To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 306, 6 October 1855, Page 6

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times.

Sir, —Several letters have appeared in your columns having reference to a case en - titled McCheane v. Andrews. I would iuvariabty, if politic so to do, eschewjforensical disquisitions; but as the circumstance to which I would wish for a moment to draw your attention, is not admissible of divarication, but on the other hand is a patent act of tentative domination : [I feel I shall be doing no less justice to my own legal opinions, than to the wishes of very many of your readers, if I briefly state the facts and the law relating thereto. To proceed, A summoned B to appear before the Resident Magistrate this day, or possibly B might have been brought up under a warrant; be it either way, that, or the cause of either is immaterial to the point. Suffice it to say, I with many others (Reporters included) had assembled ourselves for the purpose of hearing the case, but as regards myself, T would add that I also went to test my own opinion as to the aptness of the newly appointed Resident Magistrate, and, if possible, to tell you how greatly your correspondents had deceived you: but however to my utter astonishment, I was told no one was allowed to be present. I would ask the public through the medium of your paper, whether the conviction or committal of a person in secret is in harmony with the constitutional law of the age. I know full well that I cannot sufficiently express the indignation of those who were thus banished from the vineyard of their legal and civil rights. Well aware am I also that it has produced a nausea where it ought to have secured an attractive confidence, and fully convinced am I, that unless jurisprudence is entrusted to those who can make it a practical good, the speedier that veneration will evaporate which it ought ever to nurture.

I must still assert this although your correspondent " Dux " (Ducks) was goose enough to quack so loudly for his friend Fowls; and I would add that though "Dux" often take the water, I never knew before that they like brandy in it, for upon referring to natural history, I find the great propensity of "Dux" is to dabble in muddy water, and upon referring to the Cookery book, I find they are. sufficiently roasted when they are done brown. Fearful, however, that "Dux" will not only look brown but black, allow me to resume my argument. By the Ilth and 12th Vict., cap. 40, beet. 12, it is enacted that the room or pace in which the justice or the justices shall sit to hear and try any complaint or information, that the same shall be deempd an open and public court, and in the case of Daubney v. Cooper, 10 B and 0 237, it was decided that in all cases of summary jurisdiction, the Magistrate must sit in an open Court, where the public may have free admittance to such an extent as the* accommodation of the place will afford. lam perfectly familiar with the Act of 11th and 12th Vict., Cap. 42, and am aware it is a we.l-known rule, that there are many cases which may be summarily disposed of before a justice at his private residence, and at any hour which may suit his convenience ; but with the exception of cases of felony, where a Magistrate is merely acting ministerially, it is not very usual, and certainly not expedient, to hear cases in no piivate a manner.

But the word " Resident " is synonymous with the word "Stipendiary ; " and the duties of a stipendiary Magistrate, are analogous to those of the Metropolitan Police Magistrates, and is it not a well known fact, vouched for by all the public organs of communication, that the Metropolitan Magistrates invariably, when acing ministerially, not only allow the attendance of professional men but the presence of the public. It is true that the reporter is sometimes requested to omit certain portions of the evidence, and sometimes to withhold its publication for a short time. Why then should not our Court at Lytteltou be ventilated by the ebb and flow of the public into it ? I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Etjphkon. Lyttelton, Oct. 3, 1855. [By the 11th and 12th Vict., cap. 42, sect. 5, we find that it is provided that " The room, or building in which the justice or justices shall take the examination and statements of the accused, shall not be deemed an open Court for that purpose ; and it shall be lawful for such justice or justices, in his or their discretion, to order that no person shall have access to, or be or remain therein, without the consent or permission of such justice or justices, if it appears to him or them that the ends of justice will be best answered by so doing.]— Ed. L. T.