MR. BARTON’S CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5481, 21 October 1878, Page 2

MR. BARTON’S CASE.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, — Mr. Barton, in his speech yesterday evening’, road a letter he had received from me, and used it as confirming the “ New Zealand Jurist’s” report of the proceedings in the case of Spence v. Rearson, Your report of the speech makes it appear that the letter wan written by me for the purpose of enabling Mr, Barton to quote my words in support of his contention. That is not the case. I was the counsel opposed to Mr. Barton in that case, and wrote for the “Jurist” a report of the proceedings on the 2Sth January, which unfortunately was sent too late, for another report was already in print. My notes in Court, from which my report was compiled, show that the Chief Justice used these words ; “ Wc must treat this case as now wholly out of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.” I sent my report to Mr. Barton for revision of his argument on the Bth April, and on the 9fch received it back, with a note from Mr. Barton refusing to have anything to do with it because the words I have mentioned appeared in the judgment of the Court. On the 9th April I wrote the letter which Mr. Barton read in the House, enclosing my notes taken in Court. In that letter I used these words :—“I have no note of what happened on the next day ; but that has already been reported in the 4 Jurist,’ and that report states what I believe is correct—that the Judges then declined to answer your question about the jurisdiction.” But I did not then mean that the Judges had not sufficiently shown their opinion that they had no jurisdiction. My recollection is tha% in reply to Mr. Barton’s demand for a formal decision on the question of jurisdiction, tho Chief Justice answered, “It is unnecessary to say more than that you can take leave to plead for what it is worth.” I have said, I think, sufficient to show that my letter written six months ago was not written with any intention of supporting Mr. Barton’s case, and to show also what X think should have been stated to the House, that it was*, written to prove that a decision ought to have been reported, which does not appear in the “Jurist ” report. I think Mr. Barton, however much he may dispute tho rest of his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond’s letter, will agree with me that no report] which has appeared of the proceedings in Court on the 30th January quote the very words which Mr. Barton used, or pretended to give any description of the indignation with which he pressed his remonstrances against the decision of the Court.—l have, &c., H. D. Bell. Wellington, 19th October.