THE WARD AND VOGEL TELEGRAMS.

Evening Star, Issue 3555, 15 July 1874, Page 2

THE WARD AND VOGEL TELEGRAMS.

[B? Telegraph.]

Wellington, July 14. The following is the return to an order of the Legislative Council, dated the 9th July (No. 1), 1874, that copies of all correspendence and telegrams which have passed between the Government and Judge Ward in reference to his Honor Mr Justice Chapman be laid on the table, on the motion of the Hon. Mr Waterhou e “ Mr District Judge Ward to the Hon. J. Vogel, Premier. April ?I, 1874. Most urgent. Great excitement’in Dunedin in the case of Macassey and Bell. Judge Chapman made this order ex parte on the 13th March last on the affidavit t of Mr Kettle:-‘I order that the plaintiff, or his solicitor, prior to the trial be allowed to inspect and take copies of all original telegrams relating to the subject matter of this action.’ No grounds were shown except an advantage to the plaintiff; thus every telegram between the defendant and his solicitor, counsel, witnesses, and agents, has been ordered to be pi odueed to plaintiff, partner of the son of the Judge, during the past five weeks, without the knowledge of the defendant, and witheut giving him a chance to object. The order was|«nly recently discovered by the defendant. A rule to rescind was moved by Mr Turton. D<. fendant’s|iolicitor was absent when the order was granted. It is believed that no j'j grams have been shown, but it is felt that "t'Sell has no chance of a fair trial before Judge Chapman. It is suggested, in the interest of justice, that you send down Judge Johnston to try the case, on the ground of gross partiality of Judge Chapman, now exposed, and suspend Chapman until the Assembly meets to take action. My telegrams

to my solicitor, Turton, were demanded by plaintiff. The Deputy-Registrar of the Court at Dunedin could telegraph to you Kettle’s affidavit and ord- r ; both show the day of tri .l, May 6. It was decided by Mr Justice Grove that the telegrams should not he produced, but treated as mailed letters. On the 20th of January last a report appeared in the * Daily News ’ re Taunton election petition. -u D. R. Ward, District Judge. Ihe Hon. J. Vogel, to Mr District Judge Ward, Wellington —April 22, 1874.—Am I to consider your telegram relating to Judge Chapman as addressed to me in my official capacity! If BO t, I must request you to withdraw it. The imputation is one of the most serious nature, and such aa i cannot receive except officially. If you withdraw the telegram, I hag that it nny be simply withdrawn, and that no communication be made on the subject otherwise than to me officially. lam informed by you qffioielly that the telegram already received is addressed to me officially. The Government will submit it to the Governor and take into consideration what advice they will give him as to the action to be taken in reference thereto.— Julius Vookl.—“Mr District Judge Ward to the Hon. Mr Vogel, Premier. —Oamaru, 22nd April. 1874.—My telegram was marked official, and intended to be so, Ide not make private accusations. Of course I knew you could not suspend Judge Chapman without reference to the Governor. The statement of facts is strictly correct. Kettle’s affidavit is merely that he has served Lubecki, the Dunedin telegraphist, with a subpoena to produce certain telegrams, that he (Kettle) has asked to see them, aid Lubecki said he would not show them without a Judge’s order, that inspecting them wenld be of material advantage to plaintiff. On this affidavit, Chapman on the sane day make a general order quoted in last telegram. Macassey is a partner of Chapman’s son, and on most inornate terms with the Judge, who is a god-father to ’one of his children.—-C.D R. Ward, D.J.”—“ Oamaru, 22nd April, 1874.—1 thank you most siiicerely for giving me opportunity of withdrawing my first felegram.’ Ho doubt It bears ra»rl(s of baatp • the §ase ijrae urgent. 1 but in all my correspondence with yotyf either private or official, I do not rememhep ever bringing a charge against a Government official, and .1 certainly should not do so without expecting an immediate inquiry. I omitted three matters in the last telegram : 1. That Kettle’s affidavit specified my telegrams to Turton (my solicitor) as among those plaintiff wished te inspect. I mention this te show that I am not a volunteer, but a party aggrieved. 2. Some weeks previous to Kettle’s application, the defendant Bell filed an affidavit stating that, within his knowledge, I had nothing to do either with the action or the article, fi. Mr Jamgs Smith, the defendant!* leading counsel, informed me ifc wts aranged that Chapman, plaintiff’s partner, and the Judge’s son, wag to hold a brief at the trial,—C. D. R. Ward, D.J,”—‘«Oamaru, April 21, 1874- —[official] —l have re-perused yonr telegram. I have no copy of ray own which was written at the Telegraph Office. There can have been no want of courtesy to yourself in mine ; but if there was any informa'ity or any appearance of presumption on my part iu suggesting a course of action to the Government, I beg to tender my apologies. With this exception, to every word I have written I hold. I ought further to say that my telegraphing to you was without any consent of Mr Bell or his legal advisers in Dunedin, who were wholly ignorant of my intention to do so. I felt that to ask thgm to mn would place them in even a worse position than at* present a(? the trial if Judge Chapman had presided at’it. in jnsi tice, therefore, I am wholly responsible'for this application to you. If you desire it I will forward a despatch with detailed statements. C. D. R. Ward, D.J.”— I “TheHon. J. Vogel to Mr District Judge Ward,—Wellington, 2ith April, 1874. >*-1 have to acknowledge your various telegrams relating to Judge Chapman. 1 explain jto yon that, < on the order to which you refer being brought 'finder the notice pf the Telegraph Department, it was considered so objectionable as to make th§ Telegraph Commissioner decide that it should not be obeyed, unless it was made a rule of Court. This was decided before your tele* grams, and you will be good enough to understand that the action taken by the Department and which may be taken is not consequent on your communications. I may however, inform yqq that, begides the order of wbiph yon art aware, an officer' in" 5m lelegraph Department has been to produce toe same telegrams iu Court the department in applying for leave to argue against their production. Respecting your complaints against the Judge, I have to ] inform you that Ministers, though disapproving of the order, see no reason, supposing their view of its objectionable nature is correct, to consider that its issue was other than an error of judgment. They see no grounds for connecting it with the domestic circumstances 'ydif r whilst they are of opinion that, unless the Judges are to be condemned to lives of celibacy, they will be liable to have offspring, and that these, when they arnve at years of discretion, should be as free to choose and pursue their avocations as. other members of the communities. Ministers will not advise his Excellency to take any action in the matter. A copy of the correspondence will be forwarded to Judge Chapman 'for his information. Julius Vdoal ’» “Mr District Judge Ward.- tp tha Hon. J, Vogel—Timaru, April 27,1874,-1 regret to see, from your second telegram, that I have failed to place Ministers in full possession of the facts of the case. I knew of the subpoena long since, and should never have troubled yon about that. As for the feundation for the order complained of, it is not of slightestimportance. hirst, because, according to law and English precedent, Judge Chapman has no authority to compel the production of these telegrams. Secondly, because the fact that X have had no c&itftnu with the defendants, as shown in the filed affidavit, would prevent any telegrams to others from being put in evidence. Thirdly, because, as I am advised, every existing telegram specifiad in this subpoena is between counsel or solicitors and clients, and as such held private and privileged from production or inspection in every English Court of Justice. Every lawyer knows that these telegrams cannot be produced at the trial, the ex parte order for their private inspection by plaint ff was therefore grievously unjust. The domestic circumstances yon allude to X mentioned to show the cltyse* qon> nection between the Judge who made the order, and the suitor who obtained it. I should be the last person iu New Zealand to advocate the condemnation of Judges to celibacy. When fuller facts eome to your knowledge by the newspapers, I am assured that no error or informalities of mine in this correspondence will prevent you irom giving them the grave consideration which they deserve. This telegram is paid, but it is. of course, official.—C. D. E. Ward, D.J.” [At this stage of the message the telegraph wire broke down ] 6 r