Page:ChroniclesofEarlyMelbournevol.1.pdf/422

Formal evidence was given of the registration, proprietorship and publication of the papers containing the articles complained of, as also of the result of the previous trial, and the fact of the defendant in present and former action being the same person. Witnesses yvere called to prove the innuendoes, yvhich generally meant that M o o r yvas a m a n of immoral character, frequented immoral haunts, and was, therefore, unworthy of the public positions he filled. Mr, N . J. Sugden, Chief-Constable of Melbourne, deposed to the disorderly character of the Eagle Lnn and Scottish Hotel, both in Bourke Street, for which he had reported them several times to the Magistrates. O n e of them lost its night, and the other its general license, at the Annual Licensing Session. M r . John Curtis, reporter to the Argus in March, swore that he yvas utterly ignorant of the individuality of the Editor of the Argus. T h e cashier used to pay his salary ; his " copy " was given to the " devil" of the establishment; and for all he knew to the contrary the devil might be the Editor. H e might infer something of the editorship ; but absolute knowledge of it he had not. H e was scarcely an hour in the day in the Argus office; he corrected his o w n proofs, and frequently saw letters addressed to the Editor knocking about the place. Mr. W . E. H a m m o n d testified to Mr. Kerr being the Argus Editor; to witness's personal knowledge he exercised the functions of an Editor; he had received witness's contributions and said they should be inserted ; would swear as matter of fact that Kerr is the Editor of the Argus ; there is only one Editor to a small journal of limited means and unlimited partizanship; Mr. Kerr is the Editor; there is no sub-Editor; there is no inferior devil in the office; he is the arch-fiend himself (Laughter) and he ( H a m m o n d ) communicated yvith him as such. (Laughter). Captain G. W . Cole deposed that the references complained of in the several libels pointed to the plaintiff. O n being asked to read the libels, witness had some difficulty in getting through them in consequence of the peals of laughter by yvhich he yvas frequently interrupted. Mr. Barry moved for a non-suit, inasmuch as it had not been proved that the defendant, William Kerr, yvas the Editor of the newspaper called the Melbourne Argus, according to the course laid doyvn by the Act of Council, and on other technical grounds, but the Judge declined to stop the case. Mr. Barry having addressed the jury at m u c h length on behalf of the defendant, His H o n o r s u m m e d up. H e advised the jury to assess damages upon each count; but directed them to keep thefirstand fourth issues apart from the others. H e had no hesitation in saying they were libels. It was also said that the present action had reference to the preceding one, and had the appearance of a persecution, and that the jury were to be the hounds w h o yvere to run d o w n the defendant. If the jury entertained such a thought, they yvould then be justified in giving small damages. O f course the jury yvere not to be guided by him, but he gave it as his opinion that whatever is yvritten tending to bring a man into disrepute or ridicule, is, in law, a libel. It yvas pleaded by the defendant that M r . Moor's character stood so high that a libel could not affect him. It might as yvell be said that a person stands so high that every shaft might be letflyat him. It was also urged that the defendant had paid the s u m awarded on theformertrial, which meant, if it meant anything, that as he had paid his money before, he might noyv reiterate the charges, and take out his money's worth. Remarks had also been m a d e upon himself respecting the-course he had pursued, but no m a n sitting there as a Judge dare act as he was represented to have acted. It did not folloyv that a m a n had not had a fair trial if he had not shaped his defence according to the rules of the Court; and in vindication of the law, he (the Judge) declared (not of himself,forhe would not condescend to it), that the defendant had had a fair trial. His H o n o r read through the yvhole ofthe libels, commenting upon the purport of each, and strongly urged upon the jury a patient and conscientious consideration of the case. T h e jury retired to consider their verdict, but the foreman announced that there was no probability of their arriving at an unanimous verdict, although three-fourths had agreed upon giving a certain amount of damages, and asked His Honor to allow them to retire to an hotel for six hours, as there was not even a chair in the jury-room. Mr. Barry objected to this request, but His H o n o r granted permission. Mr. Barry, amidst a shout of laughter, proposed that the jury should retire to the Scottish or the Eagle. His Honor again stated to the jury the different counts, and re-consigning them to the care of a bailiff, they accordingly retired until ten minutes to nine o'clock, when a verdict was returnedforthe plaintiff of £ 5 0 0 on the first count, one shilling on the second, and one shilling on the third.