TELEGRAPHIC NEWS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5527, 13 December 1878, Page 2

TELEGRAPHIC NEWS.

(PER PRESS AGENCY.) Auckland, Thursday. Sir George Grey on arrival was received by the Chairman of the Harbor Board, Mr, O’Rorke, M.H.R., and other lending citizens. Mr. Maoandrew is expected here to-morrow, and Mr. Sheehan on Monday. The late Harbor Board endowments and wharf tolls realised £487.

The New Plymouth cricketers are expected here about the end of the month, when they will play their first match. At a meeting of the Hibernian Society last night, Dynes, the vicar-general, introduced Father Hennebery, who, ha said, was willing to give them the benefit of his talents, and he hoped the society would stand by him. Father Hennebery then requested the society to assist him in securing denominational education. Tt is rumored that the Roman Catholics intend publishing a special organ. He hoped that in a short time the Catholic schools in Auckland, under the pew rent system, would be in practical working order, and that the telegraph and other means should be utilised to obtain efficient teachers.

The Crown lands ranger has reported to the Waste Lands Board that the Katikati farms were highly creditable. The settlers are healthy, happy, and prosperous. Napier, Thursday.

Mr. W. H. Floyd, who for a number of years has held the position of electrician and inspector of telegraphs on the East Coast, and who is leaving to take charge of railway telegraphs in the Middle Island, was presented to-day with a handsome marble eight-day clock, a silver liqueur frame and silver cakebasket, and a gold pencil-case, altogether to the value of £SO, the gifts of the officials in his circuit. The presentation was made through Mr. Stringer, the officer in charge of the telegraph station. The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court closed with the trial of Kipa Wharekua for stealing a letter containing a cheque from a mail-bag that he was carrying. He was found guilty and sentenced to three years’ penal servitude. The arrest of this prisoner was made under unusual circumstances. The prisoner was in a pa about 10 miles from Waiuku and 130 from Gisborne. Constable Dorris reached the pa early in the morning, and managed to get the prisoner out quietly before the other occupants of the pa were up. At some little distance outside there was another constable waiting, and on reaching him the prisoner was hurried off to Gisborn ■. Tt is believed that this is the first instance i ■ rich a native prisoner has been openly brought through the Maori country. In the case of the murder of the woman at Waiapu the prisoners were brought away by sea. Nelson, Thursday.

The Good Templar Grand Lodge election of officers for the year resulted as follows : G.W.0.T., Jago, Dunedin; G.W.G., Earll, Blenheim ; G.W.V.T., Allsworth, Wanganui ; G.W.S., Oamerou, Dunedin ; G.W.X., Carr, Dunedin; G.W. Chaplain, Eev. lloseby, Dunedin ; G.W.M., Webber, Christchurch ; G.S., J. T. Smith, Christchurch ; G. 1., Coles, Wellington ; G.S., Barrowman, Kumara ; G.A.S., Hudson, Wellington ; G.D.M., Sister Lamb, Dunedin. The Good Templar Grand Lodge have decided that members of seceding lodges wishing to return to their allegiance may do so, and retain all the honors acquired. The next session of the Grand Lodge is to be held at Christchurch. Christchurch, Thursday. Mr. James Edward Fitzgerald, Comptroller. General, is now on a visit to Canterbury. Mr. Floyd has been appointed manager of railway telegraphs for the South Island, and commences his duties on the Ist January. It is proposed to wholly dissociate the railway telegraphs from the general telegraphs of the colony. New railway workshops are to be commenced immediately upon a piece of ground adjoining the station at Addington, come twenty acres in extent. The whole of the old workshops will be removed, every available space being required for strictly railway purposes. The Catholic bazaar has realised £460,

The question of the non-existence of a District Court, although the same has been gazetted, was yesterday brought under the notice of Justice Johnson, who stated he had sworn Judge Ward in as District Judge. The matter will be brought before the Government.

His Lordship the Bishop arrived early this morning ; he will be welcomed by an address to-night, and there will be a special service in the Cathedral on Monday. A special service was held this evening at St. Michael’s Church, to welcome the Bishop on his return from England. An address of welcome was read by the Very Kev. the Dean, and the Bishop briefly replied, saying he would take another opportunity of giving a fair account of the Lambeth Conference. He afterwards proceeded to the college library and distributed the prizes to the scholars of Christ’s College. A very heavy south-wester has just sprung up, and the town is in a cloud of dust unprecedentedly thick. Heavy banka of clouds threatenjrain before morning. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Thursday, December 12. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., 8.M.) DRUNKENNESS. One inebriate was fined 10s., or the usual alternative, for drunkenness. CIVIL OASES. Guthrie v. Howard: claim, £ls.—This was an action for damages occasioned ,by defendant’s dog biting plaintiff’s son. Mr. Fitzhorbert appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travers, jun., for the defence. The case for the plaintiff was that the boy, who was returning from school, went into defendant’s paddock, and that Miss Howard sat a dog on to the boy. The animal bit the little fellow in the thigh. Dr. Watts stated that one of the dog’s fangs had entered the boy's flesh three-quarters of an inch. For the defence it was contended that the dog which did the miscief was not owned by the defendant, and the case was ultimately adjourned until Monday, for the production of the dog. Judgments for the plaintiffs were given in the following oases :—J. Gear v. J. Peacock : claim, £6 135.; J. Smith v. J. Rice: claim, £8 16s. 3d.; N. Valentine v. J. McColl. City Corporation v. H. Best : claim, £4B 2s. 9d., for rates.—Defendant paid £6 55., and pleaded not indebted for the remainder. From the evidence it appeared that the defendant was only agent for the house, and hie Worship held that under the circumstances he was not liable, and non-suited the plaintiff.

MR. BARTON AND THE JUDGES. The Government have printed for general circulation the following letter to Mr. Barton, together with a number of appendices, consisting mainly of judgments of the Court in various cases, andnewwspaper extracts: — Wellington, I2th December, 1878. Sir,—l have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of sth November, in reply to mine of the 29 th October, in reference to your charges against their Honors the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Richmond. I have to regret that so long a delay should have occurred in replying to your letter, but it has been occasioned mainly by the Government making a searching inquiry into your charges, and by the time that was necessarily spent in obtaining the documents and papers relating to them. In former correspondence (17th June, 1878) you have expressed the opinion that it was the duty of the Government to make a full preliminary inquiry into any charge brought against a Judge of the Supreme Court, so that if they thought the charge proved a serious one steps might be taken In Parliament to deal with the charge and the Judge. The Government have followed this course. I may state that the Government have not thought it necessary to communicate with any of the Judges, nor to submit a copy of your letter of sth November for their consideration, The various charges have been dealt with on the reported judgments and evidence, and on the various documents filed in the Supreme Court. I now proceed to deal with your charges, CHARGES ONE AND TWO. These charges may be taken together. They appeared in your petition to the House of Representatives in 1877 j and the House affirmed a resolution that your petition could not be considered. The resolution was in these terms Ordered, —That the order made on the fourteenth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, that the petition of George Elliott Barton be received, bo read, and discharged, on the grounds that the allegations contained in the petition are for the most part not sufficiently specific to call for inquiry, and that the specific charges, even if proved, are not of a character to justify any interference on the part of this House. Under these circumstances the Government would be bound to refuse an inquiry which Parliament had declined to sanction. There is, however, another objection to the Government dealing with these charges. They have been practically the subject of judicial investigation and decision. It is true that this investigation was held before the Chief- Justice, but he expressed his willingness, and almost urged you to have the matter dealt with before the full Court of Appeal. This you declined, preferring an immediate decision to waiting for the Court of Appeal to meet. At the conclusion of the Chief Justice’s judgment you said:— Allow me to express my thanks to the Court I came hero this morning without any hope or expects • lion of a judgment such as your Honor has just delivered. It is true your Honor has observed of my defence, made before your Honor, that it was perhaps out of taste. Without intending the slightest disrespect to your Honor, you will permit me to say that so far as my own mind is concerned, whatever may be the actual fact, I am not conscious that I have been guilty of bad taste. At the same time, allow me to say this, your Honor—that I now openly and in Court say that if I have caused your Honor the slightest mental pain it is a matter of the deepest regret to me. I hope, your Honor, that I shall always be found to bo one of those who will use the utmost endeavor to maintain the dignity of this Court, both while inside and out of U. With these words, I again thank your Honor for the view you have taken of my case, which shows that your Honor's mind has approached this subject in a spirit of perfect justice and propriety.—New Zealand Times, October 14,1876. How the Government could grant an inquiry, after your own admission that the Chief Justice had approached the subject *' in a spirit of perfect justice and propriety,” lam at a loss to understand. Your statement disposes, if the Parliament had not disposed, of those charges, I put in Appendix A to this letter a copy of his Honor’s judgment. CHARGE THREE. You must be laboring under some misapprehension as to this charge, and must have forgotten what occurred. In the New Zealand Times of the 25th January, 1878, the following paragraph appeared ; During the hearing of the case Clayton v. Isaac, in the Supreme Court yesterday, Mr. Travers complained that he could not get certain information from Mr. Campbell (of Beauchamp, Campbell, and Co.), a witness, whereupon his Honor remarked that it was highly improper for a witness to keep back information. Mr. Barton, counsel for defendant, examined witness with a view of showing that neither he nor any member of his firm had withheld information asked for by plaintiff’s solicitors. From what further transpired his Honor said it appeared as though Mr. Barton was trying to lay a trap for the Registrar of the Supremo Court. Mr. Barton asked his Honor to withdraw the remark, and said ho had cast improper imputations both on Messrs. Beauchamp, Campbell, and Co. and Messrs. Barton and Fitzherbert. His Honor said he would not express an opinion until after hearing the evidence, The Chief Justice, however, on the day that paragraph appeared, made the following statement in Court; — I desire to say, with reference to a paragraph in the New Zealand Times, that the reporter misreported what took place. No observation was made as to Mr. Barton or to Mr. Fitzherbert having led the Registrar into a trap. My observations were made with reference to a system and the abuse of it. The law provides that the Registrar may go to an auctioneer, arrange for sale, and conduct sale of land by mortgagees. It appears to be the practice that the mortgagee’s solicitor suggests an auctioneer; the same solicitor prepares conditions, which are approved by the Registrar. If under these circumstances the solicitor is to be called the solicitor of the Registrar, that is leading the Registrar into a trap. The Registrar is not under the impressson that the mortgagee’s solicitor is his solicitor under such circumstances. I reiterate over and over again that my observations were general, and bad no reference to any particular person. No imputation was madeagainst Messrs. Beauchamp and Campbell except this, that that there was great difficulty In getting proof of matters from them about which there should have been no difficulty whatever.—New Zealand Times, January 26,1878. This statement was published in the New Zealand Times of the next day. If it were, therefore, the duty of the Government, which it is not, to inquire into the truth of every allegation that a Judge may make, or every reprimand he may utter, in this case the Chief Justice’s statement clearly shows that your firm was not charged as you allege. I believe that when you penned this charge you had forgotten what had occurred on the 25th January last. CHARGE FOUR. This charge was, as you state, made in your petition to the House in 1877, and, on that ground alone, could not be dealt with by the Government. You, however, seem to forget that, in a letter to the Colonial Secretary, the Chief Justice explained the manner in which the phrase that you complain of was used, as follows : Mr. Hart urged that the Supreme Court was a Court of Equity, and that it was only equitable that the deduction should be made: to that I replied that I thought that I could, nevertheless, not make the order. Thereupon Messrs. Barton and Fltzherbert's clerk at once asked me to fix the amount of costs to be paid to the plaintiff. I said I had not yet decided that he was to have costs, and that I did not so decide. Thereupon he made some observation about the action being a common law action, —the observation I sup-, posed to be directed to Mr. Hart’s contention that, as it was only equitable that the deduction should be allowed, the order should be made. I believe that I then observed that it might as well be said that there was uo such thing as common honesty in a common law action. * , This explanation disposes of your charge ; and the remarks I have made on charge 3 are applicable. CHARGES FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN, These charges are not specific, and cannot therefore be dealt with. As you have referred to various cases, and have in other charges named occurrences in these cases as proof of corruption on the n ,rfc pi tlic Judges, I shall show that, in the occurrences you have named, neither you nor your clients have any just cause of complaint. CHARGE EIGHT. This charge refers to an occurrence in the case of Peters v. Joseph, a case that you cite as proving charges six and seven. It has been the subject of judicial decision. You moved, as you had the undoubted right to do, to set aside the following order : In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, ■Wellington District, between Carl Peters, plaintiff, and Joseph Joseph and Walter Isaac Nathan, defendants, un Friday, the twenty-second day of February, 187 S. On hearing the solicitors for the parties, and on reading the summons herein, dated the thirteenth day of February instant, I do order that the defendants do have leave to withdraw the pleas pleaded by them to the second count in the declaration in this action, and to pay into Court the sum of ten pounds, and to plead such payment in satisfaction of the plaluttfis claim under the said second count, and that the defendant be at liberty to give notice in mitigation of of damages under the said second count, ... And I do further order that the costs of, and Incidental to, this order, and the costs of the amendment, be plaintiff’s costs In the cause In any event; and I do also further order, by consent, that the question as to payment of tho costa of tho flwt trial of the Issues raised on tho secoml count, and of tho costs of tho rule for a new trial as affected by this application, be reserved for the consideration of tho Court at the time of tho disposal by tho Court of the questions as to costa which arc reserved by the rnlo for the new trial : tho defendant also nndertakin g not to proceed in tho meantime with tho taxation of the costs granted by tho said rule. James Phekderoast. This application was heard by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Williams, and against the latter yon have made no charge. Their judgments I put in appendix B. I need hardly point out, that yon are in error in stating that the order was “ by consent ” generally. The only question that was dealt with by consent was one of coats—viz., that the question as to payment of the costs of tho first trial of the issues raised in the Supreme Court, and of the costs of the rule for a new trial as affected by the application, be reserved, &o. I Ordinarily, when’a new trial is granted, the I i person against whom the rule waa obtained^

pays the costs. In this case the Judge granting a new trial ordered the plaintiff so to do. This order, therefore, in holding over the paying of the costs, was a direct benefit to your client. Had this order not done so, the defendant could have taxed his costs under the rule absolute, and issued execution against your client. But had it been otherwise, your client had the right of appeal against the de-cisions-of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Williams, and he did not avail himself of that right. I am also advised that the judgment of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Williams could not have been successfully appealed against. CHARGE NINE. Your proof adduced against Mr. Justice Richmond amounts to this : that Mr. Justice Riobmondsaid onethiugpublicly in Court when Mr. Travers was present, and that Mr. Travers told you another thing out of Court. This is certainly most peculiar proof to show that a . 1 ’ Mr. Travers has, however, informed the Government that his recollection is diametrically opposed to your own. The whole papers in the action Hair v. Borough of Wanganui have been obtained by the Government, and I find that the following are the facts : Mrs. Hair beganan action on the 23rd of March, 1877, against the Mayor, Corporation, &c,, of Wanganui. The declaration, pleas, replication, affidavit, order, and injunction, are all in Appendix C. Briefly stated, they'show the following : Mrs. Bair was in lawful possession of land covered with water, known as Virginia Lake. The Corporation threatened to construct an aqueduct from Westmere Lake to her land, Virginia Lake ; and she prayed for an injunction to prevent this being done. On an affidavit included in Appendix, she obtained an ex parte injunction, and you, on behalf of the Corporation, moved to set it aside, on the grounds which are stated in the Appendix. And after argument a judgment was pronounced, refusing your motion. The judgment is in Appendix O. The only thing that might call for remark is that the Judge should not have ordered your clients to have paid costa on this unsuccessful motion. Against this judgment your clients did not appeal, and I am advised that an appeal must have been unsuccessful. To show, however, that your clients knew they had no defence to the action, and that the injunction which was granted was properly granted, they afterwards consented to the injunction being made perpetual, with costs. (See copy order in appendix.) I may point out that the objection to the ex parte injunction raised by you as to impurity of the water was really of no importance, for, whether pure or impure, the plaintiff undoubtedly had a right to prevent her land being injured by the defendants unlawfully pouring water on it. As to the other point, of the land being taken under the Municipal Corporations Waterworks Act, 1872, the notice of Mr. Borlase (see paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Mrs. Hair, dated 19th June, 1878) disposed of that objection. A perusal of the whole of the documents will, I believe, make you withdraw this charge, and regret that you should have made it. CHARGE TEN. This charge specifies, I presume, what was unspecified in charge 6, as this case—Schultze ats Wellington Corporation—is mentioned in charge 6. The following rule nisi was obtained by the Wellington Corporation : In the Supreme Court of Now Zealand, Wellington District. Between the Mayor, Councillors, and Citizens of Wellington, plaintiffs, anti Charles William Schultze, defendant. On Friday, the twenty-eighth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven. On reading the writ and declaration in this action, the affidavit of service thereof filed herein on this twenty-eighth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, and the several affidavits of William Hester snd William Thomas Locke Travers, filed herein on the twenty-seventh day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventyseven, and on hearing Mr. Travers of counsel for the plaintiffs, it is ordered that the defendant do, at the first sitting in Banco of this Honorable Court which shall take place next alter the next circuit sittings of this Court to be holden at Wellington, show cause why a provisional injunction should not issue restraining the defendant and James Richard Davies, of the city of Wellington, civil engineer, respectively, from proceeding under the several notices dated the eleventh day of July and tho sixth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, and under the appointment of the said James Richard Davies as arbitrator, dated the twenty-fifth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventyseven, respectively, in the declaration in this action set forth pending the trial of this action. Firstly, on the grounds that the claim of the defendant was not made within the time prescribed by the Wellington Waterworks Act, 1871, and, secondly, that the defendant, in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-six, brought an action in this Court against the plaintiffs for damages alleged to have been sustained by him by reason of the alleged diversion, and that judgment in the said action passed against tho defendant. By the Court. The points raised in this rule were well worthy of argument, and the Government cannot see that any objection could possibly have been made to the granting of the rule nisi. Your complaint is that the Judges did not inform you what the rule nisi meant. Surely that waa no part of the Court’s funotion. It was a rule to show cause why an injunction should not issue, and there was no statement or order in the rule staying proceedings in the arbitration. Nor was it a rale in an action in which Davies was acting as arbitrator. The rule was obtained on tbe 28th September, 1877, and discharged on the 12th November, 1877 : no great delay therefore occurred in disposing of it, and the Government cannot see the slightest impropriety in anythiun the Judges did. CHARGE ELEVEN. This charge is not specific. As there is a reference to the cases of Peters v. Joseph, Joseph v. Peters, and Poll v. Touts, I may as well state how far these cases were “ tied up.” Your client Mr. Peters obtained a verdict in the case of Peters v. Joseph, but certain points were reserved at the trial, and a rule absolute in the following terms was made : In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Wellington District, between Carl Peters, plaintiff, and Joseph Joseph and -Walter Isaac Nathan, defendants. On Tuesday, the 18th day of January, 1878. Upon reading the rule m’si granted herein on the 17th day of November, 1877, and on hearing Mr. Barton of counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travers of counsel for the defendants, it is ordered that tho verdict found for the plaintiff on the issues under the second oount of the declaration be set aside, and that a new trial of the issues upon the said second count be had, and that the costs of and incident to tho first trial of this action do abide the further order of this Court, and that tho plaintiff do pay to the defendants the costs of and incident to this rule. By the Court. The judgment is in the Appendix B, and I am advised it was a proper judgment, and could not have been successfully appealed against. Poll v. Tonks was tried on tlic2lth January, 1878, and a verdict of £270 given for your client. At this trial also certain points in favor of defendant were raised, and a rule nisi was obtained on the 2nd February, and discharged on tbe 14th March. The Government cannot see anything improper in the Judge's conduct in either of these cases. Unless, indeed, you are prepared to contend that whenever one of the clients for whom you appear obtains a verdict from a jury, his opponent is not to be at liberty to raise any points of law, the Judges could not have acted otherwise than they did. If, as you say, the cross action, Joseph v. Peters, was improper or unfounded, your client could have defended it. The fact that judgment went against him shows that he was in the wrong. The charges you have made under this head, I must say, are not only unsupported by the documents filed in Court and by the judgments, but these show that you must have been laboring under a serious misapprehension when you made your complaint, CHARGE TWELVE. This charge is specific, but the undoubted facts show that you must have overlooked them 'when you made it. Your motion was, “ for a rule nisi to show cause why plaintiff should not be allowed to discontinue without costs to be paid by the plaintiff, and costs of tbe trial and of this motion be paid by defendant, and why defendant should not furnish to the plaintiff a duplicate of the agreement for the settlement of this action.” The affidavits filed are in the appendix D. Your complaint is that Mr. Justice Richmond did not set aside the verdict on the ground that one of the jurymen was interested. . No doubt if one of the jurymen was interested that may have been good ground for a new trial, but you did not ask for such. You desired that the plaintiff should have leave to discontinue tbe action without paying costs, and you also asked that the agreement made should be carried out. The agreement could not therefore have been considered by you an improper one. It the agreement was valid, then the plaintiff could have sued the defendant for any breach. In reference, however, as to whether Mr. Charles Johnston was interested or not, it seems to the Government that the judgment of Mr. Justice Richmond disposed of such an objection when he said, — That in tills case a very serious aUcgation had been made against a juror in the late case of Dcach v. Johnston. After giving what consideration ho could to the matter, ho was of opinion that Mr. Charles John Johnston was not actually interested in tho lato action for trespass against Dr. Johnston. Nevertheless. tho degree of connection ho had with Dr. Johnston might have given cause for a new trial, and if a rule nisi for a new trial had been asked for he thought ho would havo granted It. However, no jury, in his opinion, could have given a verdict more I favorable to the plaintiff, without haring given what

Is called a p a rvorso verdict. It tlie plaintiff had any right for a rule it was for a new trial on the ground that an interested party was upon the jury. As to the production of tho alleged agreement, the plaintiff's right was plain; but he did not approve of the method In which the agreement was sought in the present case to bo obtained—by rule nisi. The proper course would have been to havo given notice of motion. Therefore, he would make no rale in this case.— Ntv: Zealander, Bbh August, 1878. I have now dealt with tho various charges you have made. I have placed in the appendix the various documents referring to the cases, for more ready reference. After a careful and calm review, I am bound to say that I regret that you should have made the charges, and I feel assured that you will yet acknowledge that they were made either under some temporary irritation, or without due consideration. There ia one misapprehension under which you seem to labor, which I think it necessary to dispel. It is not the function of the Executive of the colony to act aa an appellate tribunal. If the Judges decide contrary to law, ample machinery has been provided to have tbeir decisions reviewed. It cannot be right that men who may not have been trained as lawyers should sit in judgment on the decisions of the Supreme Court. It is only when clear evidence is produced of corruption orincapaciby that the Executive ia called upon to interfere. Were the Executive to interfere with Judges whenever a disappointed litigant invoked their aid the due administration of justice would be impeded.—l have, &c., G. S. Whitmore, G. E. Barton, Esq., M.H.R.