THE WARD AND CHAPMAN CASE.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 39, 15 July 1874, Page 2

THE WARD AND CHAPMAN CASE.

The following is the return to an order of the Legislative Council, dated the 9th July, (No. 1) 1874, that copies of all correspondence and telegrams which have passed between the Government and Judge Ward in reference to his Honor Mr Justice Chapmau, be laid upon the table on the motion of the Hon Mr Waterhouse.

District Judge Ward to the Hon J. Vogel, Premier. Oaraaru, 21st April, 1874. Most urgent. Great excitement in Dunedin in the case of Macassey v. Bell. Judge Chapman made this order ex parte on 13th March last, on an affidavit of Kettle, in order that the plaintiff or his solicitor prior to the trial be be allowed to inspect and take copies of all original telegrams of this action—original telegrams relating to the subject matter of this action. No grounds shown except advantage to plaintiff, thus every telegram between defendant and his solicitor, counsel, witnesses, agents, has been ordered to be produced to plaintiff, partner of the son of the Judge, during the past five weeks without the knowledge of the defendant, and without giving him a chance to object; order only recently discovered by defendant; rule to rescind moved ; Turton, defendant’s solicitor, absent when order granted. Believed that no telegrams shown; but it is felt that Bell has no chance of fair trial before Chapman. It is suggested in interest of justice that you send down Johnston to try case on ground of gross partiality of Chapman now exposed, and suspend Chapman until Assembly meets to take action. My telegrams to my solicitor, Turton, were demanded by plaintiff. Deputy-Registrar of Court at Dunedin could telegraph to you Kettle’s affidavit and order ; both show day of trial, sth May. It was decided by Mr Justice Grove that telegrams should not be produced but treated as mailed letters on 20th January last. Report in “Daily News” re Taunton Election Petition, 0. D. R. Ward. D. J. The Hon J. Vogel to Mr District Judge Ward, Wellington, 22nd April, 1874.—Am I to consider your telegram relating to Judge Chapman as addressed to me in my official capacity ; if not, I must request you to withdraw it. The imputation is one of the most serious nature, and such as I cannot receive, except officially. If you withdraw the telegram, I beg that it may be simply withdrawn, and that no communication be made on the subject otherwise than to me officially. If I am informed by you officially 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 Vogel. Mr District Judge Ward to the Hon Vogel, Premier. Oamaru, 22nd April, 1874.—My telegram was marked official, and intended to be so. Ido not make private accusations. Of course I knew you would not suspend Judge Chapman without reference to Governor. Statement of facts strictly correct. Kettle’s affidavit is merely that he has served Lubecki, Dunedin telegraphist, with subpoena to produce certain telegrams; that he, Kettle, has asked to sec them, and Lubecki said he would not show them without judge’s order; that inspecting them would be of material advantage to plaintiff. On this affidavit Chapman on same day makes general order quoted in last telegram. Macassey is partner of Chapman’s son, and on most intimate terms with judge, who is godfather to one of his children. 0. D. R. Ward, D.J. Oamaru, 22nd April, 1874.—1 thank you most sincerely for giving me opportunity of withdrawing my first telegram. No doubt it bears marks of haste. Case was urgent; but in all my correspondence with you, either private or official, I do not remember ever bringing a charge against a Government official, and I certainly should not do so without expecting an immediate enquiry. I omitted three matters in last telegram ; first, Kettle’s affidavit specified my telegrams to Turton (my solicitor) as among those plaintiff wished to inspect. I mention this to show that I am not a volunteer but a party aggrieved ; secondly, some weeks previous to Kettle’s application, defendant, Bell, filed affidavit, stating that within,his knowledge, I had nothing to do either with action or article ; third, Mr James Smith, defendant’s leading counsel, informed me that it was arranged that Chapman, plaintiff’s partner and judge’s son, was to hold brief at trial. C. D. R. Ward, D.J. Oamaru, 24th April, 1874. Official. I have repernsed your telegram. I have no copy of my own, which was written in telegraph office. There can have been no want of courtesy to yourself in mine, but if there was any informality or any appearance of presumption on my part in suggesting a course of action to the Government, I beg tender my apologies with this exception to every word I have written I hold. I ought further to say, that ray telegraphing to you was without any consent with Mr Bell or his legal advisers in Dunedin, who were wholly ignorant of my intention to do so. I felt that to ask them to join would place them in even a worse position than at present at the trial if Judge Chapman presided at it. In justice, therefore, I am wholly responsible for this application to you. If you desire it, I will forward dispatch, with detailed statements. C. D.Ward, D.J.

The lion J. Vogel to Mr District Judge Ward, Wellington, 25th April, 1874—1 have

to acknowledge jour various telegrams re* lating to Judge Chapman. I may explain to you that on the order to which you refer being brought under the notice of the Telegraph Department, it was considered so objectionable as to make the Telegraph Commissioner decide that it should not be obeyed unless it was made a rule of Court. This was decided before your telegrams, and you will be good enough to understand that the action taken by the and which may be taken, is not consequent on your communications. I may, however,inform you that besides the order of which you are aware, an officer in the Telegraph Department has been subpoenaed to produce the same telegrams in Court. The department is 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 its objectionable nature is correct, to consider that its issue was other than an error of judgment. They see no ground for connecting it with the domestic circumstances to which you refer, whilst they are of opinion that unless judges are to be condemned to lives of celibacy, they will be liable to have offspring, and that these, when they arrive 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 Vogel. Mr District Judge Ward to the Hon J, Vogel. Tiraaru, April 27th, 1874.—1 regret to see from your second telegram that I have failed to place Ministers in full possession of facts of case. I knew of the subpoena long since, and should never have troubled you about that, having no founJation for order complained of. It is not of slightest importance, first, because according to law and English precedent Judge Chapman has no authority to compel production of these telegrams ; secondly, because the fact that I have had no communication with defendants as shown in filed affidavit, would prevent any telegrams to others from being put in evidence ; thirdly, because as I am advised every existing telegram specified in the subpoena is between counsel or solicitor, and clients, and, as such, held private and privileged from production or inspection in every English Court of Justice. Every lawyers knows that these telegrams cannot be produced at the trial. The ex parte order for their private inspection by plaintiff was, therefore, grievously unjust. The domestic circumstances you allude to I mentioned to show the close connection between the Judge who made the order and the suitor who obtained it. I should be the last person in New Zealand to advocate the condemnation of judges to celibacy. When fuller facts come to your knowledge by newspaper, I am assured that no error or informalities of mine in this correspondence will prevent you from giving them the grave consideration which they deserve. [Owing to the interruption of communication at eleven o’clock last night, between Wellington and Christchurch, we are unable to give the concluding portion of the above correspondence.]