The Globe. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1876.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 730, 21 October 1876, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1876.

The case of Keiley against the Provincial authorities, decided last Thursday in the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, who claimed compensation for assault and unlawful detention at the hands of some railway officials, has terminated, so far, in a very satisfactory manner. We use the words so far, advisedly, as it is unfortunately the rule and not the exception, that whenever any especial grievance is brought to the door of Provincial Governments, and the terms imposed by the latter are deemed inacceptable, the operation of the law becomes almost an impossibility to anyone not gifted with large financial means. First, there is the feeling on the part of officials that they can hardly ever be wrong, and they pooh-pooh claimants accordingly. When, however, the complex and expensive machinery of the law is put in motion, Governments naturally support their opinion of the merits of the case with the assistance of public funds, which, from a Josh Billings’ point of view, means the shedding of someone else’s blood, and ad libitum. The unfortunate citizen, on the other hand, has only his own pocket to dip into wherewith to fee the lawyers, and if that be not sufficiently well lined, farewell to any hope of obtaining satisfaction. It is the old, old story, which always repeats itself, the moral of which is, that in all times, and everywhere, it requires a golden key to open the doors of the Temple of Justice. The case of Keiley was a flagrant one, and we cannot conceive how the Government could allow it to go to a jury. That the acts of the railway officials, their servants, with reference to this assault case, could scarcely bear the legal light of day, is indisputable, otherwise, the Provincial Solicitor would not have admitted the facts as he did. The defence, we regret to see, was set up purely on a dry technical point of law, a jiddle-de-defiddle-de-dum kind of legal argufication, and nothing more. From the nature of the point upon which the Provincial Solicitor has moved to have the verdict of the jury set aside, it would seem that, had one word more or less been inserted in the wording of the declaration, there would absolutely not have remained any ground for defence whatever, and the only issue left for the determination of the jury would have been that of the amount of damages. Then it may be asked why all this expense, public and otherwise. It is not improbable that the sum awarded as compensation to the injured man may be deemed excessive by the Government. But, besides the strong expression of opinion prounced upon the case by the Judge, it may be said that something like a lesson to a certain class of railway officials might prove of some utility at the present moment. The jury evidently thought so, and his Honor was very decided about it. Should the cast-iron rules of Court be interpreted in a way which would necessitate the quashing of the verdict, it will certainly be a matter for general regret. It will prove another case of the ends of lawyers—not of justice —having been served ; when the unfortunate plaintiff, who had succeeded in levering open the savoury oyster, finds it suddenly whisked aside into other people’s mouths, leaving him only the unsatisfactory and melancholy consolation of licking the shell.