Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page

THE CHARGE OF LIBEL AGAINST…

News
Cite
Share

THE CHARGE OF LIBEL AGAINST A NEWPORT DRAPER. COMMITTAL OF THE ACCUSED. At the Cardiff police court yesterday, before Mr. It. 0. Jones and Mr. Alderman Alexander, Robert Macmillan, travelling draper, residing in Newport, was again charged with having written and published a certain false, scandalous, and defamatory libel," upon Mr. John Gunn, of Cardiff. Mr. Morgan, Cardiff* appeared for Mr. Gunn; and Mr. J. Plews, Merthyr, for the defendant. From the evidence of Mr. John Gunn, which was re- ported in last Tuesday's Daily News, it appeared that the defendant, who had formerly been in Mr. Gunn's employ, filed a petition in bankruptcy in May last. Pro- secutor proved for 9444, and was appointed trustee. From that time the defendant had commenced to annoy him. On the 28th of February he received through the post, and in the prisoner's handwriting, an envelope directed to Master John Gunn, Duffer's Villa, or Duffryn Villa, Cardiff," describing him by a libellous epithet, implying great immorality and accusing him of robbing the poor by thousands. Another letter was sent to a gentleman at Bristol accusing the prosecutor of having committed perjury, and in a declaration filed in an interpleader suit he made several imputations against r. Gunn, and accused him of having tried to murder him (the defendant) in his bed. On the resumption of the hearing of the case, Mr. Cx,aiAn was cross-examined by Mr. Plews. The letter of the 28th of February was put into his hand, and he swore positively that though the writing was slightly disguised it was the handwriting of the prisoner. Questioned at some length as to what had taken place between the defendant and himself—Mr. Plews' object being to show the existence of a bad feeling—Mr. Gunn repeated a great portion of his examination in chief. He did not take steps to ascertain the correctness of the particulars giTeoII in defendant's declaration, because he did not think it necessary, believing the judge would not admit such a libellous document in court. The judge did not admit it, and fined the defendant for contempt of oourt. He was not aware that defendant had been fiI. He saw him in his bedroom; but defendant had not to call in his sister to protect him from his (Mr. Gunn's) violence. Quite the contrary, the de- fendant said he was exceedingly sorry for his conduct. It was positively untrue that he struck at the defendant with a book as he was lying in bed. Defendant was arrested at Pontypridd, and was released afterwards with his (witness's) consent. It was entirely and absolutely upon his consent that the defendant was discharged from custody. In re-examination, Mr. Gunn said that during the three years defendant was in his employ he had fre- quent opportunities of seeing his handwriting. At the first hearing of the interpleader case, the defendant did not supply any particulars. The paper produced was the particulars defendant sent before the second hearing. By the Magistrate's Clerk He heard the defendant swear to the handwriting of the particulars after he had ealled upon him (prosecutor) to prod-ice them in court-at the second hearing. John Henry said he was formerly in the employ of Mr. Gunn for three years, while Macmillan was also in the complainant's employ. He frequently saw de- fendant writing, and for the last three years he had been travelling with books, partly in defendant's writing. The handwriting of the envelope produced was similar to Mr. Macmillan's handwriting. He had no donbt that it was written by Macmillan. The letter produced (the one addressed to Mr. Merry, of Bristol, and dated May 24th,J 1871), was in the defendant's handwriting, as were also the particulars supplied by defendant for the 'interpleader case. The letter, which spoke of Mr. Gunn as a persecuting Claverhouse," concluded by stating that Mr. Gunn had perjured him- self in effecting his (the defendant's) arrest. Donald Kennedy MacDonald, residing in Merthyr, said he was present at the County Court in Pontypridd, in March last. He saw the letter produced. Mr. Gunn was ordered to produce it in Court. The judge said the particulars were insufficient. The defendant admitted the particulars were in his handwriting. Jabez Bryant, manager to Messrs. D. J. Merry & Co., said he was in the habit of opening letters the. first thing in the morning. The letter read, dated the 24th flf May, came in the ordinary way through the post. It war signed Robert Macmillan. Mr. Merry was one of the committee of inspection. Marcus Gunn, brother to Mr. Gunn, now residing at Huddersfield, said he managed his brother's business for two years and a half, and for the greater part of that time Macmillan was in his service. He knew Macmillan's hand-writing. The letters produced were in Macmillan's hand-writing. He was cross- examined at some length with regard to the identity of handwriting, but was firm in his opinion that the let- ters were in the handwriting of Macmillan Mr. Plews, in addressiag the court for the defendant submitted that the evidence connecting the defendant with the envelope was not sufficient, Mr. Gunn's being the only evidence distinctly pointing to the fact that it was in the defendant's handwriting, and he thought the Bench would require that Mr. Gunn's evidence should be very strictly corroborated before they would send the ease for trial. He (Mr. Plews) was not there to defend either Macmillan, or anybody like him, who would write a scurrilous letter like that put in but he was instructed by his client to deny that he was the author of the envelope, or that he never wrote anything of that kind to Mr. Gunn. With regard to the other paper, the bill of particulars put into court by the defendant, Mr. Gunn's vindictive pursuit of him had stirred up very strong feelings in his mind, which he expressed in equally strong language. The alleged libel in that ,paper were the words You attempted to murder me in my bed," and he should prove by the evidence of de- fendant's sister that that was only a strong way of de- rcribing Mr. Gunn's conduct in the defendant's. bed room. With regard to the tetter sent to Mr. Merry, of Bristol, that had not been traced sufficiently to bring it into the case. The defendant was willing to express his regret at having used such intemperate language in the bill of particulars, and he should be glad if some such course could be adopted. Mr. R. 0. Jones said the envelope was very much more a matter for a jury than for the Bench to decide upon. It it turned out that the jury found the hand- writing was that of the defendant, he thought the judge would tell the jury that it was a libel. Still, if a proper apology were offered and accepted, the case might end in that Court. Mr. Plews asked if the Bench would allow the advo- eates and a clergyman who knew the defendant, and was present, to confer for a short time. The Bench said that they would hear what fell from the learned gentlemen with pleasure; but those were the only agencies they could listen to. Mr. Morgan said that Mr. Gunn had had to endure xo much annoyance from the defendant that he must decline a conference. The Bench said that in that case they should commit the case for trial. Mr. Plews said after that intimation he would not call the witnesses he intended to. He asked if bail would be taken. Mr. Morgan said sinee the ease was last before tne court, Mr. Gunn bad received another insulting letter. He should not, however, oppose the application if the defendant would promise not to write any more annoy- ing letters. Mr. Plows, on behalf of the defendant, disclaimed any connection with the letters referred to. The Bench committed the prisoner for trial, and ac- cepted bail—two sureties in the sum of £ 50.

Advertising

MONEY MARKET. —MONDAY.

BRISTOL STOCK EXCHANGE.—YESTERDAY.

LONDON CORN MARKET.—MONDAY.

!METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.—MONDAY.

METROPOLITAN MEAT MARKET.—MONDAY.

WOOL MARKET.—MONDAY.

THE TICHBORNE CASE..

THE INSULT TO THE QUEEN.

THE WARWICKSHIRE STRIKE.

CARDIFF.

DISGRACEFUL RIOT IN BIRMINGHAM.

Advertising