Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5133, 5 September 1877, Page 2

A case has recently been dealt with by the Public Petitions Committee, in which some rather curious bits of evidence were elicited. The petitioner, Mrs. McManus, of Auckland, prayed that an enquiry might be held into the circumstances connected with the imprisonment of her son, and that relief mightbe afforded to her. The facts were briefly these. Mrs. McManus had a son, who was apprenticed to a Mr. Roth. On the evening of the Queen's Birthday this boy and a follow apprentice went to the theatre, and returned home at eleven o’clock at night, after the performance was over. Mr. Roth refused to give them admittance. They were looked out for the night and had to procure beds elsewhere. The next morning the boys ' went back to ■ their master’s place and offered to go tq work, but Mr. Roth still refused to admit them. Young McManus went to Mr. Heskbth, the solicitor, under whose advice ho and his , companion went back again to Mr. Roth, who then said he would take them back. He asked them to “come along with him,’’ and they did so, and he took them to the Police Court, where they were brought before Messrs. Daedy, Isaacs, and O’Nbim., who sentenced McManus to one month’s hard labor, and the other boy to twenty-four hours’ imprisonment, Tho committee report that, haying made inquiry into petitioner’s case,, and invited the justices of the peace, who sat on the bench when the petitioner’s son was ordered to be imprisoned .for one month, to offer any explanation to the committee they thought desirable, . they are , of opinion that the explanation offered by the justices is, unsatisfactory, and is no justification of their action in illegally imprisoning petitioner’s son for an offence unknown Yo the’ law. The . committee therefore* recommend that the petitioner’s case be referred to the Government, and that the justices bo called On to show, cause why reparation should not be made by them to the petitioner and her son ; and, in the : event of their not making fair reparation, that they be called on to resign, or be struck off the list of magistrates. ! Mrs.- McManus • stated in her evidence before the committee that she felt that great injustice had been done to her son, and that she made, a vow that she would never rest jiipUl the r,magistTates ( were brought to' justice. She went to consult Mr, Rees about the matier,- and he said it'.waa “_a:moat rascally thing,” and that the magistrates were liable to an action. The witness goes on to. say “ I left him, and ho told me to come back in the even-, ing. I did -so. . When I saw Mr. Rees again he said he was sorry, that Captain Daedy was a friend of his, and he could not therefore go against him. I said,

‘Your friend is my son’s foe, and £3 such. I shall treat, him.’ Mr. Rees yvouldnot take any action against the , j usticespbut he did against the master.; £ did'not then take any action against the magistrates.'-’ Mr. Rees ,Tasked 111 - to take action agaiflat the master for mail--cious prosecution. The cost of it, he aaid, v would be,.£lo-.yl gaveMr.,.,REES an order to draw my salary to commence thik'kcitien? "When I returned to AXickia'nd from” the Thames, I found that he had drawn two months’" payj-but nb'steps were, takeminthe case. It was top late to-take action that session. —I then -wont to Mr. ,HBSKETH. , He-saidj.that,; among professional men they did not like to interfere with each other, but that if Mr. Rees gave back the money he would take the: case.- I asked Mr. Rees to return ‘ the money. He said he would not; he had done a lot of work, and if I came to his office I would see a great deal of writing. I took an action; in the "District Court for false imprisonment. The J udge decided that, owing to the conviction not being quashed, he was prevented from giving damages. I got Is.; arid the Judge said there was no absconding, and;that 'the lads had been left on the streets through the wickedness of their master. 1 got £lO 3s. 6d. costs. Mr. Macdonald subsequently on my ; behalf entered an action against the justices, and served them with a writ. Owing to Mr. Rees not having quashed the conviction, Mr; Macdonald could not go on with; the case. This should have been done within six months. ’ That'precluded me from going any further with the action against the justices. Mr. Rees neglected to take action to have the conviction quashed in order ,to save his client; and 1 have to pay £4O or £SO. Mr. Rees was my betrayer more than, adviser. He did. not advise me rightly what to do. The Government. took the . advice of the Law Officers. There was no doubt the conviction was bad, and the magistrates were so informed. l Mr. Rees did not give me notice in time to quash the conviction,. The District Judge told me if the conviction had been quashed he would have given judgment in my favor. Mr. Rees took my money from me to do it, and never did it. On the 24th May the lads were locked out by their master, and on the 31st I , gave Mr. Rees the money to take action, and the case was not depided until November. I saw Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Heskbth, and asked if it was possible to telegraph to the J udge, who was away just then at the South, so as, to be within the time for bringing the action. He said the Judge must be present, and the matter be brought before him then. My' boy was not arrested according to law. He was brought up in Court after being locked up without a warrant having been seen; and he suffered a month’s imprisonment at hard labor under what they call the law of liberty. I, did not..say that I had paid Mr. Rees £4o' for’’professional services. I said the case had cost me £40.” Mr. Rees, on being examined, contradicted Mrs. McManus on several points. He said: “ I have read the evidence. A portion of it is correct, and a portion of it is not correct. I did advise Mrs. McManus as to the steps she might and should take in reference to the imprisonment of her son. I told her there were two parties against whom she might proceed. First, there was Roth, the boy’s master, who had undoubtedly acted wrongly; and the other party consisted of the justices who had tried the case, and who, in my opinion, had also acted wrongly. But I told her, when she came to me, that in relation to the justices—one of whom, Captain Daldy, was my client, and moreover my personal.friend —though I did not consider their action right, still I must decline to act against them ; and that if she wished to proceed against them she must go to some other solicitor. She asked me if she could bring a case against Both. I said she could, and told her that there were two courses open to her—one to take action against him in the Supreme Court and recover damages against him for malicious prosecution. 1 notice that she states in her evidence that I said the cost would be £4O, I have no distinct recollection of having said that, but I daresay I did tell her so. I also told her she might proceed against him in the District Court, as the arrest had been illegal, but added that I did not think she would get substantial damages, though the Court would say the arrest was illegal. She said she did not desire any damages ; that her main object was to clear her boy’s reputation. I said we will bring an action in the District Court forfalse imprisonment. I may state to the committee that an action for malicious prosecution could not be brought in the District Court. It would have been necessary to go into the Supreme Court if. such action had been brought. This would have cost perhaps, as she states I said, £4O, while an action in the District Court would cost £lO or £l2. The action was brought, with what result you know. As to costs, Mrs, McManus, as she states, did give me authority to draw her salary, and I drew £l3. I then issued the writ, and proceedings were taken. T may state that, in the meantime, I understood she had gone to Mr. Macdonald, solicitor, of the Thames ; in fact I know she had, because I received a notification from Mr. Macdonald to that effect. But, as for me, I never undertook to quash the conviction,' or to take any proceedings so far as the magistrates were concerned, for I told her more than once that if she liked she could take the whole matter to some other solicitor. I proceeded simply against the policeman and Roth. As Mrs. McManus says, I did receive £l3 from her, and £9 or £lO in costs from the other side—in all, at any rate, £22. ■ I paid £2, the constable’s costs ; I had given Mrs. McManus £l, about £2 for costs of Court, and I returned her £5 at the time of settlement. You may see, on looking at this bill of costs, that the charges are very light—in fact, nearly three times the amount would have been charged under ordinary circumstances. By the account you will see that there was on the whole a balance of lls. lOd. due to Mrs. McManus, but that I returned her £5. I did this because I considered she had been badly treated —both she and her son. However, I did all that she instructed me to do. The whole of the circumstances of the case were brought out, and the boy’s indentures were cancelled. I dp not know whether the latter service was charged for at all.” —Mrs. McManus.: “Oh, yes; it is all there.” —Mr. Bees : “ Well, perhaps sd ; but all the charges were moderate in the extreme. Then she casts great blame upon me, and says'it was my fault because the conviction was not quashed. I may say I never was employed to do it, nor had I anything to do with that. As it was, I did more than I was instructed to do, because I was not instructed to get the boy’s indentures cancelled; therefore I wish to disabuse the mind of the committee of any wrong impression which the evidence of Mrs. McManus may have produced. I did the best I possibly could for Mrs. McManus, and, if my hands had been free, I do not

hesitate to say I would have proceeded-, against the justices.- But I. was bound to Captain Daddy* as a client. At the same time I told. Mrs: McManus that ■justices, like any other men, were] liable, to make mistakes,: and tha.t I'believed neither of them could have had any vindictive feeling either againsHier or her boy, though- they-might have been misled by Roth or somebody else. Still I did hot shield them from the consequence. of their mistake, though I refused any respdnsibility In the matter myself.” The case certainly seems to have been a'hard.one for Mrs". McManus and her son, who are undoubtedly deserving of sympathy,- and the justice of the decision arrived at by the committee will, we think, be very generally concurred in.