MR. WARD'S EXPLANATION.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 64, 9 August 1879, Page 2

MR. WARD'S EXPLANATION.

•- TO THE IPITOB. Sn*,—The public will renumber that an wertion was made m the Mtrto* paper that on© of the magistrates oJE this town availed himself of his position when upon the bench to abuse the Constable, because m the performance of his duty, he had reported the J.P. referred to. Having -been present on the occasion, I distinctly denied the truth of the paragraph upon two grounds: First, that Mr. Snelion •poke to the Constable as a Magistrate, or m open court j and secondly, that Mr. Snelßon's remarks had any reference at all to being reported by the Constable, but were merely a continuance of a previous argument as 'to . whether two licenses were necessary for the sale of agun by an auctia^L To that contradiction the Marijjl^^K replied that the facta Were l^Hft previously stated them, giving *W5-T thority for the re-iteration, the name of Bobert Ward^iElsq^ the Resident Magistrate. It will be remembered that as an act of justice to the cleric —from: whom Mr. Ward asserted he had received his information— to Mr, Snelaon, whose character w.a* -ny terially iajured by the statement ; and to, myself to whom; it gave the lie direct* Mr. Ward was dafted »pon to state ; from the Uoch^ vKetl^r or *f>t he had, supplied that paper witW information, which had no foundation m fact: The. suggestion was treated with, contempt by the E. M., and h^ii conduct mas fbl^ lowed by a laudation of his action, by hig local organ, coupled with* l*ree modk cum of the low scurrility m Which thoeditor is such a proficient. Irue to hit; mean instincts the writer of th« paragraph refrained fronx sending me my 1 copy of his paper, and were it notthafe there are, always. friends who will strain, a poHit to supply anything unpleasant* it migit have passed; unknown of and unnoticed by m.^ Al*»r- some consider^, able trbsble, however, I hunted up a, copy, and then addressed the followingletter to Mr. Wabd .:—... ;

Makawjlttt Times, July 23, 1879. Dear Sir— Referring to »> most scurrilous; paragraph m yesUrday's RangiUJcei Advocate, m which both you and I figure rather prorolneqtly, . I have to a»k th»t you wiH klswily gite me a little information. Am I to understand that it your opinion pjjr requQsi: tha,t you should refute a, malicious falsehoods As you declined to refer to the matter from thißench, I have toj request that you wjyj say whether or not iypii infprjnjß^ th^ii^tQjf of that paper that the clerk told you th^opijrt had bwn declared .qpjßiv. '■?£ deliberate, misstatement has been made, either by myself, th«. cltrk, yourself, or Mr. McMinn, and -^ am^ »nxwus tp ha^e. the. fabricator pispcln^n'ed. " 'l .thini; it p^righji:^> telt joit.thi^ w jl^ not deem this correspondency, private, a|>d intejid. topjoWißji^jQu^rjipJ^ ;. ' lam, dearSir^ . :,. : . .•■,■ .?-:.■--;■ i ..';:'■"-■' BoJbert Ward, Ejq, B>M; ■-■--.-.-: To that ? r«ceix«4 tb>; *Un. Resident MajisfcraWs Ofllc*. ■•.^ .., , • ■ Mar^Qn, J.uljr^ 1879. Ptar Sir— \ am m receipt of your letter, of yesterday's date", regardiaag certain mat-, ters referred to m Ti^B; Mana^tatu Tniis\ and StangiUhei Advocate newspapers. I have no objection whatever td relate to you, m answer to your letter; what Mr. Forstertold me, and which, in' the course of converr. sation, I stated to Mr. M'Minn.. Am nearly m»I can remember it was as follows : That on the day va, question there win somVpolic* business m the Court-house at Palaersten j tha.t tn^ court roqm was open ; Mr. Snelson^ had taken his seat on th» b#och (I am not sure whether I ; was told Mr. M*N »il had or had not) when he (Mr. Snelson) mad* some remarks to the Constable having reference to ctrtain licenses under the Arms Act, and I think, as to Constable Gilltspie'g, conduct thereto, and to which l the Constable replied- that at this stage, Mr. Forsterr^ tired from the court room to the office. 1^ think Mr. Eorster told me afterwards thafc yoU were present during the time, but I am, not ; sure that heu did, nor am I surowhether X told Mr. M'Minn that you were there. I unden^od from Mr. Forster. that the Court had. not been formally de-. clartd open, nor had any case been called on., but that th» courtroom -was open for> business, though the business for which th* court isjcas hejld had not commenced. ! It seems to me that The Times and. Advocate do not agree: as to i^hat constitutes an "open coupfc,"- and have drawn : their own, though opposite, conclusions, fremwhatit is alleged took place. That' Xftuohmigh,t be. argued bj» Wth sidps on this question. Jfioi 'the Advocate, it might be contended that m many oourts, more particularly Police Courts, \n ojbh^r placesJ^Sa^ practice, is fa. consider the court open, as soon as the Magistrates takes his stat on th« bench, whfnth«;bu3ihesa commence! without formally declaring the court open. F»r. Thh TiMta, it might b* urged, that th*. court is not open until it is formally de>. clared open for business,; as this is the prac-' tice observed m my districts. As I presume this .technical q,u.fstjon wulbe settled, if an official enquiry iaheld, J will not nowsay any more regarding it, ' Whil» on the. subject of an offioial enquiry, 3. may stat* that I suggested to Mr. S^nelsoji that it re-, oive the authority of th.a Hon. {ha Minis-' ter of Justice . He quit* agreed w,ith me, and promised to write to the M^jua^*r ofc that effect on the subject. I am, dear Sir, : Yours very truly, Robebi Waju), R.M. John Dungan, Esq., Tikes Qfllce, Palmerston North. The italics m the foregoing document are mine, but I have thus brovga them out m bold relief to marie the con-, trast between the paper's rersion and Ikfo. "V^ard's explanation when brqughfc. to bay. ; According to the Advocate, I, who was present, was flatly contradict tad, while Mr. Ward's written statement glistens with « I thinks." "lam not sures v and "as well as I remem> bersj" the misty haze of recollection being most convenient. The Magistrate was appealed to to speak m his judicial capacity, and give his explanation from the bench, and notwithstanding he studiously refused to do so, with, a, pi«pe of cooin^^n whiqh is cej tainlj

freshing, when written to m his private capacity, and as layman, he mounts the bench, which before, he refused to occupy, and treat' me to a voluntarily and unsought Looking at i\xf mccnv<\ paragraph of his letter even m the light which; it is intended, I regret I cannot compliment the writer upon it, and a perusal would. leave the impression that Mr. Ward's anxiety was to make " honors easy" for .both Times and Advocate; and: re-enact > the Judgment of Solomon, by dividing the bone of contention, and giving half to each. There are, however, a few facts of evidence f. of which that gentleman is either' ignorant, or which he bas wilifuljy suppressed, which would be calculated to snow the absurdity of bis unasked '-for : " judgmienf .•' Does Mr. Ward tno^w t^aVtbe wgament between Mi., Snelspn and the Constable commended Je/Wethe former sat m a chair on the bench, and that it was while m the heat of the. discussion that he mecharically walked up and sat down ? Ward, know that the clerk left ;ths court room and employed him-; ' self inVthe" private office until the row was over, when he returned m company rmthMr.;M t Neill,-^whoalso awaited its conclusion-Tand then opened the Court t Does Mr. Ward know that the writer of this letter was sitting upon the corner fc^of the i table, with his hat on,.reading a fwsis»ai>erP And if lie does know ; S3tegs,will ; hebave the coolness to give a '•judgment' 'us to whether the Court 1 wa* 6r was not open? giri lam not dcmetyetl Next day. Constable iGiliespie met m.M the Eailway platform, when the following conversation' took; place ;-* 'CoNBTA«LB.^' < Ypu - are; not gotag to haveanythiQg abottt that tift between Mr. Snelson and myself P , "BipoETßß*^ 1 No ; certainly jiot. I lpokedupon it as^ quite^a prU rate personal matter, and of course I wonid" take tio^notice of it." - Z XtoNSTAßLis;—^iJJust so. Tha^i?^ view also ; I considered; it private. Ydxnt Rbpoeteh.— " Qh, decidedly. I certainly word of it, but as the Court was not open I consider""it qnitef% private matter, ittwmch I bad no righ^t to interfere.' 1 . Now, Sir, every assertion contained m the f oregding is" strictly correct, fwd^il aid-prepareti'tP 'veTifyiihem on luffidavifc I bi^eii^peatejclljr spoken tonConstable.\G^iUespie upon the matter 6i the cpnversatidn retailed, which of cours/j^hei neyet -thought of denying ; and what if .more ;I. told Subrinspector -iGoodall about it on his first visit to ; ;soxthat 7i£ there be any truth m the Advocate's assertion, a false, statement was wilfully made by that officer. It 'may seem presumptnoi^Bjfo- seek* pit mys elf against such an authority upoii 'Court etiquette and j>recedence r as • a rßesident Magistrate; 5 pot- would Tl'do^o ire^e it -not that I imagine myjrofes^ibnal calling! m New ■'■-" Zealand anbV A;tigtralia..has givea me a wider experience {m the; practice of leburfe v|*LW,?even'' Mr. Ward, as ; my yb^ttpnV'lliis led me into: tw6iity"di^erent Qqu.^ts for. every one m T&icb^he''^ subordinate pr i» his present position. : X Jtgreje; : jrith Mm that "m ■ptheV-places / tM practice is to consider the Court /bpen: as isbon as the Magisteate' takes-lns seat pn the^ bench," but this £ wili L ' be upon regular court days, and by a recognised /U Magistrate, upon whose entry\^ilence is jcommanded. and ■.the*- Bar rise 8^ Ilhatj, eveni according i} Mr; Ward, is the ; only - way m which a formal opening can be obviated; but I ask .is, there .any analogy between such, a case and the 6ne : under discussion, where an -angument is commenced on the floor of Ihe Gourt, ; and ithe; spectators are air ■lowed to lounge about -with covered heads ; beside Mr. Ward's admission that it isike jfryctice m -this district to consider ?' the ; £ourt not open it w jde^c^ed'fbrinally busi- ; nessV' ; f Why ' 'that one i admission" is the most damning reply to his '* judgment " which, could urged. Perhaps ;tb^^ those ' * iiofc specially-interested^ m the >p)ro]^nging>of this contrpyersy it may, .seem unwisej but to , those who may: JeeT so, I .would^skvthwi^ tor remember •that » most malicious report, of a most damaging character was propagated v;i'jrgaiasi.\a^sefi4* ; pv.blic' man, inasmuch M 'it' was distinctly stated that Mr, Snelson, waited till he had the privilege 6f the BehchV wben^tHe Constable's tongue was ! tied, to' blackguard and censure him before the public, :^b«!cause had [ dphe' his duty. That was >Uexplainfed- to i r Mr; Warcl^ and after being the authority for the slander, in■teadpf honesty doing justice to the man so wfbhged, be seeks by this most lame and impotent logic to prove that the Advocate was right m publishing whatitdidi Jt will »be; observed that while he has uselessly wasted much ; " space and.more; 'ingenuity: to white*ash /a Vblack : falsehood, be has never •i^r'^rallyv. or \ by; letter attempted to'm^ n6fr--as his (the Magistrate's) story insi- ; auated--vent^ vhis- ;^ spleenC upon the police* before a crowded Court. In this * /discussion, I am apt actuated by the slightest animus against Mr. ; Ward ', 6i the performance of whose; judicial functions I have always written m the most flattering' terms, and spoked ; m the highest manner ; neither do I attribute the slightest censure to Constable Gillespie, who has proved himself a most energetic, impartial officer ; but Ido certainly decry and despise the man wfip, ; hbweVer thoughtlessly, inflicts an . injury^uppn another, and has not the tbn6r, l hbneßty, or courage to repair it. The officious scribbler who constituted himself the self -elected defender of the police, did you the honor to read you a homily upon your advocacy of Mr. Snelspn's cause, I imagine aftet? the above revelation his 'proteges m the agony of theic spirit will «ry out ' ( Save me f rbm my .friends." — I am &c, ; JbHK B. 'DUKGAN.