The Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1874.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IX, Issue 171, 21 July 1874, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1874.

The Ward-Chapman telegrams -that have created so great a stir of late, and with references to which our Parliamentary news has been 60 largely occupied, have been laid on the table of tbe House, and reveal the existence of something more than " a very pretty quarrel," — as it was called by Mr Fox — between Mr District Judge Ward and Mr Justice Chapman. Hitherto the quarrel has been, so far as tbe public are informed, of an altogether one-sided character, tbe accusations of the District Judge not having yet been replied to by the Judge of the higher Court. The public no doubt are anxious to learn the substance of the telegrams in question, which we do not propose to publish in extenso, but we will give such extracts as will enable our readers to form an opinion on the matter. In tbe case of Macassey v. Bell heard before the Supreme Court at Dunedin, Mr Justice Chapman made an order to tbe following effect: — "I order that the plaintiff or hia solicitor, prior to the trial, be allowed to take copies of all original telegrams relating to the subject matter of this action." It will be remembered tbat there was at the time a great outcry against, the secrecy of the telegraph olfice being violated, and tbe order was subsequently withdrawn. It now appears that certain telegrams addressed by Judge Ward to his solicitor were among those ordered to be produced. Of the contents of those telegrams we are not informed, but tbe order for their production appears to have raised the ire of the sender, and be immediately telegraphed to tbe Premier on the subject, not merely objecting to Judge Chapman's order as being illegal, but also bringing against that officer a charge of S gross partiality in reference to tho case to be tried before him, and coolly recommending that Judge Chapman should be suspended, and Judge Johnston sent down to preside at the trial. The charge waa contained in the following words : — "No grounds shown except advantage to plaintiff; thus every telegram between defendant and his solicitor, counsel, witnesses, agent?, has been ordered to be produced to plaintiff — partner of the eon of the Judge. During tbe past few weeks, without the knowledge of defendant, and without giving him chance to object — order only recently discovered by defendant — rule to rescind moved. Turton, defendant's solicitor absent when order granted; believed that no telegrams shown; but it is felt that Bell bas no chance of fair trial before Chapman. It is suggested in interests of justice that you send down Johnston to try case on ground of gross partiality of Chapman now exposed, and suspend Chapman until Assembly meets to take action." Mr Yogel appears to have felt uncomfortable at beiog tbe recipient of such a message, for on the following day he telegraphed back to Judge Ward:— "Am Ito consider your telegram relating to Juc*ge Chapman as addressed tome in my official capacity? If not, I must request you to withdraw it. The imputation is one of the most serious nature, and such as I ; cannot receive except officially. If lam informed by you that the telegram already received is addressed to me officially, the Government will submit it to the Governor, and take into consideration what advice they will give as to the action to be taken in reference thereto." On the same day Judge Ward sent two replies to Mr Vogel's telegram, in the first of which be says : — " My telegram was marked official and intended to be so. Ido not make private accusations. Of course I knew you could not suspend Judge Chapman without reference to Governor. State* ment of facts strictly correct. * * * Chapman on same day makes general order, quoted in last telegram. Macaaaey is partner of Chapman's son, and on most intimate terms with Judge, who is godfather to one of his children." The second telegram was as follows : —"I thank you most sincerely for giving me opportunity of withdrawing my first telegram. No doubt it bears marks of haste — case was urgent — but in all my correspondence with you, either private or official, I do not remember ever bringing a charge against a Government official, and I certainly should not do so without expecting an immediate inquiry. I omitted three matters in last telegram. First, Kettle's affidavit specified my telegrams to Turton (my solicitor), as among those plaintiff wished to inspect. I mention this to show that I am not a SWiPI/ £ ut^ ,^arty aggrieved. Second, some weeks 'previous : to v Kettle's application, defendant Bell

filed affidavits stating that within bis knowledge I bad nothing to do either with action or article. Third, Mr Mr James Smith, defendant's leading counsel, informed 7m e that it was arranged that" Chapman, plaintiff's partner and Judge's son, was to hold brief at trial." Between the 220 d and 24th of April •Judge Ward appears to have^ reconsidered the matter, for on that day be forwarded the following message to Mr Vogel :— w Official. — I have reperused your telegram. I have no copy of my own which was written in the telegraph office. There can have been no want of courtesy to yourself in mine. But if there was any informality or any appearance of presumption on my part in suggesting .a Coursejof action to the Government, I beg.to tender my apologies.. JWith this exception, to every word I have written I hold. I ought further to say that my telegraphing to you was without any concert with Mr Bell or his legal advisers in Dunedin, who were wholly igooronJt of my 'intention to do so. I felt that to ask them to go on would place them in even a worse position than at present at the trial, if Judge Chapman presided at it. In justice, therefore, I am wholly responsible for this application to you. If you desire it I will forward despatch with detailed statement." On the following day Mr Yogel replied: — "I have to acknowlege your various telegrams relating to Judge Chapman. * .--* * Respecting your complaints against the Judge, I have to inform you that Ministers, though disapproving of the order, see no reason, supposing their view of its objectionable nature is correct, to consider that its issue was other than au error of judgment. They see no ground for connecting it with the domestic circumstances to which you refer, whilst they are of opinion that unless judges are to be condemned to lives of celibacy they wiil be liable to have offspring, and that these, when they arrive at years of discretion, should be as free to choose and pursue tbeir avocatoos as other members of the community. Ministers will not advise his Excellency to take any action in the matter. A copy of the correspondence will be forwarded to Judge Chapman for his information." On the 27ih of April Judge Ward telegraphed:— «, t regret to see from your second telegram that I have failed to place Ministers iv full possession of facta of the case. * * * Every lawyer knows that these telegrams cannot be produced at tho trial. The ex parte order for their private inspection by^ plaintiff was therefore grievously unjust. The domestic circumstances you allude to I mentioned to show the cloß3 connection between tho Judge who made the order and the suitor who obtained it. I should be the last per- [ son in Ne ; Zealand to advocate the condemnation of judges to celibacy. When fuller facts come to your knowledge by newspaper, I am assured that no errors or informalities of mine io this correspondence will prevent you from giving them the grave consideration which they deserve. This telegram is paid, but it is of course official." Three or four further communications passed betwdeo Judge Ward and, the Premier, but they are of no great importance. Io the foregoing quotations we have omitted those portions ! of ' tho correspondence which had reference to the legality or otherwise of the order for the production of the telegrams, as. that ia iiot now ths point at issue. That the secrecy of the telegraph department should be preserved is essential to its success and to the public interests, but a still graver question arises out of this correspondence. When we find one'of the Judges of- the land openly and emphatically accusing another of being biassed in favor of a litigant upon ; whose caee he was called upon to adjudicate, we naturally ask ourselves whether justice is to bo obtained in our courts of law. In the bare suggestion of such an idea there is something most repugnant to every Englishman, and evil; will be the day for the colony when doubts begin io arise as to tho honesty and impartiality of our Judges. The: charges made by Judge Ward appear to be founded on the fact that one of the solicitors engaged in the case in question was a son of Mr Justice Chapman's, and this circumstance alone was sufficient to induce him to adopt the strange course he thought fit to pursue* Such a charge must of necessity ha most difficult to disprove, but, nevertheless, the case is one that calls for a most searching investigation, which must end in the dismissal of one of the two Judges concerned. Either the accuser has wrongly charged a Judge of the Supreme Court with the grossest unfairness in the exercise of his duties, or tbe accused is guilty of the charge brought against him. Should the former prove to be the case, Judge Ward most certainly has no right to continue to hold so. high an office ; should the charge against Mr Justice Chapman, who is highly respected in the district over which he presides, be established, his instant dismissal would be far too light a punishment for so grave an offence. The report of; the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the matter will be looked for with interest throughout the colony.