1866 - Henderson, G. Otago and the Middle Island of New Zealand - Chapter I, p 3-47

[Image of page 3]

OTAGO,

AND THE

MIDDLE ISLAND OF NEW ZEALAND.

CHAPTER I.

SO much trouble has been taken to puff Otago, both by means of pamphlets, and hired lecturing agents, that I deem it a public service to publish a few observations I jotted down while there. I fear I shall not paint the province in such glowing colours as its petty government and the land speculators could wish; nevertheless, although my views may be considered by them to be somewhat adverse, I believe they will find nothing set down which is not capable of proof.

I propose to advert, in the first place, in these pages, to the social and political state of Otago, (a subject which should be of the first interest to those who intend emigrating); and afterwards, to glance at the

[Image of page 4]

capabilities, prospects, climate, appearance, productions, &c., of the province.

When I arrived in the colony, in 1861, I found the capital, Dunedin, to be a little township, something like a small fishing village at home; and inhabited by a population consisting chiefly of very needy, "rigidly righteous," but whisky-loving, unprincipled Scotchmen. With these were mixed a few of the worst specimens from England and the neighbouring colonies; not omitting a sprinkling of the convict element from New South Wales.

Of course, in a community of this description, life and property were by no means safe. Swindling was rampant, and assaults of almost daily occurrence; though by far the greater number of these were committed by one man, of whom I shall treat hereafter, and who, on account of his wealth, almost always escaped punishment, nearly every individual in the place being in his debt. This man, a son of Tom Jones, a notorious convict of Botany Bay, ruled the town of Dunedin, the capital of Otago, by dint of money bags and fisticuffs. A skipper from Sierra Leone being asked to describe it, said, "It was a place where a naked nigger walked down the Bazaar, bought a water-melon for a couple of cowry shells, cut it in two, scooped out one half and sat in it, scooped out the other half and put it on his headand this was thought to give a very good idea of the place. In like manner I may say, that Dunedin was, in 1861, a place where the beggarly community, if it displeased John Jones, (an old Sydney waterman and slop-seller, who had settled in Otago as a whaler,) could be punished by having its whisky raised sixpence a bottle, or its sugar twopence a pound. This latter, I

[Image of page 5]

was assured, actually occurred in a very comical way. An auction took place, and the tyrant of this petty Syracuse was there, determined to purchase an easy chair in which to repose his squat gorilla-like frame after the labours of the day, which had probably consisted in either punching the heads of some of the community, or calculating mentally, (for the pen was beyond his powers,) the profits he had made on the goods supplied to them. At this auction, a few jokers, not having sufficiently the terror of Jones's fists or his money before their eyes, for amusement, bid him up, and carried off the prize. But old Jones had his revenge. "This will cost you twopence a pound on your sugar," cried he; and immediately he went round to all the shops and ordered twopence a pound to be put on the sugar! This he was enabled to do, because he was the only importer of any goods into the colony. He was also the only rich man, and every trader, and almost every person was in his debt; and there being no bank in the province, he monopolised the benefits and power which such an establishment would have acquired. This man's wealth had been made by whaling, trading, and the purchase of land on the usual ridiculous terms (a few blankets or muskets), from the natives: and when, some fifteen years ago, a colony was founded at Otago by a party of poor Scotch emigrants under Captain Cargill, Jones, who had settled there as a whaler ten or twelve years before, had them completely at his mercy; absorbing all the money of the settlers, and then obtaining mortgages over their property. The history of this man is a curious one, and though, from prudential motives, I cannot give it very fully, yet, as I believe the character and position

[Image of page 6]

of Otago to have been very much influenced by his example, it may not be inappropriate to give a brief sketch of him. Before doing so, however, I must add a few words on the state of society in Dunedin. In the biography of Peter Cartwright, the American backwoods' preacher, I stumbled on a description of the place where his father settled in Kentucky, which is exactly applicable to Dunedin. He says, "When my father settled in Logan County, it was called Rogue's Harbour. Here many refugees from all parts of the Union fled to escape justice or punishment, for although there was law, it could not be executed, and it was a desperate state of society. Murderers, horse-thieves, highway robbers, and counterfeiters fled here;" (as applied to Dunedin, there must be added, bankrupts, smugglers, convicts, and convict's sons, runaway whalers and pimps.) "These villains combined and formed the majority. The honest and civil part of the community would prosecute these wretched banditti, but they would swear each other clear; and they really put all law at defiance, and carried on such desperate violence and outrage, that the honest part of the citizens seemed to be driven to the necessity of uniting and combining together, and taking the law into their own hands. This was a very desperate state of things."

To the list of blackguards found in "Rogue's Harbour," there might be added in the case of Dunedin, as I am in a position to prove, pimps, convicts, and convict's sons; which latter, if their fathers deserved transportation commonly (as witness the state of New South Wales), deserve the road gang in irons, if not hanging.

In June, 1861, some gold fields (which, however,

[Image of page 7]

have proved insignificant,) were discovered, and a considerable rush of diggers took place from Melbourne, followed by a large number of shopkeepers, merchants, speculators, &c. The town of Dunedin immediately became a busy place, instead of a "sleepy hollow," as formerly; and it is now of considerable size, and to some extent, improved, though still a dirty, muddy slough.

I had expected that a great social improvement would consequently have taken place; this, however, is unfortunately not the case. About the beginning of this year even, assaults, some of them of a murderous description, would seem to have been common. A Mr. McCombe, feeling aggrieved by the gossips, wrote an article in a newspaper, entitled "The School for Scandal." For this he was twice assaulted in the streets, and once in the theatre. On this last occasion, he was attacked by a Mr. R. B. Martin, one of the churchwardens of the English Church, who conceived that he was alluded to in a paragraph which spoke of one of the gentlemen who carried blue bags round in church after service; though I understood, that in fact, it was a Mr. Strode, the police magistrate, that was referred to. Thus, Mr. McCombe was nearly losing his life through Mr. Martin's mistake; not that I suppose he actually had murderous intentions, or would have been able to put such, had they existed, in execution, being but a little man, of no very warlike appearance. Indeed, he would appear to have come off with a black eye, and to have had much the worst of the fight, till he raised the hue and cry against Mr. McCombe, who was then attacked by the partisans of the former, and whose life was nearly sacrificed by the

[Image of page 8]

mob. It appears he was seized and carried out of the theatre, being beaten all the way, and at last was left in a state of insensibility in the hands of the police, who, notwithstanding the superintendent and several of the men were in the theatre at the time, appear to have been very tardy in performing their duty.

An action was afterwards brought by Mr. McCombe against Mr. Martin, when the jury found for the complainant, with one farthing damages! I may here remark that such a commodity as justice is quite unattainable in Dunedin. The general feeling was with Martin, and hence the verdict; but anyone who was present at the trial, must have been satisfied, (notwithstanding the rather hard swearing to support him,) that Martin had been guilty of an assault, from which had resulted grievous damage to the plaintiff both in person and pocket.

It might have been supposed that these assaults would have been sufficient for this one case. But no! the editor of the paper which published the alleged libel, (which was described as scurrilous, but which I never saw), was also assaulted in the theatre, which appears to have been considered the fittest place for these gladiatorial displays.

This editor, Mr. Grant of the Saturday Review, I will let speak for himself. With great clearness, and sturdy independence, he appears to combine considerable eccentricity. Nevertheless his statements of facts appear to be correct; and I am hardly prepared to say that he exaggerates, albeit, he pourtrays a state of things, of which Kentucky or Arkansas even, in their most rowdy times, furnish only a feeble reflex. He says,

"Dunedin, the capital, and chief centre of population,

[Image of page 9]

is socially and morally rotten at the core. Every honourable feeling is either dormant from fear, or actually crushed out by evil practices and example. Dunedin bids fair to eclipse in infamy all other towns, whether in Spain, Portugal, or Italy; whether in Tipperary, Mexico, California, or Peru. Her citizens are becoming more than Americanised. Ruffianism now stalks abroad on the chief promenade of Dunedin, with visage unabashed, under the protection of the Press and the police, smashing open men's heads with hammer-headed whips. It is dangerous to utter a word against 'the powers that be.' It is instantly called libellous, and one obscure print incites the public to such blackguardly actions. It wishes that such whips should be placed in the hands of all men, to be used whenever they or their actions are touched upon.

"About two months ago the Editor of this journal was nearly strangled in one of the front boxes of the theatre, in the presence of the judges of the land, and violent efforts were used to drag him out of the theatre, so that he might be effectually waylaid, and yet the police did not take the dastardly cowards in charge. When these were allowed to escape, they escorted him home; that was all. Next morning the most illiterate paper in New Zealand had an infamous article on the matter--an article indirectly justifying assassination, and scarcely concealing its displeasure that the Editor was not killed!

"The Editor summoned one of the assailants to the Police Court. He also summoned as witnesses, the two judges of the Supreme Court. The Resident Magistrate, when the case came on, left the bench, and the Sheriff came on and adjourned the trial for a week;

[Image of page 10]

by that time, witnesses were off, and when the case came on again, the conduct of the Sheriff was such, that it was clear justice was not to be had, and, therefore, the Editor threw up the charge in disgust.

"On the 3rd instant, two articles appeared in the Review: One on the Auckland and Otago police, and the other on Inspector Morton.

"In the first article it was shown that the Auckland force cost annually, ten thousand pounds sterling, whereas, the Otago force cost One Hundred Thousand Pounds; that there were more people in Auckland than in Otago, and that rents and provisions were cheaper in Otago than in Auckland.

"The other article on Inspector Morton pointed the argument. He took fire at it, and in the course of the day, he thrice threatened the Editor with a weapon having a large block on one end--not the end in his hand. Parties muttered throughout the day their apprehensions that the Editor would be assaulted, but as they would not disclose, from fear or cowardice, the secret, the Editor declined to leave his post till his work was done.

"As the evening advanced, Inspector Morton came up, and menacingly held over the head of the Editor the block end of the stick, in the presence of one of the police. Why did not that officer take him in charge? When going away, the Editor told him he had no ill-will to him as an individual--that he was at war only with the expensive system. 'But I have an ill-will to you,' rejoined Inspector Morton. Next time he came round there were no police, (for he was seen previously taking one of the police aside, and from that moment the station was abandoned) and he

[Image of page 11]

raised his hand, and with the block end of his weapon, struck a murderous blow in the forehead over the brain of the Editor of the Saturday Review.

"He was forthwith carried home in a cab, and has lingered in great pain ever since, These lines are written in great torture. Dr. Crawford promptly attended, and enjoined strict quietness, for fear of compression of the brain.

"The Press was silent as the grave. Letters from indignant parties were refused insertion. Next morning, a Dr. Hocken and three policemen from the Barracks called at the residence of the Editor, and were told that the doctor had ordered deep silence, and that they could not come in. However, Dr. Hocken went in, and said that 'Mr. Morton had a duty to perform to himself,' and went down to town and told that it was only a slight abrasion.

"The Editor had been previously summoned as a witness in a case then impending in the Supreme Court, and on the strength of Hocken's report, he was daily annoyed with parties wishing to force him, under penalty of committal, to attend court. However, the Judge adjourned the case, on receipt of Dr. Crawford's certificate, and the Editor, when it again came on, was conveyed in a half-conscious state to the room of the Grand Jury. The people seeing how weak he was, did not annoy him with questions, when they saw him in the car outside. But Inspector Morton, ere the car started back again, came up and thus accosted him-- 'Grant, if you ever write anything about me, I will smash you down within an inch of your life,' The Editor took no notice of that.

"Such is Dunedin, and such is the fate of the man

[Image of page 12]

who will dare to speak out the truth--the very truth, most pure. The noise of that blow sounds yet, in his left ear, and the noise of it in his brain, is like the dropping of a marble in a tin vessel. Justice in Otago, is out of the question. Revenge, the editor hates; but an indelible stain is fastened on the community that tolerates such outrages.

"The city where life is not sacred all men will shun as they would avoid a plague. The city where crime is connived at, and the murderous ruffian sympathised with, and the public conscience darkened and deadened to silence; and the Press either gagged, or inciting to deeds of blood, is an Aceldama on God's earth. But God's eye seeth it, and the Most High regardeth it.

"As for the life of the Editor of the Saturday Review, that is in the hands of God. He can take it or preserve it, when the appointed mission is fulfilled. 'Living or dying, we are the Lord's.' Fighting the people's battle, in the leading thoroughfare of Dunedin, the Editor of the Saturday Review received a mortal wound that will follow him to his grave, from the head Inspector of Police. And the people is silent!!! But the stones from out of the walls shall yet cry out to Heaven for Justice, and shall upbraid the silent instigators of such murderous actions. Man's laws, as at Dunedin, may wink at crime; but God's laws, like the Eumenides, never sleep."

I think, after reading the foregoing, it will be admitted that every one who goes to Dunedin, should be careful not to venture out of doors without being well armed.

In the case of Morton, the Inspector of police, Grant brought an action before the resident magistrate, a

[Image of page 13]

Mr. Cheethim Strode (rather a suggestive name), who, not to belie his name, gave a very brilliant decision, and fined the chief Inspector one shilling.

It is hardly possible to stigmatise too strongly the degraded state of a community where all this could occur. Here we have a chief Inspector, who is appointed and paid to watch over the peace of the town, setting the worst example to the people, taking the law into his own hands, and either for a real or imaginary offence, attacking one of those he is paid for protecting, and inflicting what he considers a "slight tap;" but what Mr. Grant and his medical attendant describes as a "murderous blow." There can be no doubt that a severe assault was committed; and there can be as little doubt that an article in a paper, such as this one has been described, chiefly exposing the inefficiency of the police, and advocating their reduction, affords not the slightest palliation for so wanton an outrage. If Grant were giving any offence to Morton (in offering him his paper as alleged for sale), which he thought himself justified in noticing, it was his duty to give him in charge to another policeman, or to remove him quietly to the lock-up. But if Morton's conduct was a disgrace to his cloth, what shall be said of Strode's? His decision that "Morton's conduct was justifiable," is simply like most of his decisions, beyond, or, rather, beneath criticism. Apropos of Strode, I may mention that I was informed that the lawyers of the place were about to petition for his removal, on account of the absurd decisions he was daily in the habit of giving. 1

But to return to Morton--he remained in the full

[Image of page 14]

enjoyment of his inspectorship, neither the head of the police nor any of the authorities, taking any notice of his delinquency!

Such a case I fancy it would be difficult to find a a parallel to in any civilized community. Perhaps an account of Captain Henderson's case will show the lawlessness that prevailed in Dunedin, and the impossibility of obtaining justice there, especially against any of the old hands, or "the clique," (as they were called), better than anything else.

I must first, however, give the history of John Jones, the autocrat of Dunedin, and the principal actor in this affair; premising, that for reasons which can be easily guessed, it must be to some extent imperfect. Having heard Jones say on oath before the Dunedin Bench, that he was not a convict, and that "as far as he knew his father was not a convict," I made it my business to inquire into the matter, when in Sydney; for in Dunedin it was universally said and believed that he was the son of a convict; and I felt satisfied that if he were so, he must know it perfectly well. That he could be ignorant of it seemed utterly impossible.

In Sydney I found plenty of people who knew Jones well, and remembered his somewhat sudden disappearance on his failing in his slop-shop, while some of these had been over in New Zealand, and had identified him there. Of his father it was equally easy to obtain information, as a record is kept in the office of the superintendent of police, of all convicts who have arrived in the colony, stating their crimes, dates of arrival, and subsequent career.

The information furnished to me, and especially the

[Image of page 15]

depositions of John Phillips, a fellow waterman of the two Jones's, father and son, are very full. This Phillips obtained his licence as a waterman on the same day that Tom Jones the convict obtained his; and he says-- "I knew Tom Jones, the father of John Jones of Dunedin, well. He was an old transport or convict. He was for some time a policeman. He afterwards became a waterman, at the same time I did. Everyone knew he was an old transport, there was no concealment about it, and his son John, who pulled in the boat with him, knew it as well as the rest of us. Tom Jones' daughter, Bet, married Moore, the publican, and had no family by him, but" * * * * &c. &c.

"He (Jones), was the lowest lived wretch that ever lived. He used, whenever he quarrelled with any one" * * * * * * * here follows matter too revolting to publish, describing his peculiarly cowardly mode of attack by kicking. "He was too great a brute to speak about." With difficulty I obtained the remainder of the deposition from my informant, who said he was ashamed to speak even of what he knew. Of course I cannot stain these pages with a recital of the facts. Suffice it to say that old Jones is stated to have been guilty of, and brought up at the police court, for one of the most revolting and unnatural crimes that are known to fallen humanity; and that, even among the scourings of the British jails, collected at Botany Bay, he was pre-eminent.

The history of the members of his family, whether they kept crimping houses for sailors, or public houses, was also given.

With regard to John Jones of Dunedin, he is stated to have pulled an oar in his father's boat for many

[Image of page 16]

years, till a certain traffic carried on with the frigates "Warspite," "Rainbow," and "Volage," and another kind of traffic carried on with the merchantman "Larkins," put him in possession of some £700. He then opened a slop-shop, in which he failed, when he went to New Zealand rather suddenly, and never returned.

I am precluded from saying more, though the depositions do not end here. I was informed in Dunedin, that John Jones was quite the notorious bully of the place. Every one who offended him was immediately assaulted. Sometimes he got a thrashing, though generally, being of great strength, and accustomed to fighting, he inflicted serious injury. He had assaulted the magistrate, Mr. Harris, and the commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr. Cutten. He had assaulted his groom in the presence of a clergyman at Waikawaite, and been thrashed by him. Ditto as to Gally the blacksmith. He had assaulted Mr. Johnston, the tutor of his children, for wiping his mouth with the table-cloth at dinner, it is said, and been knocked down in return. This was the solitary instance in which redress was obtained, the assault costing Jones a thousand pounds; but this redress never could have been had in Dunedin. Mr. Johnston only obtained justice by carrying the case to Canterbury, the adjoining province. But it would be tedious to repeat the names of all the persons, captains of ships, labourers, clerks, &c., who have been mentioned to me, as having been assaulted by him. Their name is legion. Suffice it to say that the clerk who cleared my baggage at the wharf, told me he had frequently run away from Jones on the wharf, to escape his assaults, and the very first carter who brought me

* Which must be nameless.

[Image of page 17]

a load of wood, stated that he also had been assaulted by him. I shall only further mention one of the more recent cases. Jones's son Alfred (of whom more anon), having displeased him, was, I am informed, savagely attacked by his father, and narrowly escaped with his life, having been left with several of his ribs broken! 2

I will now pass on to Captain Henderson's case, as it has been fully reported to me, giving it for the most part in his own words. He unfortunately sailed from London in the ship "Chile," bound for Otago. And here I may pause to recommend any one proceeding to New Zealand, to avoid the ships sailing direct to Otago, on account of the very inferior class of passengers to be met with in them. It will be better always, to choose a vessel bound for Lyttleton, Canterbury, or, for Melbourne, in Australia, in which ports, steamers can be readily found plying to Otago.

In the 'Chile,' Captain Henderson says, I found the company in the saloon of a very inferior description; and the captain, though a very good-natured, obliging man, appeared to be quite unable to keep order among them.

Among the passengers was Alfred Jones, (who is mentioned above as having been recently assaulted by his father,) a young man of a most unpleasant, bloated, animaliscd countenance, addicted to drinking, and of thorough colonial manners.

The disturbances created in the saloon at night, by the orgies of this young man and his companions, reached such a pitch, that I and another gentleman,

[Image of page 18]

finding the Captain (Turnbull) unable or unwilling to put a stop to them, threatened him with legal proceedings, on landing. 3 In consequence of this, young Jones conceived a dislike to me, and endeavoured to annoy me as much as he thought he safely could; and at last, after sitting in the saloon nearly all night in company with one of his companions, a Mr. Logan, and making a great disturbance, he proceeded to jump on the deck over my cabin, to the great annoyance of my wife and child. He then, about daylight, entered the saloon quite drunk; threw coffee against the door and Venetians of my cabin, and shouted at the top of his voice, using the most disgusting and filthy language; when the Captain at last entered, and taking a bottle of brandy from him, hauled him by the collar to his cabin, and shut him in. For this he richly deserved a caning; I, however, knowing he was born in Sydney, hazarded the remark in his hearing, but addressed to another person, that it was a pity there were not cells in the ship to confine young convicts in. The cap fitted to a nicety, and he immediately put it on, asking me "if I referred to him;" upon which I threatened to horsewhip him if he spoke to me, whereupon he thought it advisable to sneak away quietly, without making any reply.

After this he remained crestfallen for the rest of the voyage, and peace and order were restored in the ship.

On arriving in Dunedin he informed his father that I had called him (Alfred Jones) "the son of a convict," a statement which was utterly untrue. The father then laid a plan to inveigle me into his office and assault me.

[Image of page 19]

For about a fortnight he failed to find a sufficiently private opportunity to effect his purpose. During this fortnight I constantly met him walking with his son Alfred, who could not have failed to point me out to him, but as on these occasions I was always walking with Mr. E. B. Cargill, he took care not to address me, or rather, I should say, to assault me, for that was his object, and not to obtain satisfaction.

During this fortnight also, I called at his office for a letter from England, which I heard had arrived, addressed to his care, as agent for the "Chile." He was not in; and on looking over the letters for the passengers, I found that it had been removed from among them. Mr. Ticehurst, one of our passengers, informed me, a day or two after, that Alfred Jones had told him, his father (old Jones) "was carrying about a letter for me in his pocket, in order to have an opportunity of giving me a bit of his mind." Happening, about a fortnight after our arrival, to have a note for Captain Turnbull of the "Chile," I left it at Jones's office. Jones was then sitting at his desk, with a clerk opposite him. I laid the note on the desk, and left the office to join Mr. E. B. Cargill, who was waiting some twenty or thirty yards off for me.

When I had gone a few paces, a clerk came after me to say that Mr. Jones wished to see me in the office, as he had a letter for me. Supposing this was the missing English letter, and forgetting the quarrel with Jones's son, and the character I had heard of him, as well as the threat conveyed by Alfred Jones to Mr. Ticehurst, and also being ignorant of the falsehood told by young Jones to his father, I returned to the

[Image of page 20]

office, quite unsuspectingly. As I entered, I met the clerks leaving the office, but this circumstance did not strike me at the time as of any import.

Having asked Jones if he had a letter for me, he took a letter from his desk, and said, (taking his tone I suppose from his usual style of associates,) "I am credibly informed the person this letter is for, is a cattle stealer, a swindler, and a bastard!"

There is some choice Botany Bay language, which only his antecedents could have supplied him with. This language was so extraordinary, and so ridiculous, as applied to me, that I thought he meant to say that the letter was for some other person.

However, on reflection, in case it should be meant for me, I said, "whoever told you, that, if he applied it to me, is a liar."

Meanwhile, Jones, instead of handing the letter across the desk to me, had been quietly walking round the end of the desk, holding the letter out, and, as I held my hand out for it, he suddenly dropped it, and struck me a shower of heavy blows on the head.

I was knocked down senseless, and on coming to myself, found I was on the floor in a reclining position against the wall, the cowardly ruffian pressing me down and showering blows on my head and face. By striking upwards, I drove him off, and regained my feet, and after exchanging some blows, attempted to leave the office, when he dragged me into it and knocked me down a second time. I, however, again drove him off, and on regaining my feet, I was enabled to defend myself with effect, having, in spite of his very great strength and noted pugilistic powers, in a few minutes

[Image of page 21]

given him, according to his own account and my observation, a black eye and a bloody nose.

I have little doubt, that notwithstanding my feeble state at the time, from long illness, and from having just come off a very protracted sea voyage, I should have punished the ruffian severely, without much detriment to myself, had I not been taken by surprise in the cunning and cowardly manner before mentioned, as, after recovering my senses, I was enabled to stop almost every blow he made, and succeeded in planting many on his ugly countenance.

On stepping outside the office, after we had by mutual consent separated, I, in a moment of exasperation, promised the ruffian a thrashing if he would come out of his den, which, however he declined to do; and I mention this solely because it was thought much against me to have done so (though I cannot perceive it); and I do not wish any part of the affair to be concealed.

At a little distance outside, I found Mr. E. B. Cargill waiting for me, and to him I related the events exactly as I have told them here. He accompanied me to the police station where I found a policeman, one Outram, before whom I laid a charge against Jones, of assault, and I added that I also charged him with robbery, in so far as that he had snapped my watch chain, and my seals remained in his office.

Outram refused to apprehend him, but went to his office and found my seals. Mr. Cargill then accompanied me to a lawyer's, to whom as well as to some seven or eight gentlemen, I the same evening, in Mr. C.'s presence related the particulars of the assault as above.

[Image of page 22]

Next morning, the resident magistrate being absent, Mr. Cargill took me to Mr. Gillies, the sheriff, in order to apply for a summons; and to him I related, on oath, the history of the assault, in the same manner as I had done the previous evening to Mr. Cargill and the others.

It was clearly Mr. Gillies' duty to have at once issued a summons, on my sworn testimony, that an aggravated assault had been committed. Instead of this, he proceeded to cross-question me, as if he had been Jones's advocate. He expressed great surprise that I had not struck Jones, on his using such foul language--and not only surprise, but I may say disappointment, returning again and again to the subject, and saying, "surely you would strike a man who used such language;" and on my reiterating that I was taken by surprise, and had no time to strike, even if inclined; and, further, that I did not know if the gross terms were applied to me, or if Jones meant to say the letter was for some other person of bad character, such as he described, Mr. Gillies put the strange question, "Might you not have struck Jones with your umbrella while falling?"

Considering this a supremely silly question, I merely replied, "How can I tell what happened when I was senseless."

The summons was then granted, and, as I was going out at the door, Mr. Gillies followed me, and said,

"Might you not have made some involuntary motion or start when Jones used the foul language?"

I replied carelessly, and thinking it possible I might have turned my head in a surprised manner, though on reflection I am certain I did not, "Perhaps I might."

[Image of page 23]

Gillies then smiled in a. very peculiar manner, and said, "Oh! I thought so."

This I solemnly declare to have been all that passed. Gillies's manner and conduct struck me as strange. He appeared to have already heard one version of the assault, and to be cross-examining me on Jones's behalf as if he were counsel for him on his trial. Especially I distrusted the look of intelligence and satisfaction he put on, whon he had extracted from me the careless because immaterial admission that I might have given a start on hearing such unusual and brutal language. My surprise at Gillies's conduct considerably diminished when I found, a few days after, that his son was Jones's standing attorney and counsel (as they style themselves there), and that father and son resided in the same house!

I should here mention that old Gillies, the sheriff, had been an attorney in the little town of Rothsay, in Bute, before emigrating; and that he practised for a considerable time in Dunedin, where the cases he took up were not always of the purest nature, as, for instance, when he pursued a Mr. Miller for wages said to be due for a couple of years to a helpless, friendless boy, whom, out of charity, he, Mr. M. had taken into his house, and brought up with his own children.

I personally found the sheriff to be a man of a coarse, forbidding aspect, with an oily, insinuating, yet self-sufficient manner, which impressed me with the idea of great--well, I will call it depth--but decidedly, not depth of intellect. I did not think that either "Esto quod esse videris," or "animo non astutia," would do for his motto.

The next move in Jones's game was my being served

[Image of page 24]

by him (of course through Gillies's son) with a cross summons for assault. This was served several days after I had obtained the summons against him, and only the night before the case was to be heard! Meanwhile, he had secured the attendance of a considerable number of his creatures on the Bench. On the day of trial, having sworn to the facts of the case, as I have previously stated them, I called Mr. E. B. Cargill, who proved my going to Jones's office to leave a letter, my coming out of the office with marks of an assault on my person, and my proceeding at once to the police station, and charging Jones with the assault.

Policeman Outram proved my charging Jones with assault, and also his finding my watch seals in his office.

Mills, a clerk in Jones's office, proved having called me into the office by Jones's orders, and William Johnstone, another clerk, proved that he and the other clerks had received orders, some days previously, from Jones, to leave the office, "at any time when Captain Henderson might come in!" Finally, Jones himself admitted having given that order. He further admitted having abstracted my letter from among the others, and used it as a decoy, to obtain an opportunity of seeing me in private. He also admitted having used the foul language imputed to him, "for the purpose of creating a row, and in the expectation that it would lead to a breach of the peace." He further admitted that, after having a scuffle with me, he dragged me back into the office when 1 was leaving it, and half out of it, and renewed the fight.

After this evidence, the bench decided on hearing Jones's counter summons before giving their decision.

[Image of page 25]

Jones now swore that on using the foul language, I made a blow at him with my umbrella, 4 but missed him, whereupon he struck me; he also brought his son Alfred to swear that I had called him the "son of a convict," a month or two previously--a statement not only untrue, but irrelevant to the inquiry; and damaging to himself, as showing he entertained a feeling of anger and revenge against me.

During the hearing of both cases, Gillies, (whose son appeared for Jones, in conjunction with Howarth, the provincial solicitor) cross-examined me, took notes, and altogether acted as if he were there to assist Jones. 5

The bench having heard both cases, decided that there was "no evidence to show who committed the first assault," and bound us both over to keep the peace for six months--Jones in fifteen hundred pounds, and myself in one hundred and fifty; pretty plainly showing how much confidence they had in Jones's peaceable habits.

The majority, which came to this decision, consisted of Messrs. Gillies, McAndrew, Young, Lloyd, Hogue, Strode, and a "Captain" Fraser. Of Gillies I need say nothing at present. McAndrew, whose face must have been of "triple brass" to sit on the bench, was Superintendent of the Province, and he was at the time under suspension, on a charge of embezzling some sixty thousand pounds of the public money, for which he was shortly after dismissed. He had also had many transactions with Jones.

Young was a storekeeper and auctioneer, who had also much to do with Jones. On the night of the

[Image of page 26]

assault he expressed to me his disgust at the constant ruffianism of Jones, in committing assaults. He had, however, been fined for committing an assault himself, in the streets of Dunedin.

Lloyd and Hogue were two farmers from the country -- both, I was informed, deeply indebted to Jones. Strode was a magistrate, whose decisions, I have previously mentioned, gave general dissatisfaction. With his connection with Jones I am not so well acquainted; but there was not one of the residents in Dunedin who was not more or less connected with him, or in his power.

Captain Fraser, like Young, had, previous to the trial, expressed to me his disgust at Jones's conduct. He was a client of Jones's, who supplied him with stores, gave him advances, and shipped his wool-- though of course I hope he was not influenced by that. So much for the majority.

The minority, one of whom, Mr. Cutten, gave a decision, (adhered to by all the others, except Mr. Harris, who merely found Jones guilty,) to the effect that Jones had been proved guilty of a deliberate and aggravated assault; that he had admitted committing a second assault by dragging me back into the office when I had left it, and that he should be committed for trial before the Supreme Court; the minority, I repeat, consisted of Messrs. Harris, Cutten, Kettle, Reynolds, and Dr. Purdie.

"Mr. Harris was the Resident Magistrate accustomed to try cases every day, educated as a lawyer, and of independent property. Mr. Cutten was Commissioner of Waste Lands, an University man, and totally independent of Jones. Mr, Kettle was a surveyor, a man

[Image of page 27]

of education and property, though he had had dealings with Jones, which I shall afterwards explain. Mr. Reynolds was a merchant, bearing a high character and independent of the ex-whaler, waterman, and slop-seller -- autocrat of Dunedin. Lastly Dr. Purdie, formerly in the Navy, and a practitioner in Edinburgh was one of the most highly respected and oldest inhabitants of Dunedin.

It is almost needless to point out that on the side of the minority lay all the character, experience, and, education, whether general or professional, of the bench. I may also add, that, there lay also all the probability of impartiality, between an utter stranger and the wealthiest and best known man in the place.

It is equally needless, I presume, to point out to the general reader, that with such a termination to so aggravated an assault, planned with all the cunning and deliberation of an Italian assassin, and so fully proved and to a great extent admitted, such as the reason for revenge, the opportunity long waited for, and at last made, the coast carefully cleared of all witnesses, &c. I say it is needless to point out, that in Dunedin, justice is practically unattainable. The bench knew as well as I did, that the cross-summons, obtained days after the assault and the issuing of the first summons, is the transparent ruse of the guilty party who finds no other way out of his dilemma but counter swearing; a proceeding that experienced magistrates have declared, deserves no credit. Immediately after the hearing, some of the most respectable of the inhabitants waited on me and expressed their disgust at the proceedings of the Bench.

No wonder, that after there was an influx of Victorians, one should see in the papers of Australia, senti-

[Image of page 28]

ments like the following from the Newcastle Chronicle, of March 5th, 1862, and originally from the Geelong Chronicle, regarding the original inhabitants, or "old identity," as they are now called.

"The old inhabitants here are a strange race, and it is quite time they were smothered by the new arrivals, They are for the most part, cringing, mean, and selfish, to the last degree. The Victorians and others are fast elbowing and snubbing them into that retirement which their sentiments and habits particularly qualify them for; out of sight and mind they are very inoffensive, like the pigs on a model farm."

The fact is, they were the lowest and most selfish specimens of the genus "money grubber," and "golden calf worshipper."

I said that Mr. Kettle had had some transactions with Jones. The latter had a mortgage for five hundred pounds over Mr. Kettle's house. This Jones immediately foreclosed by way of inflicting punishment on Mr. Kettle for having dared to respect his oath, and give a just decision.

Mr. Kettle, however, knew his man, and had expected this, and, fortunately, was able to tender a cheque for the amount; whereupon Jones gratified his spite by refusing the cheque as not being a legal tender, and compelled Mr. Kettle to procure and hand to him the whole in sovereigns!

People in the old world will hardly believe in all these despicable doings. They were, however, well known in Dunedin; moreover, I had the facts direct from Mr. Kettle himself.

Soon after the decision of the packed bench, I applied to Mr. Howarth, as Provincial Solicitor and pub-

[Image of page 29]

lie prosecutor, to prosecute Jones for the assault. He declined, and wrote me a foolish rigmarole letter (on what ground I know not) about his rank, a commodity I should not think a petty attorney like him possessed much of.

As he was one of Jones's lawyers at the trial, and, moreover, was stone blind, I never expected much good to arise from any application to him; his legal,or equitable, and physical vision being on a par.

Soon after I made an attempt to obtain redress from the Supreme Court. Here, again, however, Jones's fistical and pecuniary influence met me at every turn. Several of the lawyers were engaged by him, and not one of the others had the courage to take up my case. Every one to whom I applied refused on one plea or other. One of them plainly said it would injure his business.

Under these circumstances I addressed myself to the judge, Mr. Gresson, who, seeing the hardship of the case, directed the registrar of the Supreme Court to prepare a form of indictment against Jones for assault. The grand jury was composed chiefly of men under Jones' influence, and he himself, though he can hardly write his own name, was a member of it until he was struck out in consequence of being indicted before it!

Worst of all, however, the foreman of this grand jury was the same Mr. Young, the auctioneer, who sat on the Bench when the case was heard and voted with the majority. 6

[Image of page 30]

The first step he took was to come into court and object to Mr. E. B. Cargill as a grand juror, because he was a witness in the case. As they were not going to try the case, the objection was not legally valid. Mr. E. B. Cargill, was, however, too honest a man for their purpose, and he was accordingly struck off. His (Mr. Young's) next step was to harangue me, on entering to give my evidence, and to say that he had "formed his opinion long ago, and he saw no cause to alter it!"

His third and last step was to come into court, after hearing the evidence I brought forward, and to ask the judge if he might call witnesses for the defence, particularly mentioning old Gillies, the sheriff, as one he required! This sapient storekeeper (shopkeeper we should call him at home, but in the colonies they assume high titles), though he had been on many juries, then learned for the first time what his duties were; the judge telling him that the grand jury was there not to try the case, but to see whether a prima facie case could be made out, or any probable case, deserving of being inquired into by a jury.

Baffled in this, they then, to the eternal disgrace of the majority (for even in that sink of iniquity they could not get a unanimous jury) simply threw out the bill; and it should be noted that they did this, not only in the face of the evidence which was laid before the bench, but of that of additional witnesses, one of whom, David Brunton, swore that, passing the office, the evening of the assault, he looked in at the window, and saw Jones striking some one on the floor, and that, on entering the store, he found the clerks assembled there, confused, and conscious-looking, and refusing to tell him what was going on!

[Image of page 31]

Mr. Duncan, the Provincial Solicitor of Canterbury, had arrived shortly before on business; and he, as a stranger, not having the fear or favour of the ex-waterman before his eyes, had, at the last moment, undertaken to manage my case.

Leaving Dunedin soon after this, I saw Mr. Duncan at Canterbury, and was informed by him that Gillies, the lawyer, had told him that the reason the Bench and Grand Jury both refused me redress was because his father, the sheriff, had stated privately to the Bench that I, on applying for a summons against Jones, admitted I had first struck Jones with my umbrella!

There being no doubt about the authority on which I had this, I immediately wrote to Gillies, denying emphatically the truth of his statement, pointing out his disgraceful conduct in not making such statement (if he believed it) publicly at the hearing before the Bench, instead of privately, then or afterwards; and assuring him that if he did not at once retract the statement, I should "brand him throughout New Zealand as guilty of an infamous falsehood, whereby he had caused justice to be perverted, and the Bench and Grand Jury to become a bye-word among the people."

To this I received a reply in which, after a few quotations from scripture, and some puritanical cant about forgiveness, (Mr. Gillies is an elder of the Kirk--and, like "Holy Willie" loves a text as well as a glass of whiskey) he says, "I know not, nor do I wish to know, who is your informant" --I had told him distinctly it was his son, through Mr. Duncan; "but this I know, that he must be mistaken; for, previous to your case coming before the Grand Jury, I never had any con-

[Image of page 32]

versation whatever with any one of the jury, on the subject of your case?"

This was a denial of the truth of his son's statement; yet we shall see that the denial was a falsehood; that it was also in more than one respect a cunning quibble, devised to deceive me, and throw me off the scent. To prove this, I have only to mention that he afterwards, in the Supreme Court, swore that I admitted to him that I first struck at Jones with my umbrella!

What will be thought of a Jesuit in the shape of an ELDER and a magistrate, denying he had said I admitted striking Jones, but carefully hiding that he had said I admitted striking at him? What, too, will be thought of the same elder and magistrate denying he had spoken of my case to any of the Grand Jury-- (a thing he had never been accused of,) but refraining from alluding to what he had said to the Bench or general public, and yet, after all this, coming forward and swearing that he had told the Bench privately that I had admitted striking at Jones first with my umbrella?

Even his denial with regard to the Grand Jury, he thus proves to be a falsehood--for Mr. Young most unjustly was a member, both of the grand jury and the Bench; how then could Gillies, who swore he spoke to the members of the Bench of the statement complained of, "never have had conversation whatever with any one of the jury on the subject of your (my) case?"

What too will be thought of his keeping silence on the Bench, when he heard me deny on oath that I either struck at, or struck Jones first? So this is the way an upright magistrate acts when he hears a witness perjure himself, (as he pretends to believe), to hold his peace and let it pass, and then quietly stab him in the

[Image of page 33]

dark, in the private room to which the Bench retired to consult? Will the most ignorant not see that an honest man would have gone into the witness box and given his evidence? But he dared not make the false statement publicly at that time. Indeed it is a moot point whether he did make that statement to the Bench as he had sworn he did. None of the magistrates recollect it. They recollect his haranguing them for half an hour in Jones's behalf, and Mr. Harris remembers his having said that my evidence before the Bench did not agree in all particulars with that given before him. That too is false. The evidence perfectly agreed --and I will show from his own letter, what he referred to. In the same letter of denial he says, "I attended the court under a strong impression that the case should be sent for trial to a jury, &c., &c., but I became certain no jury would convict Mr. Jones on such evidence," &c., &c. 7 He then goes on to say, "that I, on obtaining the summons had stated that I struck and bled Jones in self-defence, but before the Bench I omitted to allude to the bleeding, till examined by him, Gillies! This then was the dreadful discrepancy alleged, in my evidence, and not anything regarding my alleged admission of having struck at Jones.

The statement of Gillies, that I ever made such an admission, I solemnly declare to be an infamous and unmitigated falsehood, without the very smallest foundation to rest upon; and I now proceed to the last act

[Image of page 34]

in this drama, which might be entitled "All for Gold, or the (next) World well lost."

Although I had been denied even an inquiry or a hearing, by a grand jury of Dunedin shopkeepers, notwithstanding that I had sworn to the assault, and had been supported by the evidence of Messrs. Cargill, Brunton, Johnston, &c., still it was open to me to bring an action against the cowardly, ruffianly, and assassin-like assaulter, provided I could, at a future period, find a lawyer courageous enough to take up the case; for though I could have conducted the case myself in court, I could hardly have gone through all those preliminary forms, which seem invented merely for the benefit of lawyers.

Such a lawyer I found, a considerable time afterwards in Mr. J. Smith, and as the same current of immigration from Victoria, caused by the gold-fields, which had brought him over, had also effected a considerable infusion of new blood into the diseased and unwholesome body of Dunedin, I had some hope that the ex-bargee's influence would be no longer paramount. I accordingly brought a civil action against him, in the Supreme Court.

Having sworn to the assault as above described, Mr. E. B. Cargill proved his recommending me to leave a letter for Captain Turnbull, at Jones's office, his waiting a considerable time for me, and his finding me on my coming out, with marks of a severe encounter on my person; his accompanying me at once to the police station, and afterwards to a lawyer's, at both of which places I described the assault, as mentioned above.

Police-constable Outram, who gave his evidence evidently in Jones's favour, proved my charging Jones

[Image of page 35]

with the assault, and calling on him to apprehend him. He also most unnecessarily swore to two false statements, both of which Mr. E. B. Cargill and I contradicted on oath. One was that Mr. Cargill was not with me at the police-station; the other, that I was so excited, that he ordered me out of the police-station, a statement without the shadow of foundation, and one very unlikely to be true, however insolent a policeman the fellow might have been.

David Brunton corroborated my evidence to a great extent. He swore that on the evening of the assault when passing Jones's office he looked in at the window, and saw Jones "pounding some one on the ground," and that he soon after saw me come out of the office bleeding and much marked. He further deposed that he went into the store while the "pounding" was going on, and found the clerks assembled there, looking conscious and mysterious, and that when he asked them what was going on in the office, they pretended not to know, though he saw by their manner that they did.

William Johnston was called to prove as he had done before the Bench, that Jones ordered him and the other clerks to leave the office at any time that I might enter it, but the miserable creature did not answer to his subpoena. No doubt he was bribed by some one to stay away. Though I did not see him when I called, (his wife not knowing me, and informing me that he had gone to see Mr. McLean of the Bank of New Zealand, an intimate friend of Jones,) yet he was duly subpoenaed by my lawyer; there can, therefore, be no doubt as to the cause of his absence.

His evidence was material, and my lawyer should

[Image of page 36]

have stopped the case till he could be brought up under a warrant.

Mr. Cutten, however, was called, and swore to hearing Jones admit to the Bench that he ordered his clerks to keep out of the way purposely, whenever I went to his office.

Mr. Harris seemed anxious to avoid going against anybody, and remembered very little.

The minutes of evidence before the Bench had unfortunately been taken down by an utterly incompetent person, as was seen at the time, and were quite useless, not half having been entered. Jones took advantage of this to deny all his former sworn admissions. Jones then, in his defence deposed that he had kept back a letter for me in order to have an opportunity of demanding an apology for what I had said to his son on board ship, that though he had met me frequently, walking with Mr. Cargill, while he (Jones) was with his son, yet he did not know me by sight, and his son did not point me out; but seeing me pass his office window the day he "attacked" me, (that was the expression he twice used, "the day I attacked him") he thought from my chains and fine dress that it might be me, and sent a clerk after me to call me in, (I may here observe, that I was dressed in a very rough suit of tweed). He then went on to give an account of a long speech he said he made to me, stating what he had heard from his son and other passengers of the "Chile," apologising and expressing great regret for keeping back my letter; assuring me he was not a convict, nor his son the son of a convict, but that he was an Australian; pointing out that if I had complained of his son to him he would have corrected him; and winding up by "repeatedly

[Image of page 37]

asking me for an apology." According to his statement he must have spent ten minutes at least, in endeavouring to persuade me that an apology was due. He then went on to swear that I refused an apology, whereupon he used the foul language I have imputed to him. All this time, he says, he was seated at his desk. I then, be asserts, made a blow at him with my umbrella but missed him, and then "slewed round and struck him on the nose with my fist." 8 He then said, "two can play at this game, and we had a stand up fight." He then says, "I never struck him whilst he was down, in fact, he was never off his legs. I could not strike a man when he was down," (laughter in the court). He then made the most extraordinary statement of all. He said, "I never used any influence with any of the magistrates; in fact they decided against me. I have never spoken to any of the magistrates that were in my favour, since the case was heard; and those that were against me are all indebted to me since, for their prosperity this day!!"

In commenting on the foregoing evidence, I have to observe that even in the most trivial portions there is not one word of truth.

For instance, I did not pass his window, and could not have done so going from the post office, where I left Mr. Cargill, to Jones's office door, or returning. Again, I was dressed in a rough tweed suit, such as every one in Dunedin wore, and with one plain Albert chain attached to my watch. Jones could, therefore, neither having seen me pass his window, nor have suspected me from my dress to be, as Judge Chapman elegantly (he is a Victorian lawyer) phrased it, "a new

[Image of page 38]

chum." These are simply parts of the lengthened and utterly false story he invented.

His long explanation, apology, and repeated request for an apology, conveyed in terms which would lead us to believe him to be a perfect Chesterfield, will hardly be believed by the Dunedin community, who know him to be a passionate man, given to violent language, and more notorious for committing assaults on the slightest provocation, than any man in the colonies, and I should say, in England and the colonies put together. Next, I presume, no one will believe him when he says that notwithstanding my making a blow at him and missing him, he sat still and quietly took a blow from my fist on the nose. Then his story about my "slewing round" is evidently false, as there could be no need to turn. Then it seems he "could not strike a man when he is down," at which there was great laughter in the court. Probably the laughers had heard the same story I had, for which, however, I do not vouch, but it is commonly received, of his going behind a man and striking him so severe a blow behind the ear, that he lost his reason and never recovered it again. Or, perhaps, they had heard the story of the men seduced to go into the bush and look at a bit of fencing. They, perhaps, also remembered the evidence of David Burton, a perfectly respectable witness, who swore to seeing him, (Jones) "pounding some person on the ground," "his head and arms bobbing up and down with the exertion."

Lastly, Mr. Jones says he has never spoken to any of the magistrates who decided in his favour since the case was heard; but all those who decided against him owe their prosperity to him. What a curious fact--so

[Image of page 39]

opposite to all analogy in human nature. Jones evidently remembers the injunction to love his enemies, but he carries out the idea in his own original manner, and hates his friends.

Imagine how such Christian charity must vex the ghost of his worthy father, once celebrated for his assaults on his enemies, and for kicking them in * * * * * *, and now hovering over the felon's haunts in Botany Bay.

How ashamed and surprised must Messrs. Harris and Cutten (then in court) have felt, to have their eyes opened to the fact that their prosperity was due to John Jones, no longer a bully and an assaulter, but the helper of the needy, especially if they have been adverse to him.

How Mr. Kettle, shrewd and honourable man as he was, would have wondered, had he lived, to learn that the first step in his prosperity was Jones's calling up the money lent on mortgage of his house and refusing everything but gold.

What a mistake to think this a piece of malignant, Botany Bay spite, while it was all the time the first kind help on the road to fortune tendered by this "mildest mannered man that ever cut a throat."

One omission must be corrected. Jones was asked if he were not a notorious assaulter, and constantly up at the Police Office for assault, when he replied, "I may have been up at the Police Office once or twice for assault, but not more frequently." The amount of truth in the "may have been," and in the "once or twice," and "not more frequently," could be estimated to a fraction by every one in court or in Dunedin.

So also could be estimated the likelihood of Alfred

[Image of page 40]

Jones, in company with his father, constantly meeting me, yet never pointing out to his father the man who he said had called him the son of a convict. And if Jones lied in all these particulars, the just inference is that he lied as to the assault.

John Gillies, ex-Sheriff (he had resigned the sheriff-ship lately, though whether on account of the gross mistakes he was constantly making, or of my having reported him for falsehood and disgraceful conduct to the Governor and the Duke of Newcastle, I cannot tell), was then called for the defence and sworn. His evidence was as follows:--

"I distinctly swear that Captain Henderson told me he struck at Jones with his umbrella. As a magistrate I knew that legally that was an assault, as much as if a blow had been struck. I granted the summons nevertheless, and I sat upon the bench during the case.

I don't feel that it was my duty to inform the court then that Captain Henderson had admitted being the aggressor, but I did, during the investigation, put questions to draw forth the facts, which is all I considered it to be my duty to do! I do not remember having written or said anything contrary to what I have now said. I remember receiving a letter from Captain Henderson;

I have not that letter, nor could I remember that Captain Henderson wrote that if I had said he admitted first striking a blow with his umbrella, I had stated what was not the fact. I never wrote to Captain Henderson denying that I had said he had made such an admission. The letter you have handed to me is my reply. I have written in it, 'I know not, nor do I wish to know, who is your informant, but this I know, that he must be mistaken.' I do not remember what

[Image of page 41]

that refers to. I do not remember that it was in answer to a letter from Captain Henderson threatening to brand me as a liar, if I did not retract the statement I had made. I do not admit that there is in my reply any evasive answer to a direct question put in Captain Henderson's letter. I do not know whether it was my duty, while on the bench, to state what Captain Henderson had said to me when he took out the summons. I did not express my opinion to the Bench till they had retired to consider the case. I did not mention what I had heard until the magistrates had retired.

The judge; "And you did not give evidence on oath?"

"No, sir."

So we see this worthy elder of the kirk granted a summons for assault to a man who, he says, admitted being the assaulter. He, also, does not know that when he, sitting on the Bench, hears what he must consider to be a perjury (and he says he heard me deny ever striking at Jones) it is his duty as a magistrate to take any notice of it.

Further--he received a letter threatening to brand him as a liar--and he cannot remember at all what the letter was about!

He answers that letter and denies having made the statement for which he is threatened with exposure; but again his memory is at fault. He does not remember--nay, he denies ever giving the foresaid denial. His letter is then put in his hands, and he is compelled to read out his formal denial; and when asked to what it refers, "Non me recordo," is still the reply.

Wonderful memory! It retains for a much longer period the admission he says I made, which had no

[Image of page 42]

connection with him, but entirely forgets more recent letters, threatening him with exposure, and the meaning of the replies, written with his own hand! Driven into a corner, the elder at bay, does not -admit there is anything evasive in his reply to a direct question put by me--not seeing--poor man--that it is either evasive, or a distinct non-evasive denial. Finally, this fine specimen of an elder and magistrate reiterates that he does not know whether or not it was his duty while on the Bench, to notice what he considers false statements, made on oath by a witness, rather than give the witness a stab in the dark by privately accusing him to the magistrates of perjury.

Such a tissue of evasion, quibble, prevarication, and falsehood as this old man's evidence, it never fell to my lot before to hear.

Of course I cannot take upon myself to assert that he deliberately perjured himself to support Jones. 9 It is his business, and not mine, to account for his conduct; but I feel certain no just person who considers his evidence impartially, will believe him worthy of credit in anyone particular; and I am equally convinced that it will not be believed, that out of all the many persons to whom I recounted the particulars of the assault, (from Mr. Cargill and the constable within a few seconds of the occurrence, to the hosts of indifferent people during many months residence in Dunedin) I should have given to Mr. Gillies alone an account diametrically opposite to that given to all the others.

Mr. Harris, the resident magistrate, had given Jones

[Image of page 43]

a certificate that the case, when brought before the Bench, had been dismissed. This was obtained and put in, in order to stop all proceedings; the judge, however, considered that the case had not been dismissed; the Bench having said merely that there was no evidence to prove who committed the assault.

The judge (Mr. Chapman) 10 now proceeded to sum up, and, I must say, handled the subject in a very strange manner, scarcely noticing any of the strong points of the case. He never once referred to the deliberate inveigling into his office, by the defendant, of the person to whom he confessed he had an animosity; to the admissions by Jones of his outrageous and beastly language; to the evidence of Cargill, Brunton, &c.; or to that of Mr. Cutten, to the effect that he had heard Jones admit his having cleared the office of all the clerks, on purpose to see me in private. He did not allude to Jones's keeping back my letter for a fortnight; to his not addressing me on any of the many occasions when he met me in Mr. Cargill's company, nor to his twice on that day, before the judge and jury, having spoken of the day on which he "attacked" me. He made no allusion to Jones's never applying for a summons for assault till several clays after he had himself been summoned, and only the night before the hearing of the case, when, of course, there had been ample time to concoct a story with his lawyer, Mr. Gillies' son! He, however, made the extraordinary statement (extraor-

[Image of page 44]

dinary after Jones's admissions that he had been up once or twice for assault, and that he had a spite against me, &c.) that there was "about an equal antecedent improbability that either of the parties would commit an assault within a minute or two of their first meeting." He also made the still more extraordinary speech--that "from the nature of the case, it was impossible to get evidence to decide whether the defendant was justified in putting the plaintiff to the question, and if he did not get a satisfactory answer, in committing an assault or giving provocation."

This seems new law for an English judge to lay down,--that the assault may have been justified, because a question was not answered! He further laid it down, that if the plaintiff made a gesture with his umbrella, as described by Gillies, the defendant had a right to assault the plaintiff, and he did not consider any gross excess had been committed; and he threw in a remark in Jones's favour, quite irrelevant to the case, and contradicted by all Jones's antecedents, and his admissions on the trial, and in itself a mere vulgar error--that men of "gigantic strength," as Jones was described to be, were generally very good-natured. The only remark really to the point, and bearing on the evidence, was what he said of Gillies. This man had made such a pitiable spectacle of himself in the witness box, that the judge could not possibly avoid adverting to it.

He accordingly told the jury they were not to think anything of what Gillies' conduct actually was, as a magistrate; but they would rightly think a great deal of it, as a test of his veracity, as to the umbrella." If they did not believe him, then the question was left to be decided upon the bare evidence of the plaintiff

[Image of page 45]

and the defendant. There he (the judge) could not help them."

Indeed! then all the preparation and delay, the cunning device to entrap, the orders to the clerks to leave in order to insure secresy, the immediate accusation and evidence by the plaintiff, the threats, the admitted cause of animosity, and admitted foul language of the defendant, go for nothing. It was evident that the judge, like everyone else, disbelieved Gillies--there remained, therefore, all the above corroborative circumstances in my favour, and on Jones's part nothing but his own word--the word of a notorious assaulter. Yet Mr. Justice Chapman, after as much as telling the jury not to believe Gillies, says that beside him, there is no evidence on either side.

The moment the jury retired, Mr. E. B. Cargill approached my lawyer, and said, "Why did you not recall me to contradict Gillies? I was with Captain Henderson when he got the summons, and he never said a word that could give Gillies the shadow of an excuse for saying what he has."

I afterwards said to Mr. Cargill, "I did not see you--I thought you had left the court, and I sent to your office for you. Why did you not come forward sooner."

To this he made some unintelligible reply about not knowing if it was right to interfere; and I never could understand his reason for so acting. As for myself, not supposing for a moment that Gillies would have the unparalleled effrontery to come forward and swear, as he did, after having denied his statement in writing, I had made no preparation to confute the falsehood.

[Image of page 46]

The jury having retired, consulted for half-an-hour, when they found a verdict for the defendant.

It thus appeared that, notwithstanding the influx of Victorians, the old element and old influences had not yet been overcome.

The jury further stultified themselves, adding a rider to the verdict, in the vain hope of clearing Mr. Gillies, at least in his magisterial capacity. They said:--

"We beg to say that we don't believe that any of the magistrates who tried the case kept any thing back that ought to have been brought before the public!"

That is to say, they think Gillies quite right in sitting on the Bench, and hearing a witness, as he believes, give false evidence, without taking any notice of it; and they think him right, after this, in quietly stabbing such witness in the dark, and overthrowing his case by a secret accusation.

I hope the good character given to Mr. Gillies by the jury will do him much good. One thing, however, is certain, the judge, and the community at large, do not agree with them. For my part, the thing is such a piece of stupidity, that I should only have looked for it, at the hands of that other jury that had Mr. Young for its foreman, and not from one with Mr. Alderson, (who is, I believe, a Victorian,) at its head. I learned afterwards that four members of the jury were inclined to stand out against the verdict, but being only one fourth of the jury, they were compelled to give way.

Notwithstanding this verdict, I do not hesitate to say, that, taking into consideration Jones's deliberate plot to inveigle me into his office, had I been killed, (and men often are killed by less violent assaults),

[Image of page 47]

nothing would have saved Jones from being hanged for the assassination, at least, in any other place than Dunedin.

I had no sooner left the court, than strangers on all hands accosted me, and said they were sorry to see justice could not be got.

And so ends the farce of attempting to obtain justice in Dunedin. There is some satisfaction in thinking that it is to some extent obtained at last against all villany, when the case becomes known to the better portion of the public.