Mr. Harris immediately asked that the case be withdrawn from the jury or that they be directed to return a verdict for defendant.
The onus of proof was -on the plaintiff that defendant abused a Privilege and used an occasion which would have been privileged for an evil purpose to vent his spite or The Judge—t rule that there is 2 qualified privilege.
Mr, Harrisit is not sufficient produce evidence equally consistent with malice and no mali He has got to show the probability lof malice. There is only the allegation that defendant struck him in 1919, prior to the "Bones" and "Ivo" term, and so that could bbe ruled out. In 1927, the defendant was alleged to have said that he would get rid of the plaintiff, but against that it had been adduced that the defendant wrote a very lice etter complaining about plaintiffs conduct in a Mess, when the got very drank. Another letter complained about his conduct in the Town Hall, when Capt. Barrett said he wished Mr. Beatty to be given Janother chance and he thought the case would be met by giving Mr. Beatty a serious warning. In the same year there was another report of drunkenness which led to Mr Fessenden saying that, unless the report was withdrawn, Mr, Beatty: would be dismissed, and Capt. Barrett withdrew the report rather than let this happen. We now know that Capt. Barrett made a final report consequent on a report from Mr. Bell on the representations of the Chairman of the Council.
'The Judge—T do not think T can withdraw the' case from the jury. The evidence of malice may not be much, but there is soma. I also think' it would be more satisfactory for it to go to the jury. Tt might be a ground for appeal that I should have left it to the jury.
Mr, Harris then briefly introduced his case and said that such fan action had never been brought. before in Shanghai and he thought. never before in the world, and it would be hard to find an action of any sort brought on such flimsy evidence as that pat forward by the plaintiff, Te was brought by a disgruntled and dismissed junior officer.
The First Warning Capt. R. I. M, Barrett then gave evidence that he had been 21 years in the 8, M. Police and prior to that hho was in the Malay States Guides: Me had been Commissioner of Police Shanghat since September, 1925.
Shortly after I was made Commis-received reports) from various friends and aéquaintances and from the Deputy Commissioner that Mr, Beatty's behave jour during my absence had not been what it shqgld have been in the may for drinking and I took, the first opportunity. of calling Win before as a friend and telling him that, though as a friend could stand good deal of that sort of thing, {Commissioner of Police it was more than T could put up with and he must promise me that he would take pull. He said he would give me no further cause for complaint in that direction."
Witness continued that there was Jan incident in connection with the [Officers Mess which led him to write to Mr. Beatty and he received an apology. On June 7, 1926, witness had occasion to write a further report to the Council, which led to Mr. Fessenden reprimanding Mr. Beatty. In September, 1926, wit: ess besined the Council to sive Mr. Beatty one last chance. This was connection with a boxing tourna-rent in the Town Hall. A report had been made by several gentlemen a rather disgraceful affair and witness wrote more or less Gespair. He had tried every method with Mr, Beatty and he thought that, if Mr, Beatty was brought before the Council in disgrace it might have some effect. Mr, Fesssenden's reply was to ask if witness wanted Mr. Beatty sacked and witess said he did not. "Mr. Fessenden if, the report was allowed to and, Mr, Beatty must 120, 0 witness ked for it to he returned.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.