AN EXPLANATION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 988, 6 July 1883, Page 2

AN EXPLANATION.

To the Editor. Sir, — I notice in yesterday's issue of the Guardian a local in reference to the remarks made by his Honor Judge Johnston in Logge’s case, to the effect that “if Legge had retained me to defend him in Christchurch I was guilty of a direlection of duty in not appearing on his behalf. ” As many of the public on reading this might form an opinion that I had failed to do what I ought to have done in the matter, I take this opportunity of publicly stating that I never was retained by Legge to go to Christchurch, and that not being retained, as a matter of course, 1 never went. Mr Leggo’a statement that he expected me to appear and defend him is utterly unwarrantable on his part, as 1 never undertook to do so, and as Legge never asked me and never even mentioned the matter to me in any way, I cannot understand how even his very limited intellect could conceive that I was to appear. Legge retained me to defend him in the I

J, P. Court here, and I did so and received from him an order for a small amount on liis employers for services already rendered, and there was an end of the matter. In addition to this, I distinctly told Leggo on ids committal and some of the witnesses who thought with mo that Legge ought to be defended in Christchurch, that some Christchurch barrister would have to be retained (Mr Stringer’s name being mentioned in the conversation). And I submit that Legge’s assertion to his Honor is utterly unjustifiable, and must have been to Legge’s own knowledge at variance with the fact For my services in defending Logge in the J. P. Court here on four charges, I received an order on Messrs J. and T. Meek for L 5 ss, which is not paid yet, and I leave it to the public to say if any man in his senses without retaining me, and without mentioning the matter to me, and after being expressly told he would have to retain a Christchurch barrister, could expect me to leave my business for two days and defend him on four charges of sheep stealing upon the faith of a doubtful and unpaid order for L 5 5s. —I am, etc., Ed. G. Ckisp.

P. S. —I do not blame Legge, as I have been, since his committal, so convinced that he is “ daft ” that I went out of my way to request some of his Oamaru friends to instruct a Christchurch barrister to set up a defence of insanity.—E. G. 0.