Page:History of Australia, Rusden 1897.djvu/636

 608 PROSECUTIONS FOR LIBEL. ACERBITIES. the fact that the withdrawal was not confined to his own case. It extended to Van Diemen's Land. Meantime, though the Stamp Duty Bill was shelved, the laws which had been passed were not allowed to slumber. The editor of the Monitor, Mr. E. S. Hall, was repeatedly convicted, fined, and imprisoned. The publisher of the Australian newspaper, in which Wentworth and Wardell gave vent to their wrath, was fined £100 and imprisoned for six months for a statement that in the case of the soldier Sudds, the Governor had substituted his will for the law. The contentions of the time were not limited to the Courts. In the duel between Dr. Wardell and the Governor's brother- in-law, which was fought a few weeks before the Bills to control the press were introduced by the Governor, the lawyer underwent Colonel Dumaresq's challenge, and though both antagonists were grazed by the first discharge, two more shots were exchanged before the seconds could persuade Dr. Wardell to make a verbal apology, and induce the cool but determined Dumaresq to accept it. A turf club of which the Governor was patron was made the conduit of the hot passions of the time. Wentworth and Wardell had, at a meeting of the club in 1827, assailed the Governor. Darling withdrew his patronage. Recrimina- tions were exchanged, and Darling brought his power to bear on those public officials who were members of the club. Too late the club disclaimed the connection with politics which they had sanctioned. Dr. Wardell was prosecuted for a libel stating that the Governor's departure would be hailed with pleasure. By the jury law, unless both parties agreed to have a civil jury, the jurors were military officers. The officers were objected to as under Darling's control. The objection was overruled. The jurors were fruitlessly challenged in ** array." The imputations against them for servility were refuted by their conduct. They could not . agree upon their verdict. Late on Saturday night they reported that they could not agree, and with consent of all parties they were allowed to depart until the Monday morning, pledging their honour that they would hold no conference about the trial out of doors. On the Monday, still unable to agree, they were discharged. Personal animoBity so pervaded Dailm^'^ enemies that when a dis-