Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Tuesday, December 20, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1014, 20 December 1881, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard.

PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Tuesday, December 20, 1881.

We. shall' sell to no man Justice or Right; We shall deny te no man Justice or Right; We shall dftfer to no man Justice or Right.

The most sanguine opponents of the Hall Government cannot but admit, now that the results of the late general election throughout the Colony can be viewed in cool blood, that there is in the ranks of the Opposition an almost entire absence of men of the necessary mental calibre, and political experience, into whose hands the Government of the country should be placed. Of the members returned, opposed to the present Government, there are but three—Sir George Grey, Mr MacAndrew, and Mr John Sheehan—who have held portfolios in any Ministry. While, on the side of the Government, we find Messrs Hall, Atkinson, Bryce, Rqlleston, Dick, and Johnston, every member of the Ministry returned to a man. The Great Middle Party, of which so much has been said every session during the past few years, seems to have met with signal political disaster in the late contest. Mr J. D. Ormond, who ill concealed his disappointment at not receiving a portfolio when the Hall Government took office, and who endeavored to oust them from the Treasury benches last session, is now suffering the pangs of a defeat at the hands of Mr W. Smith, a smart, benevolent, -up-country storekeeper. As an able politician, and shrewd, practical man, Mr Ormond’s absence from the House inay be looked upon with regret; and his many Hawke’s Bay friends will pine over his forced retirement from public life. It may, however, be some consolation for them, and for the Colony at large to know that, if Mr Ormond had been successful, a few months ago, in turning the Hall Government out of office, the Representation Bill and many other liberal measures brought about by the Hall Ministry would not have become law. Among the other rejected candidates who would have been powerful in forming and keeping together a strong Middle Party, are Mr Reader Wood, who had a hankering’after the portfolio of Colonial Treasurer, having succeeded years ago in floating a Loan at Home ; Mr Ballance, the Colonial Treasurer in the Grey Administration, who, it will be remembered, resigned office somewhat precipitately ; and Mr Gisborne, all experienced politicians, and from their knowledge of the public affairs of the Colony, more capable than any others on the Opposition side of the House, of assuming the reins of power —will be found absent at the first roll call. The Ministerial party has also lost a few conspicuous supporters in the contest. Sir Wit. Fox, who, could have worked with the Middle Party had it been formed, was beaten by Mr Stevens, of Rangitikei. Sir William Fox’s terrible onslaught on the Licensed Victuallers, and the unpopularity he gained over his action in the House with respect to the Licensing Act, no doubt contributed in a considerable degree to his exclusion from the Parliamentary precincts. Looking down the list of Representatives who will take their seats in the next Parliament, it cannot but be observed that what was known as “ Greyism” is weaker now than it has been in any preHous session since its great leader made its name ring throughout the country. What, in fact, will become of “ Greyism,” now that its prototype has, as has been stated, abandoned the idea of taking office himself ? But, even if such an opportunity should occur, it cannot be difficult to foresee the result. The Opposition seem to be singularly devoid of leaders, for, with the exception of Sir Geobge Grey, there is not one amongst them who could command the confidence of a party. Mr Macandrew, who is thoroughly respected by his political opponents, as well as trusted by his friends, is too intimately bound up with his own locality to take a Colonial lead. If, however, the party cry of Separation be raised, then he may be fully expected to come to the fore. The large proportion of members elected—over one-half — who are new to political life, bound by slender ties to to any party, and returned, in many instances, on personal grounds, rather than upon the policy they enunciated — render it difficult to forecast the future with much degree of certainty, beyond what has already been shown. The strength of the Hall Government is largely augmented by the rejection of many able men who were inclined to form a Middle Party. The disorganized state of the Opposition, and its lack of competent leaders, will form an additional source of strength to the Government. For the benefit of the Colony at large it would have been better that the Government of the day should have a powerful Opposition to contend against. Opposition has been termed the salt of deliberative assemblies. So long as the Hall Government are guided in the future by the Liberal principles that actuated them in the past—so long as they honestly, and economically administer the affairs of the country, and carry out that Liberal policy that the Hon. Mr Hall, and his colleagues, have pledged themselves to, they need have little fear but they will retain the hold they now possess on the confidence of tho people of New Zealand.

The following letter has been addressed to the A r ew Zealand Herald — commenting on the reports in-circulation relative to the Rees v. Barker case —' by Mr E.'K. Tyler, at one time partner with Mr Rees. If we understand that gentleman correctly, he would have the public believe that the legal contentions of Messrs Rees and Barker promise to become as famous as that of the proverbial Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. Mr Tyler thus writes : — Sir,—l shall esteem it a favour if, in the interests of justice and fair play, you will allow me to inform the public, through the columns of your paper, with regard to the paragraph and telegram aupearing in to-day s issue of the purporting to afford its readers information upon the present position of the case Rees v. Barker, that that information is altogether erroneous and misleading. The Court of Appeal has not decided the case in Mr Barker’s favour. The ease is at this moment exactly in the same position as it was upon the conclusion of the trial in Napier in June last. At that trial certain issues were submitted to the jury, and upon some they found in favour of Mr Rees, and upon the remaining they disagreed. Since then Mr Barker moved for a new trial upon those issues which were found for Mr Rees, and a new trial was granted by the Supreme Court at Wellington. Then a dispute arose as to whether or not the new trial should be upon the whole of the issues or such only as the jury had already found upon, and this is the question and the only question that the Court of Appeal has just decided, intimating that those issues upon which the jury had disagreed were immaterial, and consequently need not go to a jury. So that the defendant stands in no better position now than he did at the conclusion of the trial in. June. In all probability Mr Barker will now move for a decree, but it seems veij unlikely he will get one in his favor, in the face of all the material facts being found by the jury in favour of Mr Rees. Should the Supreme Court at Wellington make a decree in Mr Barker’s favor (which can only be after argument upon the law yet to take place) it will be appealed against. From the above it will be seen that months must elapse before it can be said that “ the now famous case of Rees v. Barker has been decided in Mr Barker’s favor.”

So far from Mr E. K. Tyler’s view being the correct one, the fact is that, as published by us in a late issue, His Honor Judge Richmond refused to grant the rule nisi for a new trial applied for by Mr Rees, on the ground that the two issues upon which the jury in the trial at Napier disagreed, were immaterial to the real merits of the case. Mr Rees’s endeavor was to obtain upon au alleged verbal understanding, not supported by evidence of any weight, an extension of time beyond that agreed upon and solemnly set forth in the deed of mortgage from himself and others to Mr Barker, the amount of the mortgage, including interest, being over £30,000. Mr W. L. Rees, after ten months’ litigation, finds himself landed, or rather stranded, where he was last February, the month the terms of the mortgage deed were to be carried into effect; besides being mulct to the extent of £155, at Mr Barker’s suit of £405 for deed stamps. The ultimate steps to be taken with respect to the throwing open of the Whataupoko block cannot at present be determined. Looking back to the glowing prospects with which Mr W. L. Rees started, over three and a half years ago, to acquire and throw open for settlement the Whataupoko ; the assistance he received from all sections of the community; the enthusiastic manner in which the Natives accorded him their confidence and support, and then to contemplate the subsequent results, the vexatious litigation, the various quibbles of the law that have been resorted to. at all hazards, merely to gain a little breathing space for further plotting—contemplating, we say, these things—there is but one opinion to be arrived at, and that is that Mr W. L. Rees is, as he was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be while he lives, an ignominious failure.