MOFFITT V. SINCLAIR.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 112, 11 April 1868, Page 3

MOFFITT V. SINCLAIR.

To the Editor of the Nelson Examiner. . Sir— My attention has been directed to an article which appeared in the Colonist, headed “ A strange case.” As the Editor appears to differ from the verdict of the Jury, and the whole tenor of the article seems written with a view to damage my character, I take the liberty of making a few comments through the pages of your journal, For the Editor of the Colonist to set up his opinion against the sworn verdict of a highly respectable and well-selected jury, and the summing up of an able and impartial Judge, is, in my opinion, the height of arrogance and presumption. The issues for trial were issues of fact, plain, and could admit of no misconstruction. One was added at the special instance of my counsel, viz., “ Were the bills obtained by fraud ?” The Judge, in summing up the case, placed the evidence before the jury clearly and distinctly, and the jury upon the evidence, decided every issue in my favor. With their verdict I have every reason to be satisfied. The Colonist suggests some “legal technicality” as a reason for the verdict, but the case from first to last was wholly devoid of such objections. Such a suggestion is beyond the limits of fair and impartial criticism, and is either the result of prejudice, or arises from a gross misconception ©f the functions of a jury. It is the office of the judge to instruct the jury in points of law, and of the jury to decide on matters of fact, and the case referred to was one purely of fact. Apart from the article being a biassed opinion, the statement* are not borne out by the evidence, and are not true. In one portion it states that I was the solicitor for the Bank, or as it is called the “ Corporation.” I must say that I was no more the solicitor for the Bank, than I was the solicitor for any person who might engage my services for the time being. 1 had no retainer; when the services were performed, the relation of solicitor and client no longer subsisted. Finally, I trust that the public, in its impartial consideration of the case, will not fail to give due weight to the verdict of the jury. I am, &c., Chas. H, Moffijt. i Blenheim, March 26, 1868.