Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5400, 18 July 1878, Page 2

From a report, which appears in another column, of an interview members of. the Education Board had with'the Minister for Education yesterday, respecting Mr. Doherty’s case, it will be seen that the Hon, Mr. Ballance holds views almost identical with those we expressed on Monday. The members of the deputation were, when they pressed tins Minister for an answer, told that they ought not to throw away any more money in carrying the suit further. It was stated that the cost of moving the Court to set aside the verdict, or to enter a verdict for'the defendant, on the ground that the Judge at the trial ought to have directed the jury that the plaintiff had been guilty of gross misbehavior, would be only ■ £35, an amount that does not appear very formidable j but those who know anything about legal proceedings will make a shrewd guess that such a sum would, only suffice to land the Board comfortably into the commencement of lengthened .litigation. It is not to be supposed • that Mr. Doherty would quietly' accept any ruling against him, and it is certain that public feeling is ho strong that his cause would be fought without any cost to himself, for funds would be readily forthcoming to carry on any further legal proceedings that might be rendered necessary bn his behalf consequent upon the action of the Board," the members of which, while acting in all good faith hitherto, have taken a mistaken view of the question. People who hold that they are not very blamoable for what has taken place, would reprobate any attempt to prolong litigation with the view of avoiding the payment of the three months' salary which the jury awarded to Mr. Doherty. It must be remembered that the verdict was arrived at after the jury had been placed in possession of more information than the Board had, and after they had heard counsels’ addresses and the Judge’s summing up. Any further expenditure by the. Board would not be justifiable, and the £SO and costs must now.be paid with as good a grace as possible. The proposal which has been offensively thrust forward, that the members of the Board should individually pay all costs incurred up to this, is absurd, and is founded upon au ignorant an,d narrow interpretation of the sub-sections stating the purposes to which the funds of the Board may be applied. • -