Brownie, him a letter demanding on spat gy and giving Evening Snail, and God knows what," simply it was to trouble you with masters published. dated the 19th September, and asked who was bir
him a day's chance before proceeding against because he gave evidence against the plaintiff in long ago. A tuan who has been provoked may the Wicking case. It was personal malice. Here act in a manner which in his cooler moments Mr.JF-Webber, Molito, al On the roth the defendant used an expression too blasphe- he may regret. The parties seem to have been Complainanti-Heis
taxa crowd of gentlemen at the barbejde His lordship to say-Do not use expressions a great deal of reflections on the defendant's of that kind here, Sir. You must apologise to recent character. You must not let these entertained by Mt-Brandt reading "something. His lordship again protested against this line. They werdlaughing and having's good fox: Defendant, did so, excusing himself on the forward by the defendant with a view to
the Court.
weigh with you at all; they have been pat Defendant-I have said it is a “vile paper and Lentätsentwhat was going ples bat he was a foreigner.. Continuinghe, showing the course of libels by the prosecutor,
J
- of this time, I hope you wit win a lot of races at earit by Brownie a hydrasheaded, Ime October I went into the Hongkong Hotel, and mous for even this "vilo" paper, which caused on friendly terms in 1833, and we have heard
His lordship He was quite right to stop you. Defondant-Irrespective of these reports what | did you go on when you charged me with this offence? I have charged you with no offence.
Well, when you wrote this leading puticle?--- On the proceedings in Court..
Nothing elsel Yes, on private information,
Foochow Chater's pontes, and Nickels came down on Saturday-Reefer, Sunlight, Hom-pipe, Montezuma, Newmarket, Rose, and about six or Leven griffins.
Yours in baste,
R. FRABER-SMITH, Defendant-Do you admit that letter?-Yes. You hayo already said you did not get "Old Fiddle," as you called Second Violin?-Yer."
This letter is a tricadly letter, isn't it? His lordship-It speaks for itself... Plaintiff I should hope it is, Defendant-Now have I ever had any inter, course whatever, either on business or privately,
you since that letter 3-Yes
·
personality, where identity has not been deles mined (laughter),
cross-examination. -
of
and I want, to prove it. He then handed in a
I can swear to some of the expressions:*45/ ludicrous account of a police court case in whichIn fact I don't think I had a drink) certainly Cross-examined-el was not drinking with you wo freonadchen were involved, and it wasvend not befara real Youtony have stopped reading Comíd general laughter, sho
when you sawitin ngaun la magnet
Mr. Philippo-That is the case for the plaintiff
ir lordship You have to shew that your
letfer íf írun in substance and în faci?name
Defendant-think I only need another in stance to shew that this paper is a vile paper." No decent paper wou'd revel in filth like that.
What might that be?-I made private inquiries with on When you came down from Foochow His lordship-I think the best thing will be to
of several brokers.
Who were they? inquired of Toeg and that year.now he was the brong? aveds of admit the whole issue, Mr. Fraser-Smlib, and Gabbay, and Mr. Danby, and very possibly of a What was it? The spol friendly intercourse then defendant can comment on the articles to great many more,
SORTERS 2 With a little barrier between us, which, as I wrote the jury. Do'you admit that all these files were Whom you don't know—And Mr. Webber then, I was quite willing to overlook. I did not published by you 3. also gave me information, and kn
want to hound down even you supplied by you
What? I do not exactly remember.
What information did they give you)
I don't remember the words, but it was enough
to make me that you had bought
Have you got Second Violin I did not want as Defendant then handed up a pap.z of the ryth him after I saw him. He died down here, pf June last, containing reference to a Mr.Lübeck, Are you swars when he died ?—Yes. of Shanghai, and asked the plaintiff if he know
you aware | thas
surres and then tiled to tepidlo no and during the Rates and that he died of poison Wick Beckman, except from his part in
"were trying to swindle the brokers out of their
brokerage,
the
"¡Did he die during the Races 7-Yer, on the *Plaintiff replied that he knew him before, as for, lwet day, I will tell you why he died--ikrought, they test six merilisinder the TiliISPASIE
ཅ་ཐ
October be felt that he was simply ruined were libels he would have a Justified in pro- said that when he saw the leader on the othThey do not show anything of the sort. If they he had been dealing largely in shares ducing them, but by simply producing them in Just before having become a large operator Court he does not at all show that they are libela. recently-and bis credit would be gone, he was We cannot go into these matters, they were dofe for, He did not want to commit a breach entirely immaterial and you must dismiss them DAREDEVIACE, MARTESAN
of the peace by thrashing the plaintiff, although from your minds Perhaps the only things Defendant les called MR. E. Toeg, broker, many told him that was the proper thing to do having any bearing on the case is that of the action was not gambling one but perfectly sit. But that would take too long; the immaterial and not altogether legal to raise saying I call him chiefly to show that this trans and the only other resort was to commence a 23rd February, 1886 It was altogether bond fide and legitimate in every respect. statement would go all over the world, a man's opinions two or three years after
His hydrip-Surely you have enough in the unchallenged and uncontradicted in the mean wards, but I think it is worthy of note at D newspaper repoltsi
od timey and that meant ruin. Therefore he insuling reference to the defendant's character. Defendant-There is one thing not reported tried to get the plaintiff to apologise. The case is really confined to the scale" Liherpaparitia most important thing
For at any rate publish a vindication of defendant's Brands Against Grimble, tried in the Summary Mr. Toeg said, I am partner in the firm of character; He refused to do so, and thy other Court, the article in prosecutor's paper, which and hava dong share.biulness papers would not deal with the matter, on immediately succeeded it, and the letter of the There has never been any, pinciple. The article purported to show, what defendant, which is the subject of the prosecu out clearing these shares be a sink of leigully chel Hongkong, share-market tion. These matters are all contained in the
DESAMA Red was, and it was his (defendant's) duty to disabuse space of a few days We have the account I paid you whenever had the public of that opinion. It he had felt the Chinn Mail on which by the prosecut
Jeve strongly on the matter be might have own admission, by based he kn
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.