REFLECTION UPON MAGISTRATE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2208, 27 November 1920, Page 3

REFLECTION UPON MAGISTRATE.

COUNSEL REPRIMANDED BY JUDGE. AT EA STON TRIAL. THE AMENDE HONOURABLE. ‘Wanganui, Nov. 25. During the hearing of the charge of perjury at fhe Supreme Court against P. 8. Easton, a well-known racehorse-owner, this afternoon, counsel for the defemhml (Mr T. M. Wilford), in his address to jury, itt,militated that the uld never have been instigated by I lie magistrate (Mr •). L. Stout), whojmounsel remarked, was a very young man, and who may have been inllueueed in bis decision by interesled persons outside the emirf. In summing up, Sir Bassett, Edwards in id be very much regretted that Mr Wilford, in his zeal for his client, had made reflections upon the magistrate which should not have been made. Mr Wilford had insinuated that Mr Stout had instigated the proceedings on account; of something he had heard outside tho court, and this was a reflection which should not have been made. The position of a magistrate was**], very onerous one, and he was entitltfll to all respect. Mr Wilford had insinuated that Mr Stout .was a raw boy. Mr Wilford: No, sir. His Honour: You used the words “very young.” Mr Wilford: Young as a nmgisr Irate, Your Honour. I myself appointed Mr Stout a magistrate, and could not have any reflection to make upon him for that reason. His Honour went on to say that There was not the slightest justification for any relleetion upon Mr Stout, who, as all judges at times had to do, had the painful dut/Torccd upon him of ordering a prosecution for perjury. Mr Stout had been a barrister and solicitor of (lie Supreme Court of New Zealand, and as such was perfectly qualified to hold the position of magistrate. He at all times carried out his duties without any llummery, and there was not the slightest justification tor the reflection which had been made upon him. At a later stage Mr Wilford asked His Honour’s permission to make the “amende honourable” in connection with the remarks he had made concerning Mr Stout. On •permission being granted, Mr Wilford made the following explanation : “I did not intend in any way to reflect upon (he ability, character, or integrity of purpose of Mr Stout. As Minister for .Justice, in 1018, I appointed him to the position he now holds, and I ascertained, and personally knew, his lit ness for the position before I appointed him. I intended to convey in my remarks to the jury, not that he had done anv wrong, or had acted in any way except judicially, but that, young in office as be was, be may have been unconsciously inllueueed by a certain person at Eoxton, who had admitted he was on had terms with Easton, mid who was mqolfir ini of the court there.” His Honour: You insinuate that the magistrate was inllueueed in the action he took hy apoliccman at the court ? Mr Wilford said it was hard to say how far (he magistrate had been unconsciously inllueueed by an ollicial at the court at Eoxton, who had admitted being on bad terms with accused. “In any case,” remarked counsel, “1 have taken the very first possible opportunity of making the ‘amende honourable’ to Mr Stout."