THE WARD-CHAPMAN ENQUIRY REPORT.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 285, 21 August 1874, Page 3

THE WARD-CHAPMAN ENQUIRY REPORT.

Our Wellington correspondent has ; . telegraphed as follow*: - " The following is the Interim Report of the WardChapman Enquiry Joint Committee i.— Your Committee have to report as follows-—-That in the month of April last an action for libel was pending in the SupremeCourt at Dunedin between James Macassey and George Bell; that Mr. G. K. Turton, of Dunedin, was solicitor for thedefendant, Bell, and that Mr. Ward, Dis - trict Judge, was advising counsel on behalf of the defendant, Bell, but acting; gratuitously; that Mr. Turton also acted generally as solicitor for Mr. Ward, and communications relating to Mr. Ward'a private business passed between them bytelegraph; that Mr. Justice Chapman, on* an- application made on behalf of the plaintiff Macassey, made an order ex parte toallow the plaintiff to inspect not only telegrams between the parties to the actions and relating to the action, but also telegrams which had passed between Mr. Turton and Mr. Ward in reference: thereto; that Mr. Ward considered such order was illegal, or that at all events it should not have been made ex •parte \ that, acting under such belief, and under a feeling of irritation that the correspondence between himself and Mr. Turtcn, not only in relation to the said action, but also in relation to his private affairSi might thereby be handed over to the inspection of plaintiff or his solicitor, Mr. Ward became imbued with the suspicion that Mr.-Justice Chapman in making the order had acted partially, on account of his private friendship with Macassey by his relationship to Macassey's then partner (son of Mr. Justice Chapman), and he therefore made the charges against Mr. Justice Chapman, which are contained ire his telegram to Mr. Vogel; that Mr. Ward has explained to the Committeethat his charge against Mr. Justice Chapwas not meant as a general charge, but only as to the said libel action of Macassey and Bell; that the practice of the Supreme 1 Court at Dunedin appears to have been to make orders for the inspection of telegramsex parte, and several such orders hadpreviously been made by Mr. Justice Chapman in other case 0 , and had not been - disputed or called in question; that the practice of the Supreme Court in other parts of the Colony has been to niakesoch orders only after hearing both sides ; that no action was taken on the order by the plaintiff, and the said order was, afterwards rescinded by Mr. Justice Chapman. The conclusions to which the Committeehave come upon this part of the subject submitted to them for enquiry, are as follows :—lst. That the charges- made by Mr. Ward against Mr. Justice Chapman have not been substantiated, and were made without due consideration of their importance as affecting the character of a high judicial offieer; 2nd. That, while, the proprietry of the practice of issuing-' such orders ev farte may be rpen to grave question, yet the Committee are not of opinion that Judge Chapman acted partially in the matter, or that there are any grounds whatever for impeaching the conduct, or questioning the integrity and impartiality of Mr Justice Chapman in the general discharge of his judicial duties. 3rd. While it may not be strictly within the order of reference, yet the Committee cannot refrain from suggesting to the Go--vernment the desirability ef making arrangements tor the periodical shifting of the Supreme Court and District Judges to different circuits. J. Barton Ackland,Chairman of Joint Committee — ' Daily Times.' " '