The Judge: "No doubt. For himself, he should take care that every justice was done the accused."
T h e prisoner yvould then apply for a postponement until the next Criminal Sitting, and by that time he hoped to be able to procure Counsel.
The Crown Prosecutor had no objection, and the prisoner was remanded.
Sympathy took an unusual turn for the prisoner in the gaol. T h e other confinees initiated a movement to subscribe funds for his defence; but the effort was unavailing, as the gross proceeds amounted to only £ 1 12s. O n the 16th June the prisoner was again placed on his trial, and yvas undefended. T h e facts already narrated were established; the defence was simply a strong denial of guilt, and an emphatic assertion of innocence. Afterfiveminutes' deliberation, the jury found a verdict of " Guilty;" and, being asked what he had to say against the passing of sentence, the prisoner boldly reiterated his innocence.
The Judge sentenced the prisoner to death with the usual formula, expressed a strong hope that the prisoner's untimely fate would be a warning to any others of the " Exile " class, to which he listened without the slightest emotion, and, when the Judge had concluded, he exclaimed in a loud, unfaltering, and semidefiant voice, " I a m innocent! You, Judge and jury, m a y destroy m y body ; but neither of you can lay a touch on m y soul. I shall meet those w h o have given false evidence against m e in another place, and on another day, where, thank God, I shall see them punished."
Second Libel Action Against the Argus.—12th August, 1848.
Moor v. Kerr.
This was an action for libel, the defendant having published alleged libels against the plaintiff in the Melbourne Argus ofthe 17th, 24th, and 28th of March. T h e Pleas put in were—ist, " Not Guilty;" 2nd, Traversed the fact of being the editor of the Melbourne Argus; 3rd, Traversed that certain houses (the Eagle, and Scottish Hotels) in the declaration do not bear the application assigned; 4th, Traversed that he yvas defendant in the former action, Moor v. Kerr. T h e damages were laid at £ 1 5 0 0 . Counsel for plaintiff, Messrs. Williams and Stawell; for defendant, Mr. Barry. This case arose out of the previous action between the same parties, and the repeated attacks to yvhich the defendant was subjected by the Melbourne Argus. A special jury was struck with much less trouble than at the former trial, and Mr. Williams, in stating the plaintiff's case, read the several libels complained of. T h e first was an Argus leader printed three days after the delivery of the verdict in the former trial, and some idea of the style may be formed by a perusal of the following extract:—
" The relative position of the plaintiff and defendant as regards the subject matter of the action is not changed by this proceeding, excepting that the allegations of the libel, yvhich before rested solely upon the defendant's assertion, have now received
'—————— confirmation strong As proofs of Holy Writ'
from the plaintiff's shirking the question of truth. With his own declaration acknoyvledging himself charged with the promotion and encouragement of houses of bad repute, and with immorality of character, unfitting him for holding office in any Christian Church, he has not dared the vindication of his character. With a plea of justification on the record, and witnesses in abundance to support it, he has feared to face the truth. With every street, lane, and alley in the city resounding with the nauseous details of his brothel exploits, he has sought shelter in the refuge of a technicality. H e has got money, or rather an order for money, as his compensation, and w e envy him not, for at the poorest m o m e n t w e ever saw, we would not exchange positions yvith Mr. Moor for ten thousand times the amount of his verdict."
T o vary his retaliation the defendant had recourse to the muses, and by the aid of Erato, certainly not the most pure-minded of the Sisterhood, produced this lyric, which was introduced to the Argus readers on the 24th March :—
