THE WARD-CHAPMAN INQUIRY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4180, 13 August 1874, Page 3

THE WARD-CHAPMAN INQUIRY.

The following is the interim report of the Ward-Chapman Inquiry Joint Committee, which was read in the House of Representatives yesterday:— The Committee find that in the month of April last an action for libel was pending in the Supreme Court at Dunedin between James Macassey and George Bell. That Mr. G. N. Turton, of Dunedin, was solicitor for the defendant Bell, that Mr. Ward, District Judge, was advising counsel on behalf of the defendant Bell, but acting gra--tuitously. That Mr. Turton also acted generally as solicitor for Mr. Ward, and communications relating to Mr. Ward’s private business passed between them by telegraph. That Mr. Justice Chapman, on an application made on behalf of the plaintiff Macassey, made an order ex parte to allow the plaintiff to inspect not only telegrams between the parties to the action, and relating to the action ; but also telegrams which have 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. Turton, not only in relation to the said action, but also in relation to his own private affairs might thereby be handed over to the inspection of plaintiff or his solicitors, Mr. Ward became imbued with the suspicion that Mr. Justice Chapman, in making the said order, had acted partially on account of his private friendship with Macassey and 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 in his telegrams to Mr. Vogel. That Mr. Ward has explained to the Committee that his charge against Mr. Justice Chapman was not meant as a general charge ; but only as to the said libel, action of Macassey v. Bell. That the practice of the Supreme Court at Dunedin appears to have been to make order for the inspection of telegrams ex parte, and several such orders had previously been made by Mr. Justice Chapman in other cases, 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 make such 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. Thu conclusions to which the Committee have come upton this part of the subject remitted to them for inquiry, are as follows ; Ist. 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 offic jr. 2nd. That while the propriety of the practice of issuing such orders ex parte, may be open 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 Government the desirability of making arrangements for the periodical shifting of Supreme Court and District Court Judges to different circuits. (Signed) J. Babtoh A. Aoland.”