"Think it over, ye careful members of the Board, and consider what an amount of friction and money would bo saved by adopting the suggestion, meaning thereby that the plaintiff had been guilty of gross misconduct in the discharge ot his oflicial duties, and had acted as such Secretary and Treasurer in a manner which was unjustifiable and discreditable to him, and had not been neutral, impartial, and Without respect of person or party in the discharge of his said duties, but had been actuated by im proper partial and corrupt, motives therein, and had iost and was losing the respect, confidence and support or his fellow townsmen, and mean ing thereby that the plaintiff had porformert his duties as such treasurer and as an accountant in connection with the preparation of the said accounts of the Auckland Harbour Board in an improper and unskilful manner." The plaintiff prayed judgment for damages for the said libels. The statement of defence was to this ef fect: (l)Thab the words complained of aro not libellous; (2) that they aro true, and their publication, and tho publication of the things therein, aro i:» the public in terest ; (3) that supposing there are inaccu racies in the statements, them are nono of them libellous except one, which alleles gross inaccuracies and illegalities in the Harbour Board accounts for tho year 1890 : tho statement is true, and the publication is justifiable in tho public interest. In reply to Mr Kelly, His Honor said the onus of'proof lay upon the defendunt. It wa3 for the plaintiff to provo publication and to give some evidence rs to the mean ing of the words complained of. Mr Cotter then opened his case. The libels were in two publications, on January 30th and February 6th. After the first issued a letter was sent to Mr Kelly de manding a public apology. On the 16th January tho defendants replied, inquiring in what respect they had erred. Ho (Mr Cotter) replied, setting out in detail rarious allegations which now formed part of the statement of claim. He then insisted upon an apology to avoid issue of a writ. The defendants replied asserting that the de mand was based upon a misconception. They claimed to have done nothing calling for a public apology, and declined co apolo gise. 