THE STANDARD. WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1873.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 68, 9 July 1873, Page 2

THE STANDARD.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1873.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

The judgment which the R.M. felt bound to give in the case of Jennings v. Barker and M‘Donald last Thursday, shows the necessity there is for an alteration to be made in our local laws to suit the altered circumstances of outlying districts. Like the “Sheep Act” and others bearing antiquated date, the “ Fencing Act” knows, in its provisions, no place out of the town of Auckland itself, and the consequences are both inconvenient and unjust. In the case before us, Jennings sues the defendants for one-half the cost of a dividing fence, between their property and his own, afterhaving advertized in our columns his intention of erecting it, in due course. The liability of defendants was undisputed, but the Magistrate was bound by the terms of the Act, which, in these later days of progress, is at once non-effective and arbitrary. As this matter is one which will be interesting to all, more or less, we append the particulars of what is necessary to be done in reference to any future action required to be taken with regard to partition fences. Clause 6 says that no sum shall be recovered, unless notice shall have been given by one party, in writing, to the other, requiring him to assist, &c., and not then, until he shall refuse, or neglect to assist for one month; in that case clause 7 provides that Such notice mav be served on the person sought to be charged or on his agent and it such person or agent after reasonable enquiry cannot be ascertained or such person shall be absent from the Province and shall have no resident agent therein then such notice may be published for the .pace of one month in a newspaper to be published indie City of Auckland.

So far, we have not been much obliged to the provisions of the Act in settling conterminous disputes between neighbours as to fencing; but there is no doubt that to be of any use in this direction, alterations must be made in it to

meet necessities which have sprung up, at too considerable a distance from the capital, to confine the publication of them “in the City of Auckland,” as the chief or best means of making them known. We invite the attention of the settlers and the Government to a consideration of this question.

His Honor Mr. Justice Johnson dealt some hard, all-round hits to Magistrates, Jury, Counsel and all alike at the opening of the Session last Wednesday in Napier. Quoting from the Hawke's Bay Herald of the 3rd, we find His Honor said, in his charge to the Grand Jury, that he was not responsible for the delay which had been occasioned. Neglect had been shown in supplying him with information, so much so that to within a few minutes of the Sitting of the Court, he had had no access to documents relating to cases coming before him, while some were quite useless. After commenting on the present state of prison discipline His Honor could not forbear thrusting a lance towards those who had dared to attempt to regulate the deliverance of his politico - forensic opinions. “ He entirely disapproved of the suggestion that “a Judge had no right to trench on political “ questions, and any person making it, could have “no true notion of the higher duties of the “office. It was only the duty of those in his “ position to remind the country at the times of “its greatest expectations, and greatest self- “ laudation, that it had duties yet remaining “ unfulfilled.” In the case of Bichard Torpey the principal witness was away. He had, by his absence, been guilty of Contempt of Court in one of its gravest forms. The Crown Prosecutor could not proceed with the charge. He characterized the depositions in the charge against William Benson as “ meagre,” and said that the act of killing a bullock under the circumstances might or might not have been malicious; if there was no real pretence to title, the act was malicious. If there was ground for such a claim it was a question merely of cavil trespass unless malice could be shown. “If a person came with “ a team of bullocks to pull down (His Honor’s) “ house, he would be entitled to use all reasonable “ force.—even to shooting the bullocks if necessaiy, “to repel the aggression. If, however, it could “ be shown that the title claimed was merely a " pretext for a malicious act, or that undue force “ had been used, such, for instance, as shooting “ the whole team where one would be effectual “ —the act would constitute an indictable “ offence.” His Honor said he had been “ vehemently ” urged to adjourn the Court, but he declined doing so. Mr. Kirton’s recognizances were ordered to be escheated, and His Honor would endeavour to secure the enforcement of some more adequate penalty as a warning. The Jury found a verdict of “Not Guilty” in favor of John Morgan charged with uttering a forged cheque. The Grand Jury found No Bill against John Lewis accused of false pretences, upon which the Judge said that during the twenty hours he had been in the place he “ had seen “ more instances of neglect and carelessness in “ the preparation of the cases than he had ever “ met with before. The whole criminal admims“tration was out of joint. He felt perfectly “ bewildered. The prisoner, in this case, had no “ recognizances; no one was bound over to “ prosecute, and there were no depositions—the “documents handed in were so much waste “paper.” Lewis, Torpey, and Benson were then discharged. The Crown Prosecutor having prepared a third indictment against the Messrs. Harding, the Judge ruled the first count to be bad, when Mr. Wilson desired to have a nolle prosequi entered up which His Honor refused. To the second count, the accused pleaded “ Not Guilty.” The evidence adduced is not reported in the paper from which we quote ; but His Honor’s summing up will indicate the nature of it. He said ‘‘while disapproving of the act “ committed by the defendants, it was clearly a “ynprp assertion of title, and that there was no “ proof of malice- It was an important fact that “the defendants had given notice of their “intention to the highest authority in the “province, and had securely fenced across the “road on both sides of the culvert before “ removing it, so that no danger to life or limb “ could have followed if the fence had not been “ destroyed.” To Cheer, who met with an accident through the breaking up of the culvert, His Honor said, that “by his own showing he “ would not have had even ground for an action “ for damages. If a man was so careless, as to “ride along, looking behind instead of before, “ and thus met with an accident in broad day- “ light, the blame rested with himself.” The proper course, His Honor thought, was for the Provincial Government to have fairly tried the question of title, and “ that it was a monstrous “ proceeding to bring a charge of felony 1” The jury returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty.” Mr. Wilson then announced that he would try the defendants “on the other indictment ” but what it was did not transpire.