SUTTON V. PAORA TOROTORO.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 19, Issue 1366, 4 July 1872, Page 2

SUTTON V. PAORA TOROTORO.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE HAWKE'S BAY HEKALD. Sir, —I find in the Times nearly twelve columns of what purports to be a revised copy of a judgment quashing an indict ment against Paoi a Torotoro for perjury, X find no such judgment with the Clerk of the Court, and am assured that what the Judge haid occupied him about ten minutes. He delivered his judgment by referring to a number of slip* of paper; certainly not a written decision like that which has been published. . . Hearing of its intended publication, I wrote to the Times that, pending further proceedings in a higher Court, it was improper to publish it. It was done, however, in spite of my letter. There was, I think, the more reason not to publish it, as, on inspection, it is not a judgment setting aside the indictment for informality, but a defence by the Judge of the defendant on what he thinks the merits, and, in facl, a tiial of the case by himself without a jury. Not only so, the Judge ignores the facts stated in the depositions, and consults his own recollections and notes of what occurred before him, in order to get rid of the indictment. To me it is immaterial whether the indictment was quashed or not; it could not interfere with my future action in the matter. But I must protest against a Judge, under the protection of his portion, entering into questions which were not properly in his jurisdiction, and making observations derogatory to my character and credit. Of all the objections to his hearing the questions which were urged on my part, the Judge has hardly noted any, and has given his decision on his view of the facts, and not on any law point at all. I objected, amongst other things that the Court was acting on its own motion without any application from defendant, the fact being that the Judge previously sent to a solicitor who formerly acted for defendant, and enquired whether he was going to move in the matter. He replied he was not instructed, and then the Judge, out of his supreme love of equity, issued a summons on his own account; and, al though the indictment had been before him live months, it was only alter a notice had been served on defendant that an indictment would be preferred in the Supreme Court that the Judge thought tit to take action in the matter. A very strange delay, it seems to me. Again, I objected that the question, whether evidence was material or not, could only be had on the trial, and did not affect the indictments. The judgment does nob touch this point. Again, 1 objected that the indictment could only be -quashed when it was bad on the face of it. The judgment does not touch this point. Again, I objected that the indictment was signed by the Crown prosecutor and presented by him, and no notice had been given him. There is no answer to this in the judgment ; all the judgment does is to set up omnipotence of the Judge, for doing just what he likes. I don't intend to go into the facts —this is not the time ; but the Judge knew well enough that on the hearing the discrepancy of dating a deed was explained, and nothing was then thought of a matter of which he has attempted to. make so much. As to the preparation of the deed, the Judge had only to look at it to see where it was prepared. Of course,, when he gave judgment he had noc the deed before him. If he had been trying the case he would ha\'e had these materials. Again, the judgment entirely omits the allegation in the indictment that Paul Toroioro, had said that he never got anything from me but some nuwder and .£lO in cash..

This, afc any rate, was material in a question whether a consideration had been paid, and how. I must protest against a Judge outside his proper authority, and not in course of a trial, acting on his own recollection and notes, insinuating, because a man's account was credited with purchase money to pay his debts, and by his own request, therefore, the man was cheated. I must also protest against a Judge, under the same circumstances, attempt ing to purge a defendant before the case had been tried, and passing encomiums on his veracity. I must protest, finally, against a Judge, without trial, taking upon himself to insinuate that I was guilty of perjury or torgery, or both.—l am, &c, F. Sutton. July 3, 1872.