I asked you whether I misunderstood yea when you stated that you wore not quite certain whether you were subscribers. I have referred you to the affidavit where you positively state that you were. Which is correct, your statement to his Worship or your affidavit The Crown Advocate—It does not matter.
Witness—I stinted that the paper comes to us regularly. I presume that we are subscribers or on the subscribers' list.
You say you know Mr. O'Shea?—No, I don't know him.
You have never had any conversation with him, or any communication with him by letter or in writing?—I have bad communication with the "China Gazette" by letter.
Beyond thst you don't know Mr. O'Shea?—Yes.
Witness's deposition was then read over to him, snd before signing it he added; there seems to be some misunderstanding about the subscription. My contention is that this paper comes to the British American Tobacco (10. We have advertised in and assume that we are on the subscribers' list.
The Crown Advocate—He is not the office boy; he is the manager.
Mr. Ellis—He swears to one fact and testifies to another. It only shows that he doesn't know what an oath is.
The Crown Advocate—You must not talk like that. It is no use beginning so early with that kind of mad (Laughter).
Mr. Ellis—There will be more mud Inter.
The Crown Advocate—It is only for the prosecution in this case to produ-e evidence of publication, or prima facie evidence of publication soci which would be likely to appeal to Sury. The Newspaper Registration Acts provide merely a form of proving publication, and even that is merely prima facie evidence thereof (sec. 15, Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881). We here ba got no registration of newspapers in Chios a0 app!
Judge in Chambers for leave to com-meece criminal proceedings on this very ground against the proprietor Editor of the " China Gazette," defence was put to that, though to say he was not the editor would be a defence. The order was by the Judge. There case in 40, Law Jo His Worship—Wee are proceeding on the, charge read, What have is whether this written matter ix libellous io law., and whether the accused should be put on his trial.
The Crown Advocate—My next duty is to lay before your Honour the actual words complained of. If your Honour will take the last exhibit pot in, or any other place where the libel is set out, lor the charge itself, the words, which fare as follows, are contained io ao editorial comment to column 1:
An exhibition of greater indecency, of more venomous mendacity, of meaner innuendo, s greater contempt for the trath and justice, and a wilder desire to simply revenge himself by besmirching the name of everyone who dared to critioize his methods, has surely never been presented in any country by a Judge than has beea given in this case by this coarse, unscrupulous, ignorant and valgar mountebank, whom the grim irony of corrupt American politics has entrusted with the discharge of judicial fanctions,—fanctions that be is intellectually, mentally and morally unfitted for and incapable of exercising. The miserable tactics of Mr. Wilfey, while before the Committee, remind us only of the tactics of the squid, the creature which when pursued hopes to escape by darkening and poisoning the waters all round it by the discharge of the noxious fluid concealed in ite glands. When Mr. Wilfley made the above statements and here is the innuendo complained of about this paper and its Editor—he not only was lying, but we say it deliberately, he knew at the time she was
the members of the House Committee tying, his only object being to mislead as to the standing and record of his critics in Shanghai, It was surly poor role for a judge to plead la order to excuse his own protection of notorious swindlers. that the British Court aod British Law in China are parties to like swindles under the Hongkong Ordinances, as Mr. Wilfley falsely and audaciously pleaded."
It is now my duty, and I am entitled, to refer you to the issue of the paper itself. You will find certain questions put down in that paper as having been asked in a certain form by the Hon. Judge Wilfiey, in which Mr. H. D. O'Shea, Editor of the " China Gazette"
red to, and dealt with 00 thet the inavendo la pat position and pol
in here in order to lay before the Court the meaning of the questions referred to by Mr. O'Shea. article, whoever he is, insinuates that in asking these questions the Judge was revenging himself on those who criticized him. These are the words complained of. The proceedings are brought under section 4 of the Libel Act of 1843 (which counsel quoted, enacting that maliciously publishing defamatory libel rendered " person liable to imprisonment in " common house of correction for a period not ex-coeding two years.) This section does not make any new offence. It is 8 Common Law offence (Counsel then quoted the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act of 1881, nec. 4 which defines the defence that way be offered). That section of the Act was passed after the case of Rex. v. Cardo, in which it was decided that evidence of the trath of the libel could not be received by a police magistrate, and a certiorari would not be issued to him la that case to hear evidence of the trath of the libel. Even this section now says "the Court may receive evidence as to the publication being for the public benefit". If such evidence is offered it is a matter for the discretion of the Magistrate to decide whether it would not be his daty to commit anyhow.
His Worship tige is" knowing it to be false, aust hear evidence on that point if it is offered.
The Crown Advocate—To libel a man in his profession is a very serious matter indeed.
Mr. Ellis—I don't want to tke up the time of the Court, bat I should like to know what my friend is trying to make out to your Worshi It seems to me that, so far as he concerned, the proceedings should be simple and wvery brief. All he has to do is to offer evidence of publication, and that it is libellous.
The s'rown Advocate—That is what ing now.
Mr. Ellis—That should be a matter of two minutes (Laughter).
The Crown Advocate—Yon admit the libel I will say nothing more.
His Worship—It is' question for me to decide whether it is libellous or not. Ought you not to call evidence
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.