MR STAMPER AND THE CITY BENCH.

Evening Star, Issue 4253, 13 October 1876, Page 2

MR STAMPER AND THE CITY BENCH.

At the conclusion of the ordinary business in the Police Court this morning the following remarks, which explain themselves, were made by Mr Fish :

Before the Court; adjourns I desire to make a few remarks in reference to the cnse of Stamper v. Wilson, which came before this Court a day or two ago. Prosecutor in that case hns taken the very uuusuiil course of addressing a letter ta the Bench. complaining of a judgment which the Bench then cave. The document can hardly be called a letter, but it haß got n, great amount of rubbish in it, and it concludes with the following l remarks: — " To have mercy is praiseworthy, but yet you should have done justice, which, for the abovo reasons, you did not." The prosecutor has made a very grave charge agoinstthe Bench that adjudicated in the case : h>> has, in point of fact, charged them with being guilty of a miscarriage of justice. I need rot say that remarks of this kind are extremely indecent when emanating from any gentleman; but when from a gentleman of the law they are trebly indecent; and I am amazed that any .gentleman belonging to that profession should have been guilty of so gross an indecency as to be impertinent enough to address such a letter to the Bench. Had the remarks been made by prosecutor in open Court, it would have been the duty «f the Bench—a duty which they would unflinchingly have performed—to nave committed that gentleman for contempt of Court. I am quite certain that no ether gentleman in the honorable profession to which this person belongs would be capable of so gross an act as prosecutor in the case of Stamper versus Wilson noa been guilty of. The document will be handed to the Press, and they can publish it in its entirety if they like.

The document alluded to reads as follows :

Messrs Mereer and Pish: No doubt it is always praiseworthy to dismiss a case when not proved, and to add remarks if the charge be unjustifiable. But when the accused knew that in 18741 sued for the balance to September 1874, and of course that the remaiuing instalments were unpaid, and therefore to be paid; that such was the balance of seven instalments then due out of eleven; that the interest (L 39 7s) was left to, bexalpulated and afterpaid ; that the Gisborne 'evidence was that the L6O paid in 1874 was to (only) " settle the action," namely, for the balance up to sth September, 1874. Now could Wilson but have known when he swore that he never owed me more than what he paid, and did not owe me any money whatever [and yet Mr Bathgate's decision was L 23 against his Gisbone evidence]. I say what better evidence could there have been that he was well aware that he was not speaking the truth from his heart ? But yet you never even alluded to the documentary evidence which told so strongly against the accused. Yet enough—to have mercy is praiseworthy, but yet you should have done justice, which, for the above reasons, you did not.—John Stahfeb.