BARTON VERSUS SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5473, 11 October 1878, Page 4

BARTON VERSUS SUPREME COURT.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —Everyone must be glad that at last we have in Mr. Justice Richmond's letter something on the other side of the question as to Mr. Barton’s committal. Ido not propose to go into the question at large as to whether Mr. Barton became a martyr at the hands of our Supreme Court Judges, or whether the punishment inflicted was well merited by a coarse of the grossest insolence ever exhibited in our Courts, but I shall merely point out by what one-sided statements the public, the members of the House of Representatives, and even his Excellency’s advisers, have been led in arriving at their conclusions. In moving the second reading of the Judicial Commission BUI, Mr. De Lautour relied upon a report of the proceedings in the “New Zealand Jurist,” and Mr. Fox and others, though opposing the Bill, accepted that report as correct, and on its authority ventured to say that Mr. Barton was dealt with too severely. Mr. Justice Richmond in his letter explains that this report was altogether one-sided and incorrect, and was not he believed supplied by either of the reporting barristers of > the “ Jurist.” I have reason to know that neither of these gentlemen did supply the report in question, as might indeed have been gathered from its not having appeared in the authorised -reports, but in the introductory reading matter. Where, then, did it come from ? A paragraph in the last (August) number of the “ Jurist ” will, I think, answer this question. The paragraph runs as follows :—“ lam quoting from the ‘New Zealand Jurist,’ aud do not guarantee the accuracy of these reports ; but they are the only reports we have, and the editor is a man of high repute and standing, who would not willingly admit any report which in his opinion was not justifiable. Mr. De Lautour might safely have given bis guarantee, as the report from which he quoted was prepared by one of the counsel in the case referred to." Now the report oa the face of it could not have been written by Mr. Oilivier, and I believe I may safely assert was not so written ; while the only other counsel engaged in Court that day was Mr. George Elliot Barton. 1 It was Mr. George Elliot Barton therefore who, having so altered the incomplete shorthand reporter's notes that appeared in your columns as to suit his view of the case, supplied tho “Jurist” with what purported to be a correct report of tho proceedings. It was published in the “Jurist” without remark ; and it'is upon this that tlie’Governmeat and tlie public, without hearing a word from the Judges themselves, have thought fit to condemn their action.—lam, &0.,

A Barrister.