THE LATE DECISION IN THE R.M. COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 104, 17 July 1877, Page 2

THE LATE DECISION IN THE R.M. COURT.

TO THK EDITOR OF THE AKAROA MAIL. g IR) —There can be no doubt that the late painful case with all its surroundings has put prosaic Akaroa into an unusual state of excitement. The feeling now, however, is dying out, and sensible people will be glad when the subject of Watkins v. Adams, or the Queen v. Adams is blotted out from remembrance. But there are one or two points that arose here in the civil case that caused a feeling in the public mind that evenhanded justice had not been shown in the decision the Bench arrived at in the above - first-mentioned case. I confess that I myself felt rather startled when I read the result. I was not in the Court, nor had I an opportunity of getting any information as to the evidence, beyond that supplied by our local paper. I have now, however, ascertained on reliable authority—from one present throughout the case —that ,the judgment was something as follows: That the plaintiff had' supplied goods to the wife of the. defendant, or to the wife through an agent, there being an understanding between the tw» r Le.f the wife- and the storekeeper,

that the husband was not to be made privy to any transactions between them The bill, indeed, was to be sent into the wife. Now, if this is correct, or in substance a correct version of the grounds for the judgment as I have no doubt it in, I cannot help feeling that injustice has been done to the Bench in so generally condemning its decision. In the late case of perjury before th.c higher court, Mr. Ayhner in the box, the" counsel for the prisoner asked the witness if he would give the grounds for his decision in the case Watkins v. Adams. The Judge ruled the question an improper one. Mr. Aylmer repHed that he would wish to answer it, as'it would clear up a great deal of misapprehension. Quoting, I believe, from his notes, he stated to the Court the judgment delivered at Akaroa, much in the same words I have given above. His Honor's reply was, " and a very good judgment too, Mr. Aylmer, both in law and equity." Now, I think, amongst all the singular and perhaps reprehensible rel marks indulged in by the Judge, at the expense of his witnesses, it is but fair, both to him and all others concerned, that where he, the Judge, spoke words of truth and soberness, which, no' doubt, at intervals he does—especially if they tended to relieve a responsible officer of undeserved censure, the public of Akaroa should hear of it. With regard to the conduct of the case in the higher court, I cannot. but think that His Honor made a mistake in holding up officials as objects for derision. The effect cannot be otherwise than prejudicial to law order, and its administration and administrators. In such a quarter a Magistrate looks for sympathy and support, and where he meets with the reverse, as he certainly did in this case —the result must be damaging all round. His Honor, no doubt, thinks he took the right course, but with all due submission to so high an authority, I cannot help feeling that any laches or supposed laches in the conduct of a Government officer, should be carried to a tribunal where alone rests the power to punish. I have heard criminals in the dock receive sentences that would bear favourable comparison with the rebukes so lavishly dealt out to those unfortunate witnesses in the case of perjury, Queen v. Adams. I fear the tendency will be, that perjury trials will become singularly rare, not from its rarity—but for reasons that need not here be explained. Apologising for the trouble lam giving—l am, &c, FAIRPLAY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE AKAROA MAIL. Sir, —At a meeting of the Le Bon's BaySchool Committee, held on the 14th inst, Mr. W. Barnett, who, at a previous meeting had expressed his intention of resigning office, was called upon to do so, he did not want to do it, but ultimately laid his resignation on the table, when it was proposed that it be accepted. The proposition being put to the meeting, was carried, three cftiier members resigned. Mr. Leonard proposed a vote of thanks to Mr. Barnett for his conduct while in office, which was not seconded. With reference to a paragraph which appeared in your journal of the 26th June, stating, that on Mr. Barnett tendering his resignation, and being pressed by his fellow members to retain office, he consented to do so ior a fewmonths. That statement is incorrect, only one member, Mr. Leonardo, extendingthe invitation. Mr. Barnett has since retiied from office, and the business of the Committee is now being conducted amicably. NEW COMMITTEMAN.