THE AUCKLAND BAR ON JUDGE GILLIES' ACTION IN THE CASE OF REGINA V. GUDEON.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), 15 February 1883, Page 2

THE AUCKLAND BAR ON JUDGE GILLIES' ACTION IN THE CASE OF REGINA V. GUDEON.

Auckland, This day. A meeting of the members of the legal profession was held yesterday for the purpose of inquiring into the conduct of the counsel acting for the prisoner in the case of Regiua v. Gudgeon. There was a good attendance, and Mr James Russell Avas voted to the chair. Mr W. Hill moved "That having reference to ths printed reports of the Judge's remarks as to counsel's defence in the case of Regina v. Gudgeon, Mr Hesketh he invited to give an explanation of his conduct.' The motion was carried. _ _ Sir Hesketh read a lengthy paper, giving the reasons why he set up the plea of consent on the part of the prosecutrix in Gudgeon's defence, and as having been imperatively instructed by his client so to do. MrW. Hill moved, "That this meeting having before it the report of the case of Retina v. Gudgeon, and having heard the statement of Mr Edwin Hesketh, one of the counsel for the prisoner in that case, resolve that the line of defence adopted by counsel therein was justified, and the counsel would ! have been guilty of a gross breach ot duty towards their client had they not acted as they did." Mr R. Browning seconded the resolution, which wascarried. Mr N Brassey moved, " That the chairman, Mr W. HiU, and Mr J. M. Alexander be a committee to wait on his Honor Mr J ustice Gillies, to ascertain (1) whether he meant what he said, (2) whether he thought the counsel for the defence were guilty of unprofessional conduct, and (3) whether he wished to oft'er any explanation before the adjourned meeting."

Mr Tyler seconded the motion. Mr Laishley moved, at au amendment,

"That although Mr Justice Gillies may have been in error as a matter of judgment in this case, the foregoing resolution must not be allowed to be taken as being in any way a reflection upon him that he imputed dishonorable conduct to counsel, inasmuch as he not only expressly guarded himself against imputing wilful dishonorable conduct to the counsel in question, but laid down such general principles as cannot be questioned as unsound." Mr Dig-nan seconded the amendment, which was, however, lost. Mr N. Brassey's motion was then piit in writing as follows: — "Whilst this meeting is of opinion that counsel's conduct was not base or dishonorable, that a committee consisting of tho chairman and Messrs Hill and Alexander wait upon his Honor to enquire (1) as to whether his Honor meant what he said when he stated that counsel were conducting a base and dishonorable defence, (2)_ as to whether he considers that counsel in that case -\ycvq guilty of dishonorable conduct in setting up that defence, and (3) as to whether he wished to make any explanation as to his remarks in that case." Messrs Alexander and Hill declined to act on the committee. The motion was then put and negatived. Mr M'Corinick then moved the following , resolution :—" That the members of the profession here assembled express theirregret that tho Judge presiding at the trial of the case of the Queen v. Gudgeon should have stated to the jury in such case his opinion that the counsel for the accused in supporting a defence on the ground of consent by the prosecutrix were not doing their duty as honorable men." Mr J. M. Alexander seconded the motion, which was carried. On the motion of Mr Devore it was agreed, '"That a copy of the resolutions passed here to-day be sent to all the Judges and Law 'Societies in New Zealand. •'