The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7,1874.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 211, 7 October 1874, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7,1874.

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

Thebe are times in the history of men and institutions, when, to withhold either censure or acclaim amounts to little short of weakness on the one hand, or injustice on the other. Nothing tends more to a inis-conception of the hard realities of the world around us —nothing militates more against forming a correct estimate of the influence of men and manners on the outer circumference of the circle in which they move and act, than the fear of giving a candid expression of opinion from a public stand point, as to what good or evil that influence has on the minds of those whom it is most likely to affect. For some time past the proceedings which have characterized the business of the Resident Magistrate’s Court in Gisborne, have been conducted in a way which have formed a fruitful theme for adverse criticism at home, while they have begat an unenviable notoriety abroad. The culminating point was reached last Friday, in one of the practitioners twice threatening to leave the Court during the sitting, whilst the other actually did so, leaving the remainder of the business unattended to. It is fervently to be hoped that the manifestations of uproarious, uncontrolled, temper, exhibited by Counsel, on the occasion to which we allude, will not be repeated, both in the interests of the public, and for the preservation of their own self-re-spect, and the dignity of the Bench; but it would be a weak-minded desertion of our manifest duty were we not to call attention to the matter, now that the atmosphere is cool, and the occasion for irritating display has passed from before us. The time has fully arrived in which public opinion should be brought to bear on this particular point, and when an unmistakable, fearless, yet temperate, expression of it should be made.

The questions to be considered, primarily, are, who is to be blamed ? With whom lies the remedy? Now we attempt the argument of this question with very great regret, both on personal and public grounds. We give place to none, in our estimation of Dr. Nesbitt, considered either as a private gentleman, or as an independent, lofty-minded Magistrate; but there can be no second opinion that while he presides on the Bench he is as officially responsible for the decorous deportment of the Bar, as he is legally amenably for the even, and impartial administration of Justice. In relation to this matter, we have had occasion to write before, that a calm, dignified, philosophy, which owes its creation to a world superior to the annoyance of petty trifles, is a very grand, ennobling attribute of the mind. There is a chivalrous abnegation of all personal feel-ing—-a worthy desire to pass unnoticed the infirmities of other men—prominently noticeable in the Magisterial demeanour of Dr. Nesbitt, both of which do more credit to his heart, than to his head ; but we conceive that even t he virtues of the heart, guided by inclination alone, may be carried to an extent of pernicious consequence if ndt regulated in their exercise by a clear-headed sense of duty and justice • to others. A Magistrate, sitting in

judgment over the affairs of the community, should be zealously cautious in seeing that the scales of impartial, even-handed, Justice, are poised only by means which will bear the scrutiny of the world at large. We do not for a moment impute that the quality of Justice, per se, which is meted from the. Gisborne Bench will not stand that test; but we do say that the unchecked irregularities, and undignified violence which have for so long a time been the rule with opposing Counsel, pleading in our local Court of Judicature, are fast begetting an impression in the mind of the public, that the judgment of the Bench is likely to be biased rather by the advocate who is most successful in hurling forensic anathbmas at the head of his opponent, and so silencing him, than by “ the “ weightier matters of the law and from a continued observation of the facts, and the effect they create, we are not prepared to say that the impression is altogether to be wondered at.

It is not our desire to make too much of this matter; but, unfortunately, it is one of those things in which — faults existing both before and behind the Bar—we feel we cannot, in justice, refrain from speaking on both sides of the question. It is not our duty to say who is most —if any be more than another—in the wrong; still less are we called upon to point to the way in which a more decorous mode of conducting business in the Resident Magistrate’s Court may be effected. We only know that the things <ve have stated are true, and, pity ’tis, they are true. The remarks we have made are put forth rather with a desire to promote the even working of business, which, as a necessity, is at all times disagreeable to litigants, and which should be conducted in such manner, as is most calculated to secure justice, accompanied by public confidence and ■ respect. We, therefore, earnestly hope that steps will at once be taken in the proper quarter to remove the causes of complaint to which we have felt it our duty to draw attention.