Page:ChroniclesofEarlyMelbournevol.1.pdf/423

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
THE CHRONICLES OF EARLY MELBOURNE.
383

As a postscript, it may be stated that the Argus turned upon the presiding Judge, and libelled him yvith such pertinacity that a rule to attach Kerr yvas granted in December, upon the 13th of yvhich month judgment yvas given on the arguments, making the order absolute, though suspending the warrant of commitment, which was never enforced. O n the same morning the Herald published an article yvith the intent to prejudice the decision; and upon Kerr bringing this act of contempt under the notice of the Judge, His Honor declared if it had happened during Sittings in Term, he should certainly have directed proceedings to be taken against the party so offending.

Charging a Government Officer with Bribery and Corruption.—8th November, 1848.

St. John v. Fawkner.

The issue of this case was awaited yvith extreme interest amongst all classes ot the community—both on account of the nature of the accusations, which were not only topics of toyvn talk, but c o m m o n belief in every place of public resort, and the relative positions of the parties to the suit. T h e complainant was Major St. John, once Police Magistrate of Melbourne, and now the Commissioner of Crown Landsforthe district of Bourke, and a member of the City Licensing Bench; whilst the defendant was Mr. John Pascoe Fayvkner, one ofthe oldest inhabitants, and about the best known individual in Port Phillip. T h e action, oneforlibel, arose out of the proceedings at a public meeting, held to petition the Queen for the removal of Mr. Latrobe from the Superintendency, at yvhich the defendant openly accused His Honor of conniving at the misfeasances of a certain Government official, w h o m he subsequently designated in writing as the plaintiff, and preferred half-a-dozen charges against him in a letter transmitted to the Superintendent, as yvell as published in some of the newspapers. The plaintiff now sought to vindicate his character before a Judge and Special Jury.

Mr. Barry, with Mr. Stayvell, was Counsel for the plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by Mr. Williams.

The pleadings yvere very voluminous; the declaration contained tyvo counts, i.e., (1) setting forth that defendant had in certain libellous publications falsely and maliciously accused the plaintiff of having committed divers acts of bribery and corruption in the performance of his duties as a Commissioner for the granting and the transfer of licenses for the occupation of Croyvn Lands; and (2) That the defendant had made similar charges against the plaintiff of malversation in his capacity of Licensing Magistrate for the City and District of Melbourne.

T o each count of the declaration the defendant put in several pleas of justification. H e admitted the authorship of the publication complained of, and set out the grounds upon which, in each case, he was prepared to justify.

The pleadings yvere opened by Mr. Stawell, and Mr. Barry stated the case in a very forcible and eloquent style, and asserting that, in the whole history of libel, there never was one so bad, so false, and so malignant as the one noyv before the Court. T o his mind the libeller was the leper of society, and such practices were calculated to sully the British name. As for the defence set up, it yvas a most impudent aggravation ofthe original offence. H e pronounced three ofthe principal pleas "as false as Hell," and the remainder were of the most frivolous description. The plaintiff was not a m a n of yvealth and possessions ; and having to maintain a large family, relied upon the appointment he held under the Government to enable him to keep the position in society he was entitled to ; and if permanently deprived of them by the foul slanders of the defendant, he yvould be irretrievably ruined. T h e defendant, on the other hand was childless, a person of m u c h wealth, and not distracted by the cares of public employments. T h e case was most unmistakably one which called for exemplary damages, for which the defendant looked with confidence to the jury as a means of replacing him in the estimation of the Executive—of clearing his character from false and malicious accusations, so that he might go back to his family with his peace of mind restored, and meet the public yvith his name unblemished.