DECORUM AND FAIRPLAY

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 7, Issue 154, 4 March 1915, Page 4

DECORUM AND FAIRPLAY

Mr. Has eld e u ,S.M. is one of the wittiest and most patient magistates sitting on the Bench today, and, whilst taking every care that the decoum and staidity of the Court should not be imperilled, is never averse to allowing counsel and witnesses a great degree of lattitude in address or .examination, especially where elucidation on a knotty problem is a necessary adjunct to arriving at an equitable conclusion. Any attempt by Counsel to harass a witness or to transgress . the reasonable limits of cross-examination is met with a severe rebuke, as was instanced yesterday afternoon, when a visiting solicitor, in putting what seemed to be contemptible and invidious questions, was promptly checked. His irrelevant question, “Were you not discharged from ” prompted His Worship to caution Counsel that be was not fair’y conducting his cross-examination. ‘That is a sample of the degeneracy you have got into,’’ remarked the flench. “Anyway, what has your question got to do with this case. It is ■act fair to the witness, nor to the Court, that you should continue on hose lines. It is nc; use you putting Irrelevant or silly questions, and I ■.an’t allow it to go on. The preservaicn of the decorum of the Court and wotedtiou to witnesses (should njot have to be pointed out to you. Please discontinue that style of conducting -our case. Proceed,” His Worship lid not again have cause for complaint. ; i

A GIG AND A GUN. Mr W. R. Has el den, S.M., was eh?eged the most part of yesterday afternoon. in hearing a claim of Geo Morgan (Mr Gould) against J. Martow (Mr Emerson) for the return of x gun, valued at £l4, and a gig, valued at £lO. or in lieu thereof the •alue of the articles, £24. Marlow jcnnter.elaimed for £25 6s Cd, less £3 *s 6d, value of the gig. The defence vas that the gun was a gift and evi lonce proved that the gig was bough s )y Marlow at an auction sale, held on Morgan’s account, for £8 7s 6d. The ■■arties denied cne another’s state nents, hut Marlow had two witnesses o support his defence to the claim, on vhieh judgment was again given for lefendant. On the counterclaim His Ycrship stated that the claim had eot been proved to his satisfaction and granted a non-suit, thus allowing Mar'aw an opportunity to claim again if he considered his cause could be streng hened in the meantime. Each party vas ordered to pay its own costs.