MR. SMYTHIES' CASE.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 174, 5 July 1872, Page 3

MR. SMYTHIES' CASE.

We reported, some time ago, that the.application of Mr. H. Smythies to be re-admitted to practise as a ter and solicitor before the Supreme Court, to the Judges in session at Wellington, was dismissed. On receiving this we felt sure that there must be something more in the case than is. general lj s known. We have now a full and correct report, and can affirm that there is not.

The case is as follows:—Mr. H. Smythies, now twenty years ago, then in England, was charged with forgery, and convicted. Shortly afterwards he came out to New Zealand, and, after twelve years of exclusion, applied to the Judges in session to be allowed to practise his profession. He laid full particulars of his case before them, and was allowed. This was in 1866. Shortly after, this a law was passed, for the sole purpose, it is alleged, of making what he was by the Judges allowed to do a serious offence. A general volley, of course, but designed to bring down one bird. Under this statute he was suspended from practising by Mr. Justice Ward, in 1869 In 1871, Mr. Smythies carried his case to Parliament, and a law was made enabling him to require the Appeal Court to re-consider the decision of Mr. Justice Ward. We may here say that the two Houses of Parliament came into collision regarding his case, and the above-mentioned law was simply a compromise. The majority' of the

-House of Eepresentatf ves was in lav or of a far more liberal measure. -.-

"Under this law, the case earne on in May last. Mr. Smythies in his own behalf. Messrs. Travers and Howorth, on behalf of the Law Society, to oppose the motion. i ,

The was, as you would fully and carefully investigated. Mr. Smythies protested his innocence of the crime of which he was convicted, and handed in a quantity of papers in support of his protest. These papers, the contents of which are not fully given, were- collected by his son, whom he sent to England for that .purpose., He pointed out that the prosecuting party was interested -in his conviction, and that two of the witnesses at the trial had (one on his own confession) perjured themselves; that this witness that confesses his perjury was bribed to do so.

The Judges, however, could, not make out his innocence in the way which he pointed out, but made it out in another way. In their estimation, the crime fop which he. was tried. : and convicted was really no crime at all. - Read their own words, as given in their decision:—" The terms of the first subsection '. . -. .- . do not seem to require us to say whether, in our opinion, the verdict was'justified in point °f law. Had- this been otherwise, we niight have found some riving at an unanimous, decision that tuQ.aetf of Mr. Smythies (called forgery) fell within the technical definition of forgery, which, as given by one eminent authority, consists in the fraudu"lent making- or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of an other man's right. Sodon (the person supposed to be injured) having admitted at the trial that, he did, in fact, consent to act, it is difficult to see how he or , any other person could be prejudiced by the fabricated document." It seems, then, that Mr. Smythies has been suffering all these twenty-three years fo" a crime which is, in fact, no crime at all. Head their words again, in whieVt-be degree of the " moral turpitude " of this" apt is stated:—"And we feel constrained by the facts to admit that it would not be easy to suggest any case coming within the legal definition of forgery, which would imply a less degree of ' moral turpitude ' than we are bound to infer must have existed in the case in question. If it fell within the legal definition of forgery at all, it lay- as we have already had occasion to. intimate, on the very verge of that definition. - Sodon was not injured, nor, so far as we can see, could,he have been injured by the act of Smythies. Nor did Sodon ever complain, of injury " The injury, according to their own showing, was wholly Smythies'. " And it will be observed Hi at the immediate, consequence of ifca production (the forged document) was to cause various items to be struck off his bill of costs, as anterior to the supposed retainer.". If this is the opinion of the highest law authorities regarding the T supposed crime—if the crime is no crime—what" should now be done ? If Smythies has suffered unjustly for twenty-three years, surely it is high time to do him justice and relieve him of this stigma, which has been the bane of his life. Surely now it is the greatest of cruelty to continue the torture. What other conclusion do the ; premises laid down by the Judges point to than a free pardon, and a compensation for j the injury inflicted ? - This is not, however, the conclusion at which the Judges arrived. Their conclusion is strangely at variance with their premises. It is -thus : —" "We consider that, after his long exclusion, the petitioner might, if his conduct had in the meantime been irreproachable, be properly allowed to return to. practice." The petitioner is then disallowed. The forgery is not ir.e ground on which he is prohibited from practising. This is not to be wondered at, since, according to the opinion of the Judges, it has no existence, and never had. His conduct up, to the present time is not irreproachable, and therefore he cannot be allowed to return to practice. The report before us, a report issued by tne Law Society of New Zealand, informs us that the charges of want of irreproachableness of conduct are made by the Law Society. This is an honorable body, of course, and

would not he rruilfv of harassing- anold m in, unless compelled b>\the necessity of-the case. We have not one word to say in defence ot these charges. The report is .exceedingly meagre, and the words of the judges'are few 'upon them. We wish only to direct tion to, the opinion ,of ; the .Judges upon them. It is this :'—" We' may say at once .that these- charges- would, not, in our judgment, either separately; or together, have been sufficient to'justifv the Court in: striking; Mr. -Smythies oif the rolls, »,r probably even in suspending him from practice. Moreover, he has in some measure been able to explain his conduct in a'way.more or less satisfactory.", This is the opinion of the- who have fully investigated the charges. This is all that stands in the way of rhehomeless man, and dpoms him to a homeless life' still. Why,"we ask, treat him as if guilty of the crime with which he was charged, when the prime was no . crime at all ? If his forgery was not .forgery at all, why should he now be in a worse position than his felloes?' If time has minified'his offence into nothing ,at all, why should he be any longer charged ' with it and stigmatised as an offender ?, If he has 'suffered twenty-three yearsfor an imaginary offence, has!he not suffered enough? Must,the old man wandfer heartless and homeless still ? Is he to know that his' claims are just, and yet to"be,"refused'the relief he ' seeks ? This*" forgery which is not forgery—existent, yet non-existent—is yet a magnifying glass in which spots otherwise invisible are very large.' Js there-a;remedy for this evil? The remedy, it is said, is in the votes of the people. ■' Petitions' requesting the Legislative Council to pass a law to adSmithies to practice his profession are, we hear, being scattered over the Province, and many of them have reached Naseby. Rally round the old man, now wearied and woj*?out by the anxiety of his strange and eventful life, and give yourlaarnes in behalf of the weak and the wronged-

- ('■ ' ABumbaypaner tells a story of which we can only s&yy-sSejaon e vero, ben trovato. A on a journey, took.with him some and jewels, and a monkey of which he was very fond. The poor man, however,,;,was waylaid,, robhed, and murdered by a party of ruffians, who went their way after throwing the corpse into a dry well,' "and covering the latter up with twigs and dry leaves; But they had- overlooked the monkey, who saw the whole proceedings from the top of a tree. As soon as the road was clear, the intelligent beast s<jt off for the Tebsildar's, or police-officer's house, and having drawn his attention by. cry s and moans, lured him on by signs to the tell-tale "spot. In due time" the body was discovered, and then with the monkey's help the Tehsildar found the'stolen property'where the " thieves had buried it. He then followed the monkey to'the bazaar. "There the monkey picked; out one. of-the murderers, ran after him, and with his teeth *

held hiin fast by. tlie leg until the man was secured. • This feat he seems to have repeated until all the murderers were caught. It is said they "have since confessed their crime, and been committed for trial before the Tellicherry Court. An Agra contemporary suggests that such a monkey ought to be made inspector of police. "Would not that be rather .a descent for the monkey? We should like to hear about him, how he behaves, for instance in giving his evidence before the magis : trate. What sort of equivalent for ah oath would be required of him, and would the identity of the culprit be proved by his showing his teeth? If the story should prove to have ajiy foundation, it will deserve a prominent place in the next edition of one of ■ Dr Frank Buck land's amusing volumes. —" Allen's Indian Mail." .

We (' Hawke's Bay Herald') learn that the Hev. Father Forest, .who...has so long ministered to the catholic l,aity in Napier, is,about to take up his residence in Wellington, having been appointed Vicar-General at the dying request of the late Bishop Viard. The rev. gentleman has resided here for a number of years, and has earned .the respect and esteem of all classes and all creeds.