THE WARD-CHAPMAN COMMITTEE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IX, Issue 194, 17 August 1874, Page 2

THE WARD -CHAPMAN COMMITTEE.

The following is the copy of the telegram, for forwarding which to an Auckland paper, Mr Luckie was recently adjudged guilty of a breach of privilege : — Judge Ward was yesterday several hours before tbe Enquiry Committee, and made a statement in general terms like that contained in his telegrams, which insisted on either gross partiality on the part of Judge Chapman or gross negligence. He contended as barrister-at-law, that he (Judge Ward) was entitled to practice as counsel and that order, which Judge Chapman had given ex parte, permitted the inspection of all telegrams passing between him, as such counsel, and his solicitor and client, to the prejudice of the defendant. This fact entitled bim to complain of partiality in this particular case. He spoke of the intimate relation between Judge Chapman and Macassey, and the general public dissatisfaction regarding these which prevailed in Dunedin, and as his private business was . interfered with by Judge Chapman's order, possibly be was irritated at the moment by the extraordinary illegal nature of the order, and telegraphed accordingly. Regarding Judge Chapman's excuse made for rescinding the order, viz., that it was made in the hurry of business, Judge Ward said there was no colourable warrant for such a statement on the records of the Courts; that in cases of orders in Court, Judge Chapman was in the habit of aaking, on application being made, "Are all your papers right ? " and on being answered iv the affirmative, of saying, " Take the order at your own peril." If gross impartiality had been waived in tbis instance it was gross negligence on Judge Chapman's part. To one or other of these points he adhered. Regarding the issue of similar orders for inspection of telegrams, Judge Ward declared that manifold repetitions of wrongs did not warrant tbe wrong order complained of, and all were equally illegal. In the coarse of the examination there was some amusement. Hilarity proposed by thia question, which Mr T. B. Gillies put with his well-known sardonic twinkle, 7,'* Did yoa, in Dunedin, Judge Ward, say you ...... 7 7.- . ' '-' ■ 7-"-?H ,;.-,' 77 '

had bad rows with all the other j iidges and now you were to have oao with Chapman?" \ Judge Ward : I cannot recall such a statement, but it is very likely I did, for there was this dispute imminent, and what you may choose to call rows took- place some years ago with other judges. The Committee does not appear to be makjng much headway. I arc informed that one witness, not yet called,' can testify to an offer of a bribe of £50 to one or other of telegraphists to secure or steal copies of telegrams. The story of Mr Murison being ill " is all gammon.'' Mr Lam aek ia here. He is believed to know all the circumstances, but is under honor to Mr Murison to disclose nothing without permission.