THE BAR IN AN UPROAR.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2458, 3 February 1881, Page 4

THE BAR IN AN UPROAR.

A DUNEDIN POLICE COURT SCENE

A rare skirmish. between two cele-; britics of the long robe —Mr Mac-! Dermott, late Attorney-General in; Victoria, and Mr W. Downie Stewart,; M.H.E., took place in the Dunedin; Police Court on Tuesday. It may be; mentioned that Mr MacDermott, since; his advent in Dunedin as the successor; of the late Mr Macassey, has by a display of push energy and legal dex-, terity, succeeded in gathering clients; from every direction, and Mr Stewart in common with the other practitioners are evidently suffering from that disagreeable irritation that an individual' feels when his nose is out of joint. We, take the report of the proceedings from the “ Otago Daily Times ” In the case of receiving money by false pretences against the phrenological lecturer, Lio Medo, heard at the: Police Court, Mr W. D. Stewart represented the prosecutor, and Mr Macmott the accused. It was from an early stage apparent that the “ashes” of disagreement between these two gentlemen were warm, if not smouldering, and that all that was required was a little fanning—the interchange of a few mild compliments, or something of that kind—to start them into more than: red heat, even into full blaze. The fanning progressed. As an Irishman might say, things went “ illigantly,” und pretty seon the natural consequence resulted —the “row” began. Taking it by stages, the following may sullice to describe the little scene : Whilst Mr Stewart was examining the prosecutor (Hyatt), the latter was circumstantial in his answers, and Mr MacDermott betrayed a little i mpatience He said it was wasting public time — that was all he objected to, Mr Stewart: Public time! Nonsense !

Mr MacDermott (with remarkable suavity): Oh, Parliament is not sitting just now, and my learned friend has pienty of time on his hands. Mr MacDermott presently got the witness into his hands for cross-exam-ination, and this he was conducting in his usual skilful manner, cautioning the witness, pinning him down to certain specific questions &c„ when Mr Stewart characterised his learned friend’s efforts as intended to “ humbug” the witness. Mr MacDermott: That style of language may be Parliamentary, but I am not accustomed to it.

Mr Stewart (warmly): It is quite in keeping with the nature of cross-exam-nation.

One or two other small exchanges of compliments took place, such as a remark from Mr MacDermott about “ common law,” bringing out the comment from Mr Stewart that that was a thing his learned friend appeared ,to know very little about. Presently Mr Stewart interrupted to say that his learned friend’s style of conducting an examination was entirely beneath the dignity of the Court. Mr MacDermott—My learned friend either from his learning or his antecedents, has no right to lecture me upon propriety of behaviour. Mr Stewart —I must object to this style of examination. Not only does Mr MacDermott indulge in the lowest style of bullying the witnesses, but he bullies the Bench, and insults me. Mr MacDermott was sorry if he had said anything offensive to Mr Stewart, but that gentleman’s remarks had provoked it. As to his style of con ducting examinations and behaviour before the Court, he had appeared during a lengthened career before some of the leading judges in the ,world. The Bench here interrupted to express the hope that counsel would exercise courtesy towards each other. Mr MacDermott—Well* well, if I said anything offensive to my learned friend I’m sorry for it. This all happened before lunch, after which it might have been expected that things would grow calmer. The reverse was the case.

Mr MacDermott, in the course of a long and eloquent address to the Bench, commented upon the fact that he and his client had been taken unawares by a fresh information. Mr Stewart characterised these comments as disingenuous, as his learned friend had waived his objection to the information.

Mr MacDermott complained of the use of such a term, and after some further remarks, Mr Stewart said his learned friend appeared to be inclined to introduce a style of practice that might do in low petty police courts, but which would not do in Dunedin. Before Mr MacDermott came there was none of it. If it was to go on, counsel appearing in that Court would have to make up their minds for a sort of guerrilla warfare. Mr MacDermott —ls that right? Now is that right, your Worship ? I appeal to you. Mr Stewart —Anyone who would go about touting for Police Conrt business, as my friend has done in this case, is unworthy to hold a brief. Mr MacDermott (with wrath) —Will Mr Stewart put that in writing—that statement that I have touted for Police Court business ? Mr Stewart—ln this case. Mr MacDermott—ln this case or any other. I distinctly deny it. The statement has not a shadow of foundation. 1 defy.Mr Stewart to put it in writing, or to say it outside this Court. I never saw my client in this case until he came to me in my office. It is utterly foundationless that I have touted for business—l, that have been in my profession for 20 or 30 years ; I am as incapable of touting for business as any counsel in England. The Bench interrupted to ask that the business might go on. Mr MacDermott said he was bound to defend his character from these aspersions. His character in his profession was sufficient proof against calumny to those who knew him, but such statements were calculated to damage him amongst those who did not know him. He could tell the learned gentleman that he had never interviewed a client inside the lock-up of a police court, and had always thought it beneath the dignity of his profession to see a prisoner within the walls of a gaol. He could hurl back such aspersions with the utter contempt they deserved. No man could make such charges as those against him who was not capable of indulging in such practices himself. The above was said with exceeding warmth, and was listened to by Mr Stewart without in interruption, except an occasional laugh. The Bench had several times tried to gain a hearing, but had been unsuccesful so far. At this point, however, they gained a hearing, and requested that such displays of bickering should cease.

Mr MacDermott had only to ask their Worships Whether lie had'been to blame-. However, the interest of his clients weie paramount to, his, own, and. he would proceed with his ’address, although'• he might take, other, means to justify himself against. Mr Stewart. . . The case was dismissed and Mr MacDermott scored another victory.