FLASHES
The Dunedin Star is threatened with a libel action, damages £1000, by an architect named J. W. Robinson, for alleged improper comment on his architectural drawings now in the Christchurch Exhibition. -Wanganui Herald, 28/12/1883.
A THREATENED LIBEL ACTION.
[Special to the "Star."]
DUNEDIN, Dec. 18,
It is rumored that the Dunedin Star is threatened with a libel action at the instance of an architect named Robinson, whose extraordinary drawings exhibited in the Christchurch exhibition formed the subject of adverse comment. The individual claims the modest solatium of £10.000, but as yet no writ has been served, nor is it likely to be. -Star, 18/12/1886.
IMPORTANT LIBEL ACTION.
The Dunedin "Evening Star" is stated to have been served with a writ claiming £500 damages on account of some strictures passed some year or two ago in connection with the man Robinson, an architect, who appeared in court on one or two occasions on complaints of annoying women. -Tuapeka Times, 2/2/1887.
TELEGRAMS
DUNEDIN, February 2.
A writ for libel was served to-day on the Star for £5000 damages by Robinson, formerly architect here. -Hawera & Normanby Star, 2/2/1887.
LIBEL ACTION.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES.
Sir, —As plaintiff in the action Robinson v. Dunedin Evening Star, I wish to correct an error in a Press Association telegram published by you yesterday. The damages which I claim are L50,000, not L5000 as stated.—I am, &c.,
W. J. W. Robinson, Architect. Feb. 2. -NZ Times, 3/2/1887.
The current value of L50,000, according to the NZ Reserve Bank online inflation calculator, is $10,201,752 and 82c.
It will interest many of our readers, says the 'Evening Post,' to learn that the plaintiff in the action for libel which was mentioned in a telegram published yesterday as having been instituted against the proprietors of the Dunedin 'Evening Star' is Mr W. J. W. Robinson, who has been carrying on the business of an architect in Wellington for some months past. We understand that the claim for damages is based upon the publication, during the plaintiff's residence in Dunedin, of a series of paragraphs which are considered to have held him up to ridicule, in connection with cases in the local Courts to which he was a party, and also upon the publication of a number of letters which he regards as reflecting upon his character. Mr Devine is acting as solicitor for the plaintiff and the case has been set down for hearing at the civil sittings of the Supreme Court, to be held at Dunedin in April. We are requested, by Mr Robinson to mention that the sum which he claims as reparation for the damage which he feels he has sustained is £50,000, and not £5000 as telegraphed. -Bruce Herald, 8/2/1887.
Mr W. J. W. Robinson, architect, of Wellington, plaintiff in the libel action Robinson V. the Dunedin Evening Star, a claim for £50,000, leaves to-day for Dunedin to attend the sitting of the Court at which his action will be heard.
Mr Gordon Forlong gave his final address in Wellington last night at the Opera House to a very large audience. The subject, “The Righteous Judgment of Christendom," was a very interesting one, and was ably handled by the speaker. -NZ Times, 14/3/1887.
And here it is - full reportage on the case - published, appropriately, by the Evening Star:
PECULIAR LIBEL ACTION.
A SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.
The hearing of the action Robinson v. the Evening Star, in which L 50.000 damages are claimed for alleged libel, was commenced in the Supreme Court this forenoon before Mr Justice Williams and a common jury of twelve. The following gentlemen constituted the jury: -Robert McVicker, William Douglas Smith, Richard Chalker, Thomas McCaughan, Thomas Mockford, John Stewart, Thomas McNeill, Frederick Page, Lawrence Griffin, William Fox, Henry Potter, Thomas Stewart.
Mr D. M. Stuart appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Haggitt, with him Mr Hodgkins, for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, formerly of Dunedin and now of Wellington, architect, against the defendants George Bell (proprietor), Gilbert Buchanan (printer), and John George Moody (publisher) of the Evening Star.
The declaration set forth:- That at the time of the committal of the grievances hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff was an architect carrying on business in Dunedin; that in or about November, 1883, the defendants were and still are respectively the proprietor, printer, and publisher of the Evening Star, a newspaper published in Dunedin; that in or about the said month the defendants printed and published in their newspaper, of and concerning the plaintiff, the words following:-
A Deserved Rebuke.—William Henry White, of Kensington, was charged with assaulting Joseph Wilson Robinson on the 3rd inst. Mr Mouat appeared for the complainant; Mr Denniston for the defendant. The evidence showed that complainant, who is an architect, accosted a sister of the defendant at Kensington on the evening of the 29th ult., and having ascertained her name forced his company upon her. She was unwilling to carry on conversation with him, and walked at a fast pace in order to rid herself of his company. The girl went to the Athenaeum, and on her way back to Kensington was again accosted by the defendant, who asked her to walk along some of the by-streets with him. Miss White met a gentleman acquaintance, and complained to him of Robinson’s conduct. Next morning she acquainted her brother of what had happened, and he interviewed the complainant several times for the purpose of obtaining an apology. On the last occasion (Saturday afternoon) he met complainant on the street and informed him that unless he consented to give a written apology he would thrash him. At complainant’s request defendant went with the former to his office, and after some words had passed defendant struck him over the back and hands with a cane, the result of which had been to incapacitate the complainant from following his profession for several days. Mr Denniston was about to address the Court for the defence, when His Worship intimated that this was unnecessary, as he was fully convinced that complainant had acted most improperly in accosting the defendant’s sister in the manner he had, and it was a fortunate thing when young girls who were subjected to such conduct had fathers and brothers to take their part. An assault had been committed, but he thought a penalty of 1s and costs of Court would meet the case.
That the report of the hearing of the said charge, so printed and published by the defendants in their said newspaper, was not an accurate, bona fide, and impartial report, but was an improper and maliciously distorted account of the proceedings therein mentioned or referred to, and was so printed and published with a view of disparaging and degrading the plaintiff, and of exposing him to public ridicule, hatred, and contempt. That, in consequence of the publication of such report, the plaintiff was subjected to great annoyance and public ridicule, and was molested and interfered with, and the minds of the public were inflamed against the plaintiff. It was further alleged that in or about the month of December, 1883, the defendants published in their said newspaper, of and concerning the plaintiff, a letter signed “ A Parent,” dated the 27th of December, in the words following
A CAUTION TO GIRLS. TO THE EDITOR.
Sir,— Allow me to caution the young ladies of Dunedin against a certain “dude” who struts about the town apparently very anxious to make the acquaintance of every young girl he meets. This charming young gentleman, if he succeeds in forcing himself on any young lady, as a rule offers to her a neat card with three initials engraved on it; and does not forget to state that he has a profession and an office in the centre of the town. He is very anxious to take lonely walks — always wishing to avoid the main thoroughfares. As it is no use locking the stable after the horse is stolen, I think it is my duty to warn young girls against this “dude,” as I have very good reason to believe that his object is not honorable. I would say to girls: Beware of these lonely walks and of this particular “dude” of whom I have been writing. He is often watched when he little thinks it by fathers and brothers.—
I am, etc., A Parent. Dunedin, December 27.
That the plaintiff is referred to in the said letter by the contemptible, opprobrious, and malicious term or nickname “The Dude,” and is further referred to as being a person meriting public ridicule, hatred, and contempt. It is then alleged that in or about the said month of December, 1883, the defendants published in the Evening Star of and concerning the plaintiff a letter signed “Cat-o’-Nine Tails,” dated the 28th of December, in the words following:—
GIRLS BEWARE. TO THE EDITOR.
Sir, — I beg to confirm a latter which appeared in your paper last night headed “A Caution to Girls.” I think I recognise the “gentleman," if I may call him one. I may add that he has given myself and companions a great deal of annoyance at one time or another. I only hope that every girl he annoys will do the same as we did — viz., to set on his track someone who will stop his little game.—
I am, etc., Cat-o’-Nine-Tails.
That the plaintiff is referred to in the said letter in contemptible and malicious terms, and with a view of inducing the public to molest the plaintiff, and to subject him to annoyance and rough treatment, and of bringing the plaintiff into public hatred and contempt. It is alleged that in consequence of the publication of the said letters the plaintiff was subjected to great annoyance and public ridicule, and was molested and interfered with, and was subjected to malicious prosecution, and had several charges and proceedings preferred against him by sundry persons. The declaration goes on to say that in the said month of December, 1883, the defendants printed and published in their newspaper reports of the hearing of several of the said charges and proceedings preferred against the plaintiff in the Police Court, Dunedin, which reports commenced with sensational headings and were improper and maliciously distorted reports, interspersed with comments on the hearings of the said charges and proceedings, and with a view of bringing the plaintiff into disrepute and contempt, and inflaming the minds of the public against the plaintiff, and were not accurate, impartial, and bona fide reports thereof. In the same month of December, 1883, the plaintiff, in his professional capacity as an architect, exhibited in the Art Gallery of the Christchurch Industrial Exhibition several architectural designs; and the defendants, on or about the 20th December aforesaid, falsely and maliciously printed and published in their newspaper, of and concerning the plaintiff in his profession of an architect, the words following :
In the Art Gallery are two fearfull and wonderful objects in the way of architectural drawings by Mr J, W. Robinson, of Dunedin. One purports to represent the Provincial Hotel and Mr Jamieson’s drapery establishment at the corner of Manse and Stafford streets; the other an enormous block of buildings bearing the inscription "New Zealand Fruit Preserving Company.” The structures depicted certainly do not exist at present, and I should not imagine they are likely to, according to the plans; at all events, if they are ever erected it is fervently to be hoped that the persons frequenting their neighborhood, and that the skies above them will never seem anything like those delineated by the artist. The skies are simply appalling, while the human beings are in such postures as a marionette troupe would never approach. I came upon Professor Von Haast inspecting these pictures carefully through a pair of glasses. He did not seem particularly surprised at the buildings, but he asked me if the people in Dunedin were really like those models we saw before us.
That the said words are not a fair and honest criticism of the designs therein referred to, but are a malicious and unfair abuse of the plaintiffs works, and impute to the plaintiff want of competent qualification and ability in his said profession, and are intended to be part of the malicious persecution of the plaintiff by the defendants, which had been carried on by the defendants during the greater part of the latter months of the year 1883 for the purpose of degrading the plaintiff and of exposing him to public ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and of injuring him in his said profession and in his character and reputation. It is further alleged that in or about the month of June, 1885, the defendants printed and published in their said newspaper a letter signed “A Parent,” and dated the 2nd of June, of and concerning the plaintiff, in the words following:-
WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH THE DUDE?
TO THE EDITOR. SIR, notwithstanding that the dude with three initials has been ducked in the Leith, horsewhipped, pelted with stones, and frequently smothered with mud, flour, etc., he still perambulates the north end of the town, making himself a nuisance to poor motherless girls. Cannot something be done to stop his offensive behavior before something serious takes place? I have no ill-will against the individual in question, and write only through a sense of duty to warn parents to caution their girls to shun his society.—
I am, etc., A Parent, Dunedin, June 2.
That the plaintiff is referred to in the said letter by the contemptible and opprobious term or nickname of the “dude," and is also referred to in the said letter as being a person of dishonorable and immoral character, and with a view of inducing the public to molest and interfere with the plaintiff, and to treat him with ridicule and contempt. It is next alleged that in consequence of the aforesaid continued and persistent libels printed and published by the defendants of and concerning the plaintiff in his profession, character, and reputation. The previously extensive business of the plaintiff as an architect was completely ruined, and he suffered great loss in his credit and reputation. Finally, the declaration, alleges that in consequence of the mental anxiety, produced by the publication of the aforesaid libels the plaintiff’s health was undermined, and he was confined to bed and unable to attend to his professional business for the space of twentyone months, and is only just recovered from his illness, the aforesaid libels have caused the plaintiff great and irreparable injury, and they are malicious and untrue, wherefore he claims L50.000 as damages.
The defendants pleaded admitting publication of the Police Court reports, but stated that such reports were a fair, accurate, and impartial account of the evidence and proceedings. The said proceedings were of public interest and concern, and were published bona fide and without malice, and for public benefit in the usual course by the defendants as public journalists. As to the letters concerning “A Dude” it was denied that the plaintiff was therein referred to. As to the notice of the Christchurch Industrial Exhibition, they alleged that the words complained of were published bona fide and without malice, and were a fair and honest criticism of the architectural drawings exhibited by the plaintiff.
Mr Stuart, in opening the case, said that this was, perhaps, with the jury — as it was certainly with him — a case involving the largest claim that had come under their notice. The plaintiff was asking for no less a sum than L50,000 damages. Before opening the facts he would like to explain something in connection with this claim. The plaintiff was advised by an eminent firm of Wellington solicitors to fix his claim at that sum, and he did so, though possibly the substantiality of the claim might throw an air of burlesque over the whole affair; for probably very few men in Dunedin — he did not care to single out the defendants - could pay L50,000, even though a jury awarded that sum. The plaintiff had opened his mouth rather wide, and he (the learned counsel) would like the jury to understand at the beginning of the case that the plaintiff would be satisfied with a less amount.—(Laughter.) The jury would clearly understand that in considering what damages the plaintiff was entitled to — and he would be able to show most clearly that he was entitled to substantial damages — they would be pleased to offer any amount like the algebraical X, which represented an unknown quantity; but unlike X it could be considerably reduced, and would come within the fancy of the claimant. So much for the amount claimed. Now for the matter of the complaint. The plaintiff was, in the latter part of 1883 and the beginning of 1884, carrying on business in Dunedin as an architect. He had a fairish practice for Dunedin, and altogether had a chance of succeeding pretty well in the Colony. He had not been very long from the Old Country, and, having got fairly established, was pushing his way slowly and unostentatiously to the front, when in the month of November, 1883, he was the victim of a cowardly assault. He sought then the remedy of the Police Court — he did not ask for L50.000 damages in that action, but merely that his assailant might be punished for the assault. The present defendants, who were the proprietor, printer, and publisher of the Evening Star newspaper — a journal which he supposed the jury were all familiar with, and probably had been read by a majority of them with pleasure and occasionally with pain — the Evening Star, in a capacity that was selfconstituted, had chosen in its Police Court report to give a sensational heading to this case; and the plaintiff further alleged that the report was distinctly inaccurate, unfair, and between the lines of it showed the grossest malice on the part of the newspaper. The defendants admitted that they had published this report, but stated that it had been done in all fairness and in the discharge of some duty which they considered they had a right to undertake. Newspapers published all sorts of things that take place in the Courts; but he (the learned counsel) would say, subject to correction, that the proprietors of newspapers were simply men who carried on their business in such a way as they thought proper. No one asked them to publish the papers, and they only published them because they made money by so doing. It must not be imagined that people conducted papers for the purpose of serving their generation. They had had experience of newspapers in Dunedin, and knew that when they ceased to be carried on at a profit the proprietors forgot all about public duty, the papers went quietly into liquidation, and the place that once knew them now knew no more. However, the Star chose to publish a report and certain anonymous letters, and if the defendants failed to show that they were actuated by some real sense of duty — not fanciful or distorted sense of duty — but that they only did something, which as honest men they were bound to do — granting that there was no harm in publishing what took place at the Police Court; but if he could show that they went beyond the region of fair play, gave a distorted report, prefaced it with an improper and sensational heading, all of which must have the effect of damaging a young professional man — then it would be for the jury to say to what extent he should be reimbursed for the loss he had suffered, and to what extent the papers should be taught to confine themselves to advertisements and matters of that kind more strictly in future. This report the plaintiff said was inaccurate and untrue. It was merely a digest of the evidence, but the evidence was not given, and nothing but what would tell against plaintiff was given. The plaintiff would tell the jury in what respects the report was inaccurate and grossly unfair. In respect of this report, the defendants admitted publication, but alleged that it was an accurate and impartial report. In addition to subjecting the plaintiff to molestation and injury in that way, the defendants attacked him in his professional capacity of an architect. Some time ago an exhibition of fine arts — chiefly local productions — took place at Christchurch, and the Evening Star considered it its duty on that occasion to give an unprofessional opinion of several pictures which the plaintiff exhibited. The drawings were in Court, and the jury would be able to judge between Mr Robinson and the erudite reporter of the Evening Star, who poses as an authority. One of the drawings was the Provincial Hotel, Stafford street, and that, no doubt, would be familiar to the gentleman who wrote the article.
His Honor: That is the outside.— (Laughter.)
Mr Stuart: We say that that comment [read] on Mr Robinson’s drawings is not fair and honest criticism. The drawings will be here, and the jury could judge for themselves. If it were untrue, every word in that paragraph was calculated to do damage to a man practising the profession of an architect. Then in a number of the anonymous letters complained of the plaintiff was spoken of as “a dude"; and so far as the meaning of the word went he could only say that it would be found in very few respectable dictionaries or newspapers. Generally speaking, it was a word not met with in newspapers devoted to the reading of respectable persons. In conclusion he (the learned counsel) asked the jury to mark their disapproval of this kind of journalism by inflicting on the defendants such substantial damages as they were enabled to pay. He did not wish to see the Evening Star crushed or put into improper hands, but merely asked for such a verdict as would show that it was necessary that newspapers should be surrounded by proper safeguards, and colonial editors warned that if they chose to indulge in such kind of pranks they must pay for them, and pay very handsomely. He would show that the plaintiff was in the Dunedin Hospital for something like twentyone months at a stretch. The medical man who attended him would state that he was suffering from derangement of the nervous system, probably caused by the annoyance to which he had been subjected by the Evening Star and the satellites of that planet, if he might call it one; and consequently not only was unfitted to earn his living at his profession, but was unfitted even to exist, except under the most careful nursing. If that were true, then it was for the jury to say how far the Star should be made to pay for its libels. They would probably hear from counsel on the other side a good deal of this L50,000. That amount the plaintiff was prepared to discount, and, as he had already said, would take a less sum. He would now call evidence to establish plaintiff’s case.
William Joseph Wilson Robinson, the plaintiff, said that he was an architect in Dunedin in the latter end of 1883. In the month of November be figured as complainant in the Police Court in an assault case. That report was not an accurate one. They had made the statement appear as though he had been charged in the Police Court with accosting a female in the street. It bore the sensational heading — "A Deserved Rebuke.”
His Honor: It does not appear so from what Mr Stuart read.
Witness: I had never been charged at the Police Court with accosting females in the street. Only one witness was partly examined. I gave evidence, but not a word of it was published. I summoned a man named White for coming to my office and assaulting me.
Mr Stuart: Suppose you had sunk to the level of a reporter, and tell us what took place. —(Laughter.)
Witness: There was no talk of forcing my company. The only words said in Court were by the Bench, about an assault having been committed, and a fine of 1s and costs was inflicted. There was nothing said about the Athenaeum.
His Honor: Have you not sense enough to tell us, as requested, what took place in the Police Court from the beginning?
Witness: What I said in the Police Court was this: White came several times to my office. I did not know him the first time he came to my office. On one occasion, after some conversation, White asked me if I would go and see him at Kensington on the following Saturday afternoon. I could not go that day, and after being out during the afternoon I returned to my office. I found White and another man standing at the door. White asked me why I did not go down to his house. I said that I was too busy. He then said that I had been making a fool of him. I ordered him away, and opened my office door to go in. White and the other man pushed open the door after I had gone in, and followed me in. White struck me over the head and arm with a malacca cane, and between them they destroyed architectural drawings worth L40 that were hanging on the walls. A gentleman named Johnson, who had an office in the same building, came to my assistance, and White and the other man shortly went away. I took out a summons against White, but I did not know the other man. I was asked in Court a question about meeting the female in the street, and I answered that I was going home about 8.30 o’clock on the night in question, and this young person crossed the street and came up to me; that we walked along together for a little while, and that then she asked me the time. I told her, and she then said she had an appointment at the end of the Cricket Ground. I asked her if she was not afraid of meeting her sweetheart. She said she was not; that he would not come up the street. When we got to the place he was not there. She then said she would go to the Post Office. I said I had no objection to her company, and walked on with her. On reaching the Post Office I said my office was further up Princes street. She walked along with me, and on reaching my office at Union Chambers I said “Good night” to her. I had previously promised to call on her at her house, but did not expect to see her again that night. I got some letters in my office and went out again to post them. On going into the Post Office I saw the girl following me. I asked her if she had not met her friend. She said she had not, and asked if I had any objection to going along the road with her. I said I lived at the other end of the town, and declined, but said that I would go as far as Guthrie and Larnach’s. I went as far as the corner of the Cricket Ground, and there her friend came up. I turned back then, after saying “Good night.” That finished my evidence, and then Coxhead — the girl’s friend — gave evidence. He identified me as being the party who was with the girl, and said he saw me shake hands with her. The girl herself was next sworn, and gave her name; but gave no evidence. Her solicitor made some remarks as to whether I was the party that spoke to her, and she said I was. She said that she saw me going into my office, and subsequently saw me going into the Post Office; also that I walked along to the Cricket Ground with her till she met her friend. She said that she thought she had known me before, being aware that I was an architect named Robinson, and that I had an office in Princes street. No one said in Court that Miss White had complained to a gentleman of my conduct, and no mention was made of the Athenaeum. White gave evidence as to going to my office and asking if I was the person who had been making friends with his sister in the street. I asked him who he was, and he said that he lived at the pipeworks at Kensington. He said that he asked me if I had made any appointments to see his sister again, and that I replied that I had promised to call on her next evening. He also repeated the conversation as to inviting me down on the Saturday. I wanted to call Johnson to give evidence, but the Magistrate said he did not think it was necessary, as he was fully convinced that the defendant had acted improperly in going to my office, and that he thought a fine of a shilling and costs would meet the case. That was all he said, and he never used the following words: — “He was fully convinced that complainant had acted most improperly in accosting defendant’s sister in the manner he had, and it was a fortunate thing when young girls who were subjected to such conduct had fathers and brothers to take their part.”
His Honor: You say that the Magistrate never used those words?
Witness: Yes; he never used them. It is a falsehood, and that is the most offensive part of the affair.
To Mr Stuart: He never said that I had acted improperly, or that it was fortunate that young girls had brothers to defend them.
Witness here remarked that he took it as an indication of the lower order that a girl should speak to and ask the time of a gentleman who never knew her.
His Honor: Was that said in Court?
Witness: No, I would not be allowed to give all the evidence; but I wish to say that for the benefit of those friends of the girl who are sitting here now and gaping and laughing at what is going on. There are not three words of truth in that paragraph of what took place in Court. I can swear to that and prove it.
His Honor: What are you telling us now? Was that said in Court?
Witness: No, your Honor.
His Honor: Well all we want to know is what was said in Court.
To Mr Stuart: On December 8 I brought an action against White, and the Star’s report of it states that the previous case was dismissed, which was not the case, as a fine of 1s and costs had been inflicted. On April 23, 1884, I was charged with creating a breach of the peace by striking a man in Frederick street, and was fined L2 and costs. The Star’s report [read] was fair; there were no inaccuracies in it as a report of the evidence that was given. I was referred to as a “dude.” I question the accuracy of the report of a case heard in the Resident Magistrate’s Court on May 14, 1884, in which I sued a Mrs Bain for L3 3s for services rendered as valuator. In the report I was described as follows: “The plaintiff, who represented himself as being an architect, was represented as being a perfect nuisance, and as having been dealt with at the Police Court for insulting females.”
His Honor: Was that said in Court?
Witness: Yes, your Honor.
His Honor: Then it does represent what was said in Court, so you cannot question the accuracy of the report.
Witness: I complain of the remark that I “represented” myself as being an architect, it being meant contemptuously.
Mr Stuart; Well, now as to the letters of which you complain, and which have been read.
Witness: In December, 1883, the letter appeared in the Evening Star headed “ A Caution to Girls,” and it was followed by another headed “Girls Beware!” Half-a-dozen or a dozen copies of these letters were cut out and posted to me at my office.
Mr Haggitt: Well, we didn’t cut them out.
Witness: I was fully convinced that I was the person referred to in the letters, and I had the words “the dude” called out after me in the streets.
Mr Haggitt: But Mr Bell did not call out after you, did he?
Mr Stuart: Mr Bell has doubtless too much sense to read his own paper. He would know nothing about the letters.
Witness continued: The result of the publication of these letters was that the minds of the public were inflamed against me; and when I called at offices and other places I was told that I was called a “dude,” and had been horsewhipped, and I was ordered out of the places.
Mr Stuart: We will now come to the architectural plans. What do you say about them?
Witness: I exhibited at the New Zealand Industrial Exhibition at Christchurch the two designs [produced] for buildings in Dunedin. One is for a building to take the place of the Provincial Hotel and J. Jamieson’s drapery shop, and the other is for the New Zealand Fruit-preserving Company of New Zealand. The Evening Star had the remarks about this as read. The following extract is incorrect: - “One purports to represent the Provincial Hotel and does not represent those buildings, and no reporter could make such a mistake as that."
His Honor: The reporter does not say that they do exist; he says that the structures depicted certainly do not exist at present, and I should not imagine that they are likely to, according to the plans.
Mr Stuart remarked that the report distinctly stated that they purported to be the buildings in question.
Witness continued: Such a report in the Evening Star would have the effect of preventing my getting practice. Another letter appeared in the Evening Star in June, 1885, headed “What shall we do with the dude?” I was in ill-health at the time, and I was followed about the streets and pelted, and also threatened to be ducked in the Water of Leith. The consequence was that my health broke down. I had a good practice — making from Ll5 to L20 per week — but lost this; and had to go into the Benevolent Institution. I was reduced from comfortable circumstances to absolute penury.
Mr Stuart: And for these wrongs you claim L50,000 damages?
Witness: That amount has been levied by a good number of solicitors outside Dunedin; some at Wellington and some at Auckland. Of course the professional men here look at it in a different light — out of mere friendship to the defendants.
Mr Haggitt: I see the solicitors outside of Dunedin value Mr Robinson more highly than the local solicitors do.
Witness: I have only this further to say: From the commencement to the latter part of the year 1883 — when these reports began by speaking of a deserved rebuke — till the latter part of 1885, I was completely ruined in my profession as an architect; my health was undermined; and I was unable to earn my living.
Mr Stuart: What was the nature of your illness in the Hospital?
Witness: It was an effect of the injuries I sustained in the street through being followed, knocked down, and kicked.
By Mr Haggitt: And you hold these publications responsible for the injuries you received by being assaulted in the street? - Yes.
How long were you practising as an architect in Dunedin? — About seven months altogether. When did you come here? About five months before the time of the first assault. In what month did you come here from Invercargill? — About the month of June, and I commenced the practise of my profession at once. Whereabouts? In Union Chambers, Princes street.
How long did you remain there? — Up till April, 1884. During that time I did nothing except practise my profession as an architect.
Now I want you to tell me what buildings were erected under your supervision during that time? — I did not erect many big buildings, but prepared plans for alterations — one or two in Dunedin and several orders from the country, Southland.
Now, did you erect any buildings at all in Dunedin? — No, I think it was only repairs that I got.
What buildings did you do repairs to? In Great King street — Mr Graham was the proprietor.
What was the building? — Some repairs to a cottage there — a six-roomed cottage, I think.
And what was the nature of the repairs you designed? — The draining about the place, and “renovekating” the buildings. — (Laughter). You will find that word in the dictionary. — (Renewed laughter).
What was the “renovekation” you did to the building? What was the extent of them? — General repairs.
You did not design a new house. What did you design — the partition? — It is a matter of very little importance what was required.
Then you cannot tell us what the extent of the repairs was? — I would require to have the specifications to refresh my memory.
Was the other job you had in Dunedin? I cannot recollect; several other bits of jobs.
And during the ten months you were practising in Dunedin all you can recollect doing was attending to the drains of a sixroomed cottage and “renovekating” the cottage? — Yes, that is all I can recollect.
And when was it that you made at the rate of Ll5 per week? — My business was affected shortly after I came to Dunedin in consequence of the publication of these letters and articles.
Why, the first of these things was not published till November 8, close on six months after you came here? — About four or five months. It was about the latter end of June that I came here.
These things could not have affected your business till they were published. During the five months that you were in Dunedin before the publication of any of the matters complained of, did you make from Ll5 to L20 per week? — The principal money I made was for work out of Dunedin, for people coming in from the country. Very little work came into the office after the first publication.
Did any come in before so far as Dunedin was concerned? — I got orders for these before (designs produced) for new buildings in Stafford street. Both Mr Sibbald and Mr Jamieson intended to build at the time.
From those gentlemen you got orders to prepare designs? — Yes, I got them some time in October, I think.
Did they ever pay you for those designs? -No.
Did you ever send them in an account? No. They had some talk about the designs being satisfactory, and the public having something to say about their being wonderful designs.
They did not approve of the designs? They did not approve of the designs after the Exhibition. That is purely the reason I did not get the order.
Very well, we will see what those gentlemen have to say about the designs. Now we will come to the report of the proceedings in the Police Court. You laid an information against Mr White, I understand? -Yes.
And that information was for assaulting you on the 3rd November? — Yes.
You say that this report of the case is wholly incorrect, and that in dealing with it the Magistrate said nothing about your conduct? — Not a single word.
Did not you accost Mr White’s sister at Kensington? — No, I was spoken to by her.
That is your account. — That is the true account. My evidence did not appear in the Star. I said that I was asked the time by Miss White, and those were the first words spoken between us. The girl gave no evidence whatever. She merely gave her name as Fanny White, and said that she remembered my speaking to her.
She was quite a young girl? — About eighteen, I should think.
Don’t you think fifteen or sixteen would be nearer it than eighteen? — I would say eighteen.
You did not ask her her age, I suppose? I do not remember whether I did.
Do you remember whether she swore that you did? — No ; I don’t recollect that she said that I asked her her age.
Is your memory good? — Yes; it is good.
And you profess to tell us from memory what took place at the Police Court on that occasion without having notes to refresh your memory or anything else? — I took no notes, but I remember what took place very well. What makes me remember clearly is that the reports were so absurd.
That is how you recollect what the witnesses said in Court? — Yes, that is how I recollect.
And you profess to tell us on the 22nd March, 1887, what took place in the Police Court on November 8, 1883, from memory? — I have notes of it somewhere, which I have been reading over several times.
Where are your notes? - I cannot say where they are. A good lot of my papers are in Wellington at the present time.
And you do not know where your notes are? — They are likely there.
At all events you say now that this young lady was sworn to give evidence, although she did not give evidence? — The only evidence she gave was to state her name and to say that I was the person who spoke to her.
I am going to read to you a note of the evidence taken at the time by the Magistrate who heard the case. — There can easily enough be a note of the evidence. I could easily enough write out a few notes now to suit myself.
Do you mean to suggest that the Magistrate has taken up a pen and ink and written to suit himself ? — I have not heard him on oath yet. I will know better afterwards.
Do you recollect Fanny White saying anything to this effect; “On the 29th October, at night, I was going to the Athenaeum from father’s house at Kensington?” — No; I have said the words she used. Those words were never used in Court. If the Magistrate’s notes-
Mr Stuart interrupted the witness.
Mr Haggitt; Let him enjoy himself in the witness-box.
Witness: I swear the girl never said that.
Mr Stuart: That’s right; confine yourself to swearing,—(Laughter).
Mr Haggitt: Were these words used by Miss White: “ I know the accused now; but never before that night?
Witness: She said she knew me by sight.
“He spoke to me; he overtook me." Did she say that? - No; she said she was crossing the street. Those were the words she used in Court.
“He spoke and walked. He came up to me and I walked faster?” Witness (apparently surprised): Is that the evidence she gave?
Yes. I am asking you if she said anything of that sort? — That is utterly wrong. She never said a word of it.
“He left me near the City Hotel.” — That is not true, because my office is a good way off the City Hotel, and I went into my office.
“When he spoke to me, he asked me where I was going.” Is that so? — No. I asked her that question when we were near my office, and after we had walked some distance.
“He asked my name, where I lived, my age?” — I asked her name the second time that I met her. On my asking her where she was going, she said that she was going to meet her young man. It looks more respectable going to the Athenaeum than going to meet her sweetheart. I swear again that she simply gave evidence of her name, and that I was the person who spoke.
Then she never swore that you asked her where she was going, where she lived, or her age? — She never swore that.
Did she swear that you asked her to go up the hill with her? — No.
Did she swear that you asked her to go to the Cricket Ground? — No.
Did she swear that you met her again when she was going back home, and followed her and spoke to her near Cargill’s monument? — I remember her saying something about meeting me going to the Post Office.
Now, mind what you are swearing, for I am reading from the Magistrate’s notes. Did Miss White not say in Court that you followed her and spoke to her near the Cargill monument? — No. The words were used by her solicitor.
Did she swear that you asked her to go down a back street with you? — No. That also was said by her solicitor.
Did you say that you took hold of her hand and that she took it away? — No; that was said by her friend in his evidence.
Mind I warned you before that I was going to ask you from notes of the evidence the Magistrate took at the time. You are denying that evidence was given, though it appears on those notes. Did she say she saw no one she knew till she arrived at the Cricket Ground? — She never gave much evidence; she only uttered three or four words.
Did she say you left her when you reached the Cricket Ground, and that she complained to her brother next morning? That was said by her solicitor. She only said she knew him by sight, and thought I was Robinson, the architect. The other remarks were made by her solicitor, not by her.
Now, you have said to-day that she spoke to you first? — Yes. She asked the time after we had walked a few yards — I dare say about two chains. I was walking very fast. I did not intend that we should walk long together. It was half-past eight o’clock; I looked at the time.
You have sworn to-day that she spoke to you first? — Yes, and I swear it now.
Did Mr White want you to apologise for what you had done? — He gave me an invitation to go to the house.
Did he want you to go there to be thrashed? Did he give you the choice of being thrashed on your own premises or at his house? — We were on good terms at that time. There was nothing said about going down to apologise.
And you were never asked to apologise? He never asked any apology till he came on the Saturday afternoon. He came by himself the first time.
Then was there no evidence in the Police Court about his going to your office for the purpose of obtaining an apology? I think his solicitor made some such remark.
Was it a written apology he wanted? He talked something about a written apology on the Saturday afternoon.
Was it not stated that unless you consented to give a written apology he would thrash you? — He talked something about an apology for not coming down to the house. —(Laughter.)
The Magistrate, in deciding the case, made no remark about your conduct? — No remark whatever. The reporter has invented the whole thing from the beginning to the end.
Now, you are bringing this action against the Star. Did you happen to look at the ‘Times’s’ report of these proceedings? — Yes.
Did it differ very much from the Star report? — It appears to be an exact copy.
Then the ‘Times’ had exactly the same report of the proceedings as the Star had? — No doubt they have copied it out. They generally do. Those are the only two papers that it was in. No respectable paper would make such a statement.
Then the ‘Times’ and the Star are not respectable papers? -The Herald objected to publish it.
They told you so? -Yes; it takes a friend or relation to make such a report, I remarked at the time that the Magistrate had made such a short address in disposing of the case. He simply said that a fine of one shilling and costs would meet the case.
In answer to further questions, the plaintiff denied the accuracy of a report of the proceedings in the Police Court on December 8, 1883. It was not true that witness said he had more fear of the friends of the defendant (White) than of the defendant himself. That made it appear before the public that the Bench had no provocation to bind White over to keep the peace, and the case was dismissed. He complained that that report was in order to make a cloak for the parties.
His Honor: You say that the Magistrates decided wrongly, and, in order to justify their position, the reporter of the Star made a wrong report?
Witness: Those words were maliciously printed and published, and it is a malicious libel. I never said I was more afraid of the defendant’s friends than of himself The witness denied that he had pointed out any of the figures on the designs shown at the Christchurch Exhibition. The designs had got damp and the figures disappeared.
Mr Stuart: They have gone in out of the rain.
On resuming after the luncheon adjournment,
The Plaintiff was further cross-examined. He said: Taken in conjunction with the Police Court report, “A Deserved Rebuke,” I took it that the words “a dude,” in letters to the Star, referred to me. Since then I have been called a dude. It is a nickname, and has no particular meaning. I consider it very offensive. Three initials are spoken of, and my card has three graven on it. I have offered business cards to ladies, sometimes at their own residence, I could not calculate that I have forced myself on females in offering them a neat card, though they might have so considered it. My name, profession, and address consist of three letters. —(Laughter.) W. J. W. Robinson is the first initial; my profession is the second; and my address the third - that is how I construe the paragraph into meaning me. My friends in Dunedin would recognise that I was the person meant as being the person anxious to take lonely walks in female society. As to the subsequent letters, I have been threatened with a ducking in the Leith, without any reason being assigned other than the letters in the newspapers; so I imagined I was meant. A man named Bain threatened to duck me for talking to some female acquaintances.
Mr Stuart pointed out that the defendants denied that the plaintiff was referred to in the letters, and they had pleaded urged that the plaintiff having sworn that the letters did refer to him it was competent for him to examine the witness on the point.
Witness continued: I have been assaulted on several occasions before and after the appearance of this letter. I do not know that I deserved the assaults. They were the result of the rumors which were circulated regarding me. I have been pelted with bricks and smothered with mud and flour. I do not know, however, that I made myself a nuisance to “poor motherless girls.” I was charged with a breach of the peace at the Police Court on the 24th April. I was asked on that occasion by Sergeant-major Bevin whether I had not insulted a young lady in George street, but I do not remember what reply I gave. The newspaper report of what occurred in Court is not consistent. There was no foundation for Sergeant-major Bevin’s question. I had never spoken to a young lady in George street. Sergeant Bevin was at the head of my persecutors. I was also asked whether I was not covered with flour by a woman I was said to have accosted. I never answered the question. There was no foundation for the statement. It was some friend of Sergeant Bevin who complained that I had insulted her. I was fined L2 and costs, in default ten days’ imprisonment; but the Bench were entirely influenced by Mr Logan, who must be excused as he had something to do with my persecution. I never struck a man a cowardly blow on the eye as described by Constable McLauchlin. Constable McLauchlin never said in Court that several complaints had been made against me about following females and insulting them. The statement which John Matthews made is not a correct one. The witnesses who gave evidence against me were actuated by malice. This last thing happened in June, 1884, I left Dunedin in the beginning of 1886. I never was charged with insulting females. I have been told several times that I did so, but I will defy anyone to prove it. Since leaving Dunedin I have been at Wellington, where I commenced this action on the 8th November, 1886. These events which I complain of took place in 1883 and 1884.
Mr Haggitt: Before you left Dunedin how many solicitors -
Mr Stuart: That, Mr Robinson,is a piece of impertinence. You need not answer.
His Honor: Wait till the question is answered.
Mr Haggitt: Well, upon my word!
Mr Stuart: My practice is not so extensive as my friend's, but it is the first time I have heard such a question put.
Witness: I have no objection to answer the question.
Mr Stuart: Very well; answer it.
Witness: Being amongst legal friends I ought to answer the question.
Mr Haggitt: How many solicitors did you call on to try to get them to take up the case against the Star?
Witness: I went to several, unfortunately.
And none of them would touch it? — No.
How many solicitors have you asked here to take up your case in Court since you came back from Wellington? — I think I asked one, and that one referred me to some others — I think three.
And you went to several others? —Some one or two, I think.
Mr Stuart: You did not ask Mr Haggitt, and you did not want him, did you?
Mr Haggitt: That is virtually untrue, because he did. My learned friend is under the misapprehension that I am reflecting upon him for taking up the case; but I can assure him that that is not my intention.
Witness continued: Constable McLauchlin was waiting for me on the occasion; he says I hit a man a cowardly blow in the eye. He has since been dismissed from the force.
Mr Stuart: On account of this?
Witness: Yes.—(Laughter.)
Witness continued: The rumors which were circulated and published about me were all lies.
Dr Roberts, M.R.C.S., stated that he had a vague recollection of plaintiff’s having been an out-patient at the Hospital during part of 1884. He gave witness the impression of being a nervous individual; he was a most unsatisfactory patient, and witness got heartily sick of him before he got rid of him. No records were kept of the ailments of out-patients, but only of the number of their visits to the Hospital.
To Mr Haggitt: I can throw very little light on the matter; I only know that the plaintiff was an out-patient, and that I could do nothing for him. Dr Davies, M.R.C.S., stated that he also remembered plaintiff’s attending at the Hospital. He could not recollect what disease the plaintiff was suffering from, but to the best of his belief treated him for nervous affections. His nervous system seemed shattered. Witness eventually got tired of him, for he could find nothing the matter with him.
To Mr Haggitt: I got tired of him long before I got rid of him. It struck me that he was in a nervous state.
Henry Johnson, commission agent, deposed that in the latter part of 1883 he occupied an office in the same chambers as the plaintiff. I have heard him described as “the dude.” I take this term to mean a masher, a man a little short in the head, a puppy, something degrading. The plaintiff has been pointed out to me as “the dude” in the street.
Cross-examined: There might be other dudes besides the plaintiff.
Mark Cohen, associate editor of the Star, stated that he allowed the letters complained of to appear in the newspaper, he had a general idea as to whom they referred to from what he had heard.
Cross-examined: He did not communicate his impression to the publisher or printer of the paper. He communicated with the police before publishing the letters. The pictures produced attracted very general attention at the Christchurch Exhibition. They were among the fearful and wonderful sights which were to be seen, and they were written of as such. He did not send the report to the Star. That was supplied by a member of the ordinary staff.
This was the plaintiffs case.
Mr Haggitt was addressing the Court at 4.40 p.m. -Evening Star, 22/3/1887.
PECULIAR LIBEL ACTION.
A SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.
The hearing of the action Robinson v. the Evening Star, in which L50,000 damages are claimed for alleged libel, was concluded in the Supreme Court at a late hour last night, and resulted in a verdict for the defendants.
Mr D. M. Stuart appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Haggitt, with him Mr Hodgkins, for the defendant.
The action was brought by the plaintiff, formerly of Dunedin and now of Wellington, architect, against the defendants George Bell (proprietor), Gilbert Buchanan (printer), and John George Moody (publisher) of the Evening Star.
The following evidence was given for the defence:-
Edgar Hall Carew, R.M. at Dunedin, stated that on the 8th of November, 1883, he heard the case of Robinson v. White at the City Police Court. By referring to his notes of the case he found that the complainant in cross-examination gave the following evidence:— “I know none of the family. I say that I never insulted her, I know Miss White. I spoke to her in the street on Monday. She passed me. I spoke to her for the first time in my life, I cannot say who spoke first. (After being pressed). I spoke to her first. She was a stranger to me, I cannot remember what I said. I said: ‘It is a dark road, and there is a tendency to run against each other.’ We walked on together to my office all the way from Kensington. I did not invite her to go up a hill. I said I was in a hurry. We both walked very fast into town. I said that I was going into town. She said ‘I will allow you to walk up town with me.’ She said something about my name. I told her who and what I was. I did not ask her to go into the Cricket Ground, I did not catch her hand at any time. There was another interview. She came to me in the street afterwards. I spoke to her and asked if she had seen her friend. I asked her whether I might accompany her up the road again. I shook hands both times. She said ‘Yes; she met the friend.’ I shook hands just before this. I turned then. I do not know the friend [referring to the defendant]. The first day he did not make a complaint. He wanted me to apologise for insulting his sister and speaking to her in the street. I promised to go on Saturday or Monday. He said if I did not apologise he would thrash me.” Fanny White, who was examined for the defence, was from sixteen to eighteen years of age, and seemed bashful and nervous. She evidently felt uncomfortable in the Court. Witness thought it very improbable she would address a strange man in the street. She said in evidence: “On the 29th October, at night, I was going to the Athenaeum. I know the accused now — never before that night. He spoke to me. He overtook me, spoke, and walked. He came up to me and I walked faster. He left me at the corner of the City Hotel. He spoke to me. He asked me where I was going, my name, where I lived, and age. He asked me to go up the hill. Afterwards he asked me to go in the Cricket Ground. He met me again when I was coming home. He followed me and spoke to me at Cargill’s monument. He asked me to go down a back street with him. He took my hand, and I took it away. I told him he had no right to speak to me; he was a stranger. I saw no one I knew till I passed the Cricket Ground. The accused left me, and I complained to my brother next day.” In giving judgment in the case witness gave a reason for inflicting a small penalty. The report in the Star of what he said was substantially correct. Witness considered the report of the case a fair, correct, honest, and impartial one.
Albert Cohen, reporter on the Evening Star, said that the report of the proceedings in the Police Court on November 8, 1883, was a fair and impartial report of what transpired on that occasion. It was a condensed report of his own notes.
Sergeant-major Bevin gave evidence as to the correctness of the Star’s reports of the cases in which plaintiff was concerned.
Frederick G. Whetham, reporter on the Star, stated that he wrote the report of the Christchurch Exhibition in which the plaintiff’s pictures were criticised. The criticism was quite fair, he considered, although the plaintiff’s handiwork was described as “appalling.” It was the laughing-stock of the Exhibition. The pictures had been altered since the Exhibition. The figures who “were in attitudes which no marionette troupe could approach” had disappeared, along with the men who were leaning against a wall with their feet in a gutter. The footpath had also been reduced. He thought he was perfectly safe in saying no such buildings had ever existed in Dunedin. He had no ill-feeling against the whom he had not seen at that time.
Mr Haggitt in addressing the jury observed that the foundation of the case, as the plaintiff told them, was an alleged misreport of the proceedings in the Police on the 8th of November; and if the allegation that the report was a garbled account of the proceedings was disproved, the case should fail. In the box the plaintiff had sworn that the report was false, had insinuated that the girl was an abandoned character, and had stated that the evidence was that the girl had accosted him. The plaintiff’s evidence regarding the proceedings at the Police Court had been directly contradicted by the Resident Magistrate who heard the case, and who had produced his notes of the evidence. Mr Carew had also told them that the report contained an honest, fair, and impartial report of the proceedings that were held before him on that occasion. Such being the evidence regarding this report, it seemed to him that the plaintiff should be at once out of Court, and that nothing more need be said; for it must be apparent that a man who would in the box attempt to mislead the jury as the plaintiff had in one respect would attempt to mislead them with regard to everything else; that he was a man unworthy of credit; and that the jury could not rely upon him in any respect. The evidence before the jury disclosed that the plaintiff was a man who, when he found an unprotected girl, would presume upon her defenceless condition to offer her insults; and the evidence also showed that it was not always safe for a man of that character to insult a girl because for the time being she was unprotected, as happily there were in some cases brothers, friends, and relatives who were prepared to punish such cowardly insolence. The plaintiff in this case found that he had caught a Tartar in the person of the girl’s brother, and the evidence showed that he had got the thrashing he so richly deserved, and that he was then such a fool as not to keep quiet about it, but must make known to the whole community, by proceedings at the Police Court, that he had insulted a girl and had been punished for the insult. Yet this man came before a jury to ask for L50,000 damages on the ground that he had been insulted. During the course of the case it bad also been shown that the insult offered to Miss White was not an isolated instance of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, but it was shown that frequent complaints had been received from respectable people showing that it was the habit of the plaintiff to insult unprotected females. What profit could it possibly be to the Star to disparage and degrade the plaintiff? He hardly knew what his learned friend could think of the jury when he imagined he could hoodwink them into believing such nonsense as that the Star had attempted to degrade the plaintiff for its own profit. It was enough to make anyone laugh to think that the plaintiff considered himself of so much importance that the Star should deliberately set to work to lower him in the eyes of the public for the profit of its proprietor, or for any other purpose. The proposition was too ridiculous for comment. As to the letters complained of, only those who knew the plaintiff to be the blackguard the letters represented the person referred to in them to could possibly see that they applied to the plaintiff. As to the criticism of the pictures, he might remark that there was not a word in that criticism which was disparaging to the plaintiff, and the criticism, though humorous, was mild and quite justifiable. The extraordinary thing about them, however, was that they were brought before the jury in an altered condition, and this was accounted for by the plaintiff saying that the change must have been caused by the pictures lying in the damp. What could they think of a man who came there to complain of unfair criticism of a certain drawing, and produced that drawing to them in an entirely different condition from what it was in at the time it was criticised? It was in keeping with the evidence of a man who came there and said that the reports of the evidence in the Court were garbled and strained, and entirely misrepresented, so as to put a different complexion on the evidence than it deserved. Pictures exhibited in public were open to criticism to any extent, so long as reference was only made to the picture. The whole question was this: Did the criticism in question exceed the bounds of fair criticism? The plaintiff got into great notoriety, and he imagined the Star had a “down” on him, and were taking every possible opportunity to persecute him. It was not on such grounds as these that the plaintiff should come to a jury for damages. Persons who came into a Court and submitted to a jury that they they should have damages should have a better record than Mr Robinson. Mr Stuart said that the jury had heard a great deal about what a newspaper like the Star would not do. It was not a very remarkable production. It was not the first time the Star had been in Court for things of this kind, and would be in again. As to the criticism of the architectural drawings, they did not profess to be works of art. There might be some of the Star’s customers who read the report in question and liked unsavory messes of this kind. Mr Haggitt’s statement as to papers not being responsible for letters from correspondents was not correct. It was no use saying the letters might fit many others. The subeditor admitted that he knew to whom the letters referred, and he assisted some coward to stab a man in the dark. Insult was in every line. The man was accused of the most cowardly of crimes he could commit. It must be apparent from what the plaintiff had told them that he had been substantially injured by the publication of these letters. The Star had written this man out of Dunedin, and if it was not stopped would write him out of New Zealand, as the ‘Daily Times’ would write Mr H. S. Fish into the next Parliament. With regard to one of the letters, the Star denied that the plaintiff was referred to, and yet when he questioned the sub-editor he said he knew who the letters referred to.
His Honor, in summing up, said the plaintiff sued the proprietor, printer, and publisher of the Evening Star newspaper in respect of five several libels. The first was in respect of what was alleged to be an unfair report of proceedings in the Police Court. The next three were three letters which appeared in that paper, and the last was in respect of a criticism on the drawings which were exhibited by the plaintiff in the Christchurch Industrial Exhibition. There were, therefore, three classes of libels and different considerations applied to each class. He would deal with each class separately. He would take first the charge that defendants had published an unfair report of the proceedings which took place in the Police Court. If the plaintiff’s story was true — if the account he gave of what took place on the occasion was correct — then manifestly the report would have been an exceedingly unfair one. He stated that it contained a number of things that never were said, and that it contained an expression of opinion by the Magistrate which the Magistrate never uttered. They had, however, on the other side the evidence of the Magistrate himself, Mr Carew. The plaintiff spoke from memory of what took place more than three years ago; the Magistrate had notes of what took place and referred to them. That being so, as the Magistrate’s notes were made at the time, the jury could have very little difficulty in coining to the conclusion that the account of what Mr Carew gave of what occurred was really the correct one. If that was so, it would be difficult to say that the report was, so far as the plaintiff was concerned, a substantially fair report of what took place. It was not a detailed report of all that took place. That was not necessary. Happily for the readers it was not the practice for newspapers to report verbatim the evidence given by the parties in the Police Court cases. A summary of a case was all that was necessary to give to the reading public, and if that was a fair summary of what took place no one had any right to complain. As had been said, courts of justice were open to the public, and anyone, whether he was a newspaper proprietor or otherwise, had a right to report the proceedings, and if he did so fairly no action could lie against the person who reported thereon, although damage might be proved by the facts being made public. If the whole of the evidence had been set out, instead of the short summary, it seemed to him (the learned Judge) that it was quite possible that what had really occurred would have been more damaging to the plaintiff than the mere summary, because the detailed story given by Miss White would have appeared, and the public would have seen from it that the Magistrate had ultimately believed that story. If the account given by Mr Carew was the true one, as no doubt it was, it would be difficult to see how it could be said that the report was not substantially a fair summary of what took place, or that he could in any way be said to have been injured by the report not having been given at length. The first question for the jury was: Was the report of these proceedings a fair and substantially correct summary of what took place; and if it was, was the plaintiff entitled to recover any damages in respect of such publication? If it was really a garbled report and to his prejudice, then no doubt he was entitled to any compensation which the jury thought reasonable for such unfairness. They then came to the three letters. The first thing the jury would have to be satisfied of was that the letters referred to the plaintiff, and were intended by their writers, or by the publisher of them, to refer to the plaintiff. If they were intended by the writers to refer to the plaintiff, and did refer to him, then the publisher, printer, and proprietor of the paper were responsible, even though they themselves may have had no intention to so allude. If the proprietor of a paper allows someone else to make use of his paper he renders himself responsible if the correspondence happens to drop him in for a libel. The jury had first to satisfy themselves that the letters referred to the plaintiff; and next were they libels, and intended to bring him into hatred, contempt, and ridicule. If they were, the plaintiff would be entitled to damages. But in estimating the damages they would be fully justified in taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, and anything they had heard about the character of the plaintiff'. The last libel that came before them was that of the criticism. It was not open to him to bring an action against a newspaper simply because the critic chose to laugh at his picture. The question was not whether they or himself would criticise it in the same way; nor was it whether the criticism was severe, or whether the criticism was animated by personal malice — that must appear sometimes within the four corners of a criticism. But he had no hesitation in saying that if this article had stood by itself, and had not been put in as one of the series of libels, the verdict should be for the defendants. In order to give any damages in respect of such a criticism, it must be shown not only that there was an attack on the work of the artist, but that there was really an attack on the artist himself. His Honor concluded by saying: I will recall your attention to the fact that there are three classes of libel — the report, the letters, and the criticism. I have endeavored to show you the principles on which each shall be dealt with. As far as the question of damages is concerned, if you think the plaintiff is entitled to recover, perhaps I need hardly remind you that you cannot give more than the sum that is claimed. In estimating the damages you have to consider the whole circumstances of the case.
The jury retired at 5.40. At 6.45 they returned to ask a question of His Honor.
The Foreman said: I desire to ask your Honor if you can take a verdict of two thirds.
His Honor: It is three-fourths after three hours, but I cannot take a verdict of two thirds. After you have retired for three hours and have considered it, and then you say you cannot agree unanimously, I can take a verdict of three-fourths.
The Foreman: That is all I have to ask.
The jury then again retired, and again entered the Court shortly before nine o’clock, having agreed upon their verdict.
The verdict was for the defendants.
His Honor: Thank you, gentlemen. Judgment for the defendants. Costs as per scale, disbursements, and witnesses’ expenses.
The jurors were then discharged until Thursday morning, His Honor remarking that he was sorry he could not discharge them from further attendance, but that he could not do so as there would not be a panel without them.
The Court adjourned at 9 p.m, until 10 a.m. on Thursday. -Evening Star, 23/3/1887.
The libel case of Robinson against the Evening Star, which resulted in a verdict for the defendants, has caused a good deal of comment. We need not detail the items of the charge brought against our evening contemporary. Speaking generally, these charges were — first, that the Star had inserted an incorrect report of a case in the Police Court three or four years ago, in which Robinson was plaintiff, and had subsequently inserted letters on the subject-matter of the case, and had also made hostile criticism on plaintiff''s ability as an architectural draughtsman. With regard to the first charge, it appeared from the evidence of Mr Carew and Sergeant-major Bevin that the report published was correct, and that repeated complaints had been made by respectable people that the plaintiff was in the habit of accosting girls in.the dusk of the evening without any previous acquaintance with them. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that parents took advantage of the correspondence columns of the press to issue a note of warning; and if the result was to drive Robinson out of the town, the punishment was not a jot more than he deserved. The criticism on his architectural designs was certainly well within the limits of fair comment, and apparently in every respect justified. While congratulating the Star upon the verdict of the jury, we desire to express a sentiment of regret, which we believe is very widely felt, that a newspaper proprietor should in any way be placed at the mercy of any unscrupulous man like the plaintiff. It is to be regretted that under our rules of law no security for costs can be required unless a plaintiff resides out of the Colony. It does seem hard that any impecunious man with a fancied grudge against a paper should be able, by scraping a few pounds together, to put the newspaper proprietor to the expense of a defence and get off scot free from all consequences when he has lost. We fear that the £1262 10s costs given against the plaintiff are not very likely to be obtained by the defendants, and that the scamp will get off laughing in his sleeve. A more preposterous claim we suppose was never brought before a court of justice, or one more discreditable to all concerned. Indeed, we find it difficult to understand how the plaintiff managed to obtain the services of a lawyer to conduct his case. The plaintiff claimed £50,000 because his malpractices were exposed, and the public warned of the danger to which young girls were being subjected. This was really a height of impudence which we do not remember to have seen equalled. The jury had the good sense to bring in the only possible verdict after having an entire day wasted in gravely listening to a lot of evidence. It is probably necessary in the interests of liberty that the opportunity of appealing to the courts of justice should be left open to all and sundry. If this liberty often degenerated into license, and advantage were taken improperly of the law's machinery, as on Tuesday, it would become absolutely necessary to impose some restrictions on the right. Fortunately for the community, plaintiffs like Mr Robinson are not very common, nor are lawyers found very often to take up such a case as his. -Otago Daily Times, 24/3/1887.
L1262,10s is now worth approximately $257,594 23c.
So much for "Robinson v the Evening Star." But what of the man himself? Searching "Papers Past" for "W. J. W. Robinson" brings up the following references. I have been told, by one of the people on the "Papers Past" project, that between ten and twenty percent of newspaper stories were not included in the resource for one reason or another. This can make using it a tantalising exercise.
TO BUILDERS.
Tenders are invited for the erection of Cottage in Crinan street for W. Harvey.
Plans and specifications to be seen at my office, Esk street, where tenders may be lodged till the 13th inst., at noon.
J. W. ROBINSON, Architect. -Southland Times, 6/10/1881.
Business Addresses
J W Robinson,
Architect
Union Chambers, Princes street. -Otago Daily Times, 28/7/1883.
TENDERS are invited till noon of Monday, 15th inst., for to Renovate and Paint the Brooklyn Cottages, Great King street.
J. W. ROBINSON, Architect, Union Chambers, Princes street. -Evening Star, 10/10/1883.
TO BUILDERS.
Tenders are invited for the erection of Cottage in Crinan street for W. Harvey.
Plans and specifications to be seen at my office, Esk street, where tenders may be lodged till the 13th inst., at noon.
J. W. ROBINSON, Architect. -Southland Times, 6/10/1881.
Business Addresses
J W Robinson,
Architect
Union Chambers, Princes street. -Otago Daily Times, 28/7/1883.
TENDERS are invited till noon of Monday, 15th inst., for to Renovate and Paint the Brooklyn Cottages, Great King street.
J. W. ROBINSON, Architect, Union Chambers, Princes street. -Evening Star, 10/10/1883.
THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)
John Mouat v. Joseph W. Robinson. — Claim, L1 1s, for legal services rendered, Mr Gallaway appeared for plaintiff, who stated that some time back he was requested by defendant to conduct a Police Court case for him. The latter promised to pay for witness's services, but had never done so, and now said that he never would. The case was one of assault.
—Defendant stated that plaintiff agreed to take up the case on his own responsibility, and said he could almost guarantee witness his expenses being paid. He went to defendant and asked him to take up the case on his own responsibility, saying that he did not want to go to any expense in the matter.
His Worship: Do you mean to say you wanted him to do it for nothing?
Witness: Yes; I did not want to spend any money over the case.
—Mr Gallaway: Are you not in the habit of going round to solicitors' offices and asking them to take up cases for you, saying that you have no money, but that you will pay subsequently?
—Witness: No.
—Mr Gallaway: Well, I should like to step into the box and give evidence about that.
Plaintiff, examined by defendant, stated: No conversations such as you have described ever took place between us, nor anything that could be construed into such. Had I known the nature of your case I would never have touched it for any fee, as I have told you, Mr Robinson. Had I been the young woman's brother whom you summoned for assault I would have given you a horsewhipping myself.
— Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. -Evening Star, 25/1/1884.
The "Police Court" case referred to above would seem to be the one which was dismissed by the presiding Magistrate as a "deserved rebuke." As was revealed in the libel case against the "Star," Robinson made no friends in Dunedin legal circles.
THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.
CITY POLICE COURT.
Joseph W. Robinson, on remand, was charged with creating a breach of the peace in Frederick street on the 19th inst.
—Accused, having got into the witness-box to give evidence, was asked by Sergeant Bevin whether he had not insulted a young lady in George street, and was not in the habit of insulting females in the street.
—Accused: I think you had better keep yourself quiet.
—Mr Logan: I think you have been before the Court before under somewhat similar circumstances. You had better conduct yourself better.
—Sergeant Bevin: Will your Worship ask him whether he was not smothered in flour by a woman whom he accosted?—(Laughter.)
—Mr Logan: He seems to be crazed on the female point. State what you know of him in the usual way.
—Sergeant Bevin: He has not been convicted, but there have been several complaints about him.
—Accused: From respectable people?
—Sergeant Bevin: Yes.
— The Bench inflicted a fine of L2 and costs, in default ten days' imprisonment. -Evening Star, 24/4/1884.
Local & General
A CONTEMPORARY remarks that they have a “dude” in Dunedin, and one who if the following letter in the Star is correct, must possess as much vitality as is commonly ascribed to cats; — “Sir, —Notwithstanding the dude with three initials has been ducked in the Leith, horsewhipped, pelted with stones and brickends, smothered with mud, flour, etc., he still perambulates the north end of the town, making himself a nuisance to poor motherless girls. Cannot something be done to stop his offensive behaviour before something serious takes place? I have no ill-will against the individual in question, and write only through a sense of duty to warn parents to caution the girls to shun his society.” —We advise a trial of tar, feathers, and a rail. -Lake County Press, 11/6/1885.
Brief Mention
A Dunedin "dude" has been making himself notorious in the Southern capital by pestering young girls with his odious attentions. He has been horsewhipped, pelted with stones, rolled in the mud, and kicked, and still he persists in perambulating the streets on the look out for young girls who are walking alone. "A Parent" writes a hot letter to a Dunedin paper about Mr Dude. It is to be hoped that the scoundrel will meet with his deserts ere long. -Observer, 16/6/1885.
A card.
W. J. W. ROBINSON
(Late of Dunedin),
ARCHITECT, Aitken House, corner of Ghuznee-street and Willis-street, Wellington -Evening Post, 12/4/1886.
TO BUILDERS
TENDERS are invited for the Erection of two-story Buildings in Brick and Concrete, at Lambton-quay, for M. J. Mulligan, Esq. Plans and specification to be seen at my office, Evening Post Chambers, Willis-street, where tenders may be lodged till 15th inst., at noon. Lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted.
W. J. W. ROBINSON, Architect. -Evening Post, 6/5/1886.
Tenders
TO BUILDERS.
TENDERS are invited for the erection of Two Villas in Willis-street, for Mrs Haughton. Plans and specifications to be seen at my office, Evening Post Chambers, Willis-street, where tenders may be lodged till 4th September. W. J.W. ROBINSON, Architect. -NZ Times, 23/8/1886.
Robinson seems to have been doing good business in Wellington in 1886 - nothing spectacular, but the number of advertisements indicates that his practice was a steady one. Until this legal matter:
Judgment in favour of the defendant, with £3 6s costs, was given by Mr. Wardell in the Magistrate's Court this afternoon in the case of J. A. Houguez, builder, v. W. J. W. Robinson, architect. It will be remembered that the plaintiff claimed £50 damages for alleged fraudulent withholding of a certificate for a progress payment in connection with the contract for the erection of Mrs. Houghton's villa residences, Willis-street. His Worship held that witnesses for the defence had put an entirely different construction upon the matter from the version offered by the plaintiff, and said that he had been satisfied that the defendant had grounds for the refusal to give a certificate quite apart from any that could be suggested as fraudulent. Mr. Menteath appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Devine for defendant. -Evening Post, 14/12/1886.
Mr Wardell, R.M., occupied the Bench on Monday morning. One first offender for drunkenness was dealt with in the usual way. An assault case was heard, in which J, A. Houguez, contractor, was charged with assaulting W. J. Robinson, architect, on the 25th inst. Mr Devine appeared for the complainant, and Mr Monteath for the defendant. The evidence for the prosecution went to show that the complainant, who is architect for a building being erected in Willis-street for Mrs Houghton, went to the building and instructed the defendant, who is the contractor, to make some alterations, which the defendant declined to do. The defendant told the complainant to clear out, to which the prosecutor replied that if he didn't choose to take instructions, from him he had better leave the work altogether. The complainant turned to walk away when the defendant ran after him and shoved him over against the side of the house, whereby he considerably shaken, and a cane which he had was broken. In cross-examination, the complainant denied that he had called the defendant a scoundrel, or flourished the cane with any hostile intent. The defendant stated that the complainant had been flourishing the stick in his face for the last fortnight, and on the day in question had tapped him on the nose with it. He had seized the stick and broken it because the prosecutor irritated him. His Worship held that an assault had been committed, and considering that the parties would have to come in contact with each other in the execution of their several duties, he decided to bind the accused over to keep the peace for a period of three months in two sureties of £l0 each, or one of £20. For the assault, he would inflict a fine of £l, with 17s costs. The necessary sureties were found before the defendant left the Court. -NZ Mail, 4/2/1887.
THE COURTS.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT,
THREATENING LANGUAGE AND ASSAULT.
J. W. J. Robinson, architect, pleaded not guilty to having made use of threatening language and assaulting John A. Houguez. The complainant stated in his evidence that on last Friday he heard the defendant tell some of his (witness’) workmen not to obey witness' instructions. After this remark some high words ensued, and defendant caught witness by the throat and called him a d____ scoundrel. Two workmen who were present at the time gave corroborative evidence. Defendant asked for an adjournment for the witnesses, but the request was declined by the Bench, who were of opinion that defendant had had ample opportunity of doing so. Defendant was ordered to enter into his own recognisance of £25, and obtain another surety for a similar amount to keep the peace for three months. The Court then adjourned. -NZ Times, 15/2/1887.
Robinson's return to Wellington from his Dunedin libel case sees him again advertising for tenders to complete the commission for Mrs Houghton, but not the end of dealings with Mr Houguez. The latter claimed L10 (about $2000 today) from Robinson, alleging extortion in the matter of refusing to issue the certificate for a progress payment. Robinson was again victorious in this case, and later claimed £1 9s for costs. In this, he was disappointed.
Mrs. Houghton's villa was completed -
A handsome double villa residence has just been completed for Mrs Houghton, in Upper Willis-street. The building, which is a twostory one, and built of wood, occupies a frontage of 35ft by a depth of 64ft, and each villa contains six rooms. Handsome bay windows considerably help to set off the appearance of the building. The villa was designed by Mr W. J. W. Robinson, architect, of this city, and built by Mr J. H. Meyers. -NZ Times, 19/8/1887.
A CONTRADICTION.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —I beg to call your attention to the statement made by J. A. Houguez in connection with certain villas in Willis street, denying that I was architect for Mrs Houghton’s villa residences. Though Houguez was the original contractor, he failed to complete his contract, and in consequence thereof Mr Meyer has had the honor of completing the buildings, and I was the architect,—
I am, &c., W. J. W. Robinson, Architect.
[This must end the discussion.— Ed, N.Z.T.] -NZ Times, 23/8/1887.
W. J. W. Robinson again appeared in court in 1888, against (separately) John A. Houguez to defend a charge of obtaining money under false pretences and M. A. Houghton to recover L90 for "extra attendances and services rendered." He won the first and lost the second.
It might be imagined that Mr Robinson's mental disposition was a peculiar one. His dealings with young women in Dunedin seem strange to say the least. His suit against the Evening Star, which he must have known would bring forth his identification as "the dude," seems, to say the least, ill-advised. And then comes this:
POLITICAL NOTES
A remarkable petition was presented to the House by Dr Newman yesterday, the petitioner being W. J. W. Robinson, architect of this city, who will be remembered as having been a party in greatly protracted litigation which has recently taken place in the Magistrate's Court. (not a reference to Dunedin matters) The petition is addressed to the members of the House of Representatives “who were elected to be a voice to the people and guide the wayward to the path of justice, and be a light to them that sit in darkness. Salutations to you all! May the God of grace have mercy upon us now and for evermore. These salutations are sufficient." The petitioner goes on to state that “the amount of £300 must be paid by the Government, actual damages sustained by the complainant at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Wellington.” He explains the cases in which he was concerned, and makes charges against the Magistrate (Mr Wardell) in connection therewith. In consequence of his being compelled while these cases were being heard to give evidence about a case tried in Dunedin, his character and credit were ruined. He asks the House to deal with the matter at once, since he has been left without money or credit; that a hearing of the case Robinson v Keith be granted; and that judgment for £90 be given in the case of Robinson v. Houghton. In conclusion, he says; “I kindly ask the hon members to taking my case into due consideration and mental preservation, and that I will be awarded till what extent the hon members may deem necessary.” -NZ Times, 21/6/1888.
Some weeks ago a petition was presented to the House on behalf of W. J. W. Robinson, architect, of Wellington, praying for redress for certain wrongs which he claimed to have suffered in connection with the local Magistrate's Court. The Public Petitions Committee have enquired into the matter and report that in their opinion the matters complained of by the petitioner are not of such a nature as to call for interference on their part, but should be dealt with in the ordinary way by the Courts of law. The Committee has therefore no recommendation to make. -Evening Post, 19/7/1888.
POLITICAL NOTES
W. J. W. Robinson, architect, of this city, has now again petitioned Parliament, this time for a reconsideration of his former petition, on the ground that he has further evidence. -NZ Times, 8/8/1888.
An application was made to the Resident Magistrate to-day by W. J. W. Robinson, architect, for the re-hearing of the case which he brought against Mrs. M. A. Houghton in June last, claiming £90 for extra attendance in connection with the erection of houses in Willis-street, in which judgment now stands recorded in favour of the defendant. Mr. Edwards appeared for the defendant, and opposed the application on the the ground that the costs of the former hearing, £4 10s, have not been paid. Plaintiff did not see that that was any reason for objecting, and bitterly complained that he was being "unlawfully kept in Wellington for the purpose of giving evidence in the case." His Worship ultimately adjourned the application until the 25th inst., subject to payment of £1 1s costs by the applicant, it being distinctly understood that it would not be entertained until all the costs of the original hearing were paid. -Evening Post, 18/10/1888.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (excerpt)
An affiliation case, Sarah Heywood v. W. J. W. Robinson, was dismissed, as the prosecutrix did not appear. -NZ Mail, 7/12/1888.
Then, as now, a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process of law. So I would not suggest that Mr Robinson was guilty of "affiliation." I can only report that he was accused of it and that the accusation was not heard by the Court owing to the non-appearance of his accuser. "Affiliation," just by the way, is the condition where a man was accused of being the father of a woman's child and seemed reluctant to admit it and his responsibilities to the mother and child.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (excerpt)
An affiliation case, Sarah Heywood v. W. J. W. Robinson, was dismissed, as the prosecutrix did not appear. -NZ Mail, 7/12/1888.
Then, as now, a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process of law. So I would not suggest that Mr Robinson was guilty of "affiliation." I can only report that he was accused of it and that the accusation was not heard by the Court owing to the non-appearance of his accuser. "Affiliation," just by the way, is the condition where a man was accused of being the father of a woman's child and seemed reluctant to admit it and his responsibilities to the mother and child.
Come the year 1889, and it might seem certain that Mr Robinson has fallen back into previous uncouth behaviours.
W. J. W. Robinson was summoned upon a charge preferred by Susannah McAvoy, who accused the defendant of having been a source of annoyance to her. As the complainant did not appear the case was dismissed. -Evening Post, 20/3/1889.
As the year continues, it would seem that, for some reason, Mr Robinson is not practicing as an architect any more.
W. J. W. Robinson was charged with having no visible means of support. He was, upon the application of Sergeant-Major Morice, discharged, as the accused had promised not to go loitering about the streets. -NZ Times, 10/9/1889.
Why would Mr W. J. W. Robinson have lost his income? Could it be distasteful rumours emanating from the southern city of Dunedin? Similar rumours circulating amongst prospective Wellington clients? A reputation amongst said clients for being "difficult?"
My guess, from the distance of over a century, would be "D: all of the above."
Why would Mr W. J. W. Robinson have lost his income? Could it be distasteful rumours emanating from the southern city of Dunedin? Similar rumours circulating amongst prospective Wellington clients? A reputation amongst said clients for being "difficult?"
My guess, from the distance of over a century, would be "D: all of the above."
LOBBY GOSSIP
Deporting on the petition of W. J. W. Robinson, of Wellington, who alleges that the Government have retained certain moneys belonging to him, the Petitions Committee state that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his allegations. -NZ Times, 31/7/1890.
Persons who petition the House should be careful, or they may get more than they want. Mr W. J. W. Robinson, of Wellington, is a gentleman to whom this remark would apply. Recently he sent a petition to the House, alleging that the Government had paid certain money, recommended to be paid to him by the Public Petitions Committee, to the 'wrong Robinson' and asking for redress. The opinion of the A to L Petitions Committee, as expressed in their report, is that in their opinion the Government should cause an enquiry to be made as to the sanity of the petitioner. -NZ Times, 5/10/1892.
POLITICAL GOSSIP
W. J. W. Robinson, architect, of Wellington, recently sent a somewhat extraordinary petition to the House as to certain moneys which should have been paid to that particular Robinson having been paid to another Robinson. This is the A to L Committee's report on it:— "That in the opinion of your Committee the Government should cause inquiry to be made as to the sanity of this petitioner." The petitioner included an elaborate prayer for members of Parliament in his petition. The fact that he was not aware that they are past praying for is in itself suspicious. -Evening Star, 5/10/1892.
The language in the following story would, by itself, seem today to be the formal language of the time. But it seems to have been found remarkable by the publishing newspaper and is described as "curious." The text, to this writer, seems by this stage to be that of someone who is destitute, having "been kept in a low position for the last four years." The two words "been kept" are telling. Mr Robinson is blaming outside agencies for his own demise, and expecting those agencies to put things right. The final story in this sequence is not unexpected.
Says the Wellington Press: Mr W. J. W. Robinson, architect, Willis street, has — not for the first time — presented a curious petition to the House. The first paragraph reads thus: "Honorable Speaker and honorable members of the House of Representatives of New Zealand in Parliament assembled, both European and Native members, howsoever elected to a voice to guide the wayward to the path of justice, and to be a light to them that sit in darkness, — Salutations to you all. May the God of all grace have mercy upon us now and for evermore. These salutations are sufficient. This is to explain my opinion to you, Mr Speaker, and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petitioner then refers to certain sums of money which, he says, he lost in various ways in connection with the actions of Parliamentary Committees and the Law Courts. He then concludes as follows: That the complainant has been kept in a low position for the past four years, and unable to earn a living, and prays for the honorable members of the House of Representatives to give grave consideration to the complainant's petition, and that the money hereinbefore mentioned and explained, will be refunded and paid to the complainant, as the honorable members of the House may hereafter consider their duty to do." -North Otago Times, 17/10/1892.
W. J. W. Robinson, who petitioned Parliament session after session with reference to alleged grievances, was committed to the Asylum yesterday afternoon, Drs. Adams and Mackenzie certifying that he is insane. -Evening Post, 24/12/1892.
No comments:
Post a Comment