MR. BARTON AND THE BENCH AND BAR OF NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5294, 14 March 1878, Page 3

MR. BARTON AND THE BENCH AND BAR OF NEW ZEALAND.

(From the London Law Times, November 10.) “The Australian newspapers, pr at least some of them, have been occupied in commenting upon several unpleasant incidents which have occurred of late to disturb the harmony and good feeling that are generally expected to be found in the relation of the Bench and Bar, , As we gather from the details furnished by those, reports, it appears that, Mr. Barton, a member of the New Zealand Bar, made certain charges against the Chief Justice of New Zealand tin October, 1 1876, demanding a Government inquiry. Having sent a letter to the. Chief "Justice informing, him of this charge, Mr. Barton was ' called ; upon to answer for. .an alleged, contempt of Court. His answer was successful, and he subsequently withdrew. ; the chaiges • made. So far so good. , Mr. Barton, however, alleges that after the withdrawal of those charges,' instead of meeting with courtesy, or even justice; from the Bench, he ‘ found himself,’ -to use his own, words, ‘exceptionally treated by- the Judges just as before,’ and found, also that endeavors were made to cause him to be looked upon ‘as a person to whom insults might be offered, and upon whom imputations might; be cast, with impunity, not only .without rebuke, but with a consciousness that such insults and imputations were not displeasing to the presiding Judge.’ He complains of sneers and disparaging, remarks coming from the Bench, and what amounts to a vexatious exercise of judicial discretion in questions of costs. Under these circumstances he determined to seek relief by petitioning the House of Representatives, and prayed, first; an'inquiry into the allegations made on his part against . the Judges; and . secondly, that if the 'result of such enquiry showed that justice had not been impartially administered, an address should be presented to the. Governor, praying for the removal of the offending Judge. The case: upon which the most : stress, is laid in the petition is as follows ;—At a trial before a special jury, Mr. Barton’s .firm represented the plaintiff,' and obtained a verdict. During the trial the plaintiff acknowledged a payment: to the amount of about £2O; The jury awarded the plaintiff £lO5 14s. 9d. for work and labor, and £l5O for property of the plaintiff appropriatedby the defendant. After the trial the defendant’s solicitor applied that the above sum of £2O odd should be deducted from the amount awarded, a request; which the plaintiff’s solicitor refused to grant. The defendant then took but a summons in Chambers to compel the .amount’ to be deducted. The Chief Justice dismissed the summons, and in doing so is reported to have said that the plaintiff, ■ ‘ though not in law compelled to do so, ought in common honesty to have allowed this deduction.’.. He refused to allow the plaintiff’s costs. Unfortunately, after'this petition was sent to the House of Representatives, the members of the Bar, many of whom were also members of the House of Representatives, were so forgetful of what was due to their position, that they presented an address to the Judges, in which, while confessing that ‘ they are ignorant of its statements (namely, those in the petition), except from common rumor,’ they stated they had no sympathy with such a proceeding. Such an address can only be characterised as being most ill-advised, and can be compared only with those comments upon a case which proceed from the mouths of that large class of persons who decide offhand, without so much as the evidence. It would, too, have been more dignified on the part of the Bench [if the Judges had checked this excess of zeal. The petition was discharged, after a warm debate, on the ground that the allegations, even if proved, were not of a character to justify its prayer. We have nothing to say with regard to the decision come to. It is sufficient for us toremark that all this ill feeling might have been completely allayed by the exercise of a little moderation on all sides. If advocates have sometimes to bear the sneers er disparaging remarks of Judges, it is no less true that Judges are themselves sometimes condemned to hear inane or frivolous arguments. How the case between Mr. Barton and the Judges stands in its true merits it is, of course, utterly impossible to say ; but the petition, take it - in its greater force, does not appear to indicate anything more than a petty spirit of revenge, acting upon the Judges’ discretionary power. Assuming that such a . spirit prompted the Judges, of which, of course, we have no proof whatever, it would be a very questionable proposition to say that sufficient ground existed for removing them from their high office.”