Editorial.

Clutha Leader, Volume IV, Issue 187, 8 February 1878, Page 6

Editorial.

I^jTn lasOssnfrwe gave from the Canterfibury Times a full report, of the recent ?; trial of: reapers and hinders in that ; j v*ifjunvtpn, ; flufl in this issue wp give a I: /'-season's, experience of the "Wood" - wbicli will Drove interesting* "to many of our reader 3 . We recyard "the introduction of these machines as :- "the most important event that has oc- '.-. *curr;ed in connection with agriculture ; 'for ;many yeai's. and we cannot help ; 'expressing' surprise that the matter /is not attracting: greater- attention throuffliout the Ohifhn district. Apparently these machines are suited to 'all kinds of grain crops, "and the saving 1 "they effect as compared wifh the rear*ing 1 machines at present used i<s 12s "per acre. ' Surely this is worthy of con- : -sideraiion. Tt is so reg-arded in Canterbury, where one hundred and liftv 'machines same as that "which secured -second place at the trial referred to, have been ordered. We observe numerous settlers and others call for 'tenders for harvesting work. Were, someone to procure a reaper and Hinder and enter into contracts for cutting and "bindinsr, he should he able to make a . good thing* of it even during' the present season. We have no doubt that by another year there will be many of the new machines introduced into the district.

Tn last issue we mentioned the fact that Mr G. E. Barton, Barrister, had been sentenced by the Chief Justice at Wellington to a month's imprisonment for contempt of Court. Poor Mr Barton has evidently for years past coveted a martyr's crown, but has only grained- for himself the cap and the bells. He anticipated the sentence would excite such an outburst of popular indignation as would drive his Honor from the TBencb and secure for the prisoner a "triumphant entry to Parliament, and probably the highest judicial seat in the Colony. He was mistaken. The verdict : is that he is now only reaping the 'legitimate fruit of the disrespectful and insulting tone of speech and course of •conduct he bsg indulged in towards the Bench of this country for many years past. Remonstrance and threatenings j "have been tried with him, but ail in vein, and now that the sentence has ' been passed only an infinitesimal sympathy on his behalf hiss been created, •and both the Legislature and the Bench are further removed than ever from his 'grasp. Tt is to be hoped the example that hns been set will have a salutary ■effect upon others who have shown an "inclination to overstep the lines of courtesy in the same direction. Judjres fortunately are armed with ample powers for the preservation of the -dignity of the Bench, and now that the Chief Justice has taken the step he has done, others may not hesitate to follow the precedent, should occasion arise. But there is another direction in which the restraining influence of the Bench might be exercised with salutary results. Everyone whose business has necessitated even an occasional attendance at courts of justice must "have been shocked at the unrestrained license allowed to. and exercised by, the gpntlemen of the long robe in the examination of witnesses. We are well aware that occasions arise when the ends of justice demand that a most 'minute and searching examination "be made into the whole facts and •surroundings of a cause. No exception can be taken to such an investigation being made. But lawyers are not unfroquently allowed to browbpat witnesses merely for tho fun of the thing, -and to insult them in •every conceivable way,, for the only •reason that they tell a plain unvarnished truth, which is unpalatable to the examiner and fatal to his clients' cause. Questions are allowed which are quite irrelevant to the causp, and which are "put evidently to "insult if not intimidate the witness. "Why should this be allowed? As a rule witnesses do not appear of their own accord in a court of justice to tender evidence. They are reluctantly dragged into court when they would much prefer to stay away. "Why then should they not be protected against insults by the same power .that compels their attendance ? We "thoroughly believe in the necessity for 'upholding the authority and dignity -of the court, but we think there is also a necessity for preserving the character and respecting the feelings of witnesses, who are compelled to appear before that court, and who are so frequently insulted with impunity. This is a direo'tion in which it is to be honed the Chief •TTustice or some other Justice may >shortly set another salutary example.