CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume I, Issue 19, 7 November 1861, Page 5 (Supplement)

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Hawke's Bay Times. Sir, — If you think the folio wing of sufficient public importance, I would be glad of its insertion in your paper. An important decision has recently been given by Judge Johnston in some proceedings connected with the Napier Building Society. It appears that a member of that Society, after several unsuccessful attempts to obtain bis due, at length had an order issued by a Bench of Magistrates for the payment by the Society of the amount claimed, and which was ultimately paid on process of an execution upon the goods and chattels of the trustees thereof. The solicitor to the society applied to the Supreme Court for a rule to quash such order ; the counsel, pro and con, argued the case in Banco, aud the order is quashed accordingly. But, sir, on what grounds think you that the rule is asked for and obtained ? Why, simply because, accordingly to the Judge’s ruling, the magistrates were sitting under what are familiarly known to the profession as “ Jervis’ Acts,” appended to which is a “ form” to be used when orders are necessary ; and, as in the present case, should any other form be used, the order becomes informal, and the most important decisions can be set aside ! Now, sir, this is a very serious affair, aud one that demands the attention of all thinking men, who, too, may some day become unwilling litigants. And especially is this forced on the consideration of those “ free citizens” who, as His Honor remarked, “ have it in their own power to alter such a state of things.” My object is not to be offensive to any one willing, gratuitously, to undertake public duty, but the fact still remains—that when we see so many of our fellow citizens created magistrates, we are naturally led to have confidence in the administration of the law, and to believe that in the multitude of counsellors we may find wisdom. But, sir, is it not enough to destroy such confidence—the security we are taught to believe exists in our courts of law, the functions of which evolve only upon principles of equity and good conscience—if we find that the said

magistrates err so seriously ? It becomes but a “ boasted privilege” that, under our free constitution, any one can obtain justice at the hands of impartial gentlemen, our fellow settlers, vested with the great responsibilities of magistrates, if they, in the cheap administration of that justice, do wrong, and go free, while the unfortunate clients have to suffer and to pay ! The “ glorious uncertainty of the law,” too, maintained its pristine celebrity in this case, for although His Honor did not “ halt between two opinions” as to the application of Jervis’ Acts to civil as well as to criminal cases, it is still open to successful contest; and without in the least attempting to contradict the Judge myself, I have it on the best authority in the place that Jervis’ Acts do not apply to civil cases. Truly a most unpleasant couflictioii of opinions on so comprehensive a question ! Sir, I apologise for troubling you ; but without in any -way trenching on the merits of the respective litigants, I do think it right to direct .attention to so important a decision —one which will serve as a precedent, and may, at some future time, be quoted to adjudicate on interests of greater magnitude. I am, Sir, Yours obliged, Citizen. Napier, sth November, 18(31.