OUR PUBLIC CRITICISM OF THE JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1150, 10 June 1911, Page 3

OUR PUBLIC CRITICISM OF THE JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES.

Sir,—l am one of many who hate to hear criticisms of Judges and stipendiary magistrates. I want the Heneh to go unchallenged about its work, to be revered bv tho public. But, sir, whilst saying this it is a matter of regret to me that 1 think in every case my sympathies have been with the critics and against the Judges. Why? Because in tiie last 20 years some of our Judges and our stipendiary magistrates have acquired the pernicious habit of lecturing the public. AVhat right has a Judge r or magistrate to hector and bully sections of the public? Every time he does so lie shows animus or bias. English Judges are nearly always free of this. They give impartial judgment without embroidery. A few . years ago an English Judge frequently lectured the public, lie was frequently criticised. 1 don't know who shut him up, but he was eoon silenced. Our older Judges 0.J., and Richmond and Williams never mado the judicious grieve—they gave bare judgments and held their peace. Here, of lalo years, an evil habit has grown up of Judges and magistrates lecturing the public: naturally, and I am bound to say rightly, the lectured hithack again. Some years ago a. Judge went out of his way to criticise the Land Act and its administration. The then Minister for Lands hit back savagely. I did not like the Minister, but. all my sympathies were with him and against, the Judge. Tho Judge's speech was «rong—it. was outside his duty. Several stipendiary magistrates have denounced the temperance party from the Benchshowing distinct hostility to the _ reforme's. Surely they deserved criticism. If criticism is just it does not lower the Bench—the fault lies with those who show bias and talk sillily. Two or three years ago a. magistrate went out of his way to criticise a part of the Wellington tramways; it was very foolish; the critics were right—the magistrate unwise. A day or two ago Dr. M'Arthur, in a case, is reported by vou to liavo- said to the City Solicitor: '"The Wellington trams arc disgracefully crowded." What business is it of his to criticise? I know a large number of thoughtful men in New Zealand often grieve as I do at the unnecessary lecturing habits of Judges and magistrates. Take again the recent bitter controversy, Stout, C.J., y. the professors and students of \ictona, College. Is the Chief Justice of tho Dominion wisp even to become embroiled in such a tin-pot affair? If our magistrates and Judges would lake Sir .Tames Prendergast as their modfi—then the dignity of the Bench would be upheld. Nearly every tune a Judge or magistrate goes out ot his way to lecture the public he does harm. It is not. the work he is paid lo do. There are crowds of others to do that port of work. T mu't. confess that every time I read these lectures from the Bench I yyiere—they „dq fan more harm than

good. "Silence if golden" for Judges and majjiptrntl am confident thai" if our high judirial nflirials would only keep their months shut there would be almost nn public clamour —Ihe Bench should show ils impartiality.- 1 am only one of rnanv who think the Chief Justice should not have liikcn the chair at a banquet to Sir Joseph Ward. Next we shall hear of. others doing Ihe *aine thing. Our Judges should keep ckar of such affairs. 1 am convinced (hero will be more nf I his much lo be deplored "lowering of the Bench" as it is called by public, criticism. Reform must begin, not with the critics but with the criticised. —I am, c-tc., A FJKM SUPPORTED OF THE JUDICIARY.