Correspondence.

Colonist, Volume III, Issue 238, 31 January 1860, Page 3

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Colonist,

Sin,-—" Though, ive cannot -annihilate-., rocks and quicksands, we may erect a beacon on the shore." I need not tell your readers that the Law infers a variety of interpretations to many expressions and asseverations made by individuals, which whatever may. have, prompted their utterance, they themselves, never dreamt of, and the proceedings in the late trial of Travels v. Saunders are a painful confirmation of the truth of the remark.

The defendant in tin's case felt convinced in his own mind that in the case:of Eden v. Saunders, the Judge.had given a verdict not only contrary to evidence, but that in order to bear out that verdict he had distorted or garbled that evidence so as to hear out that verdict.

This, no doubt, as the learned Judge very truly stated, ■ was a very grievous and serious charge against a Judge, but however erroneous may have 'been his opinion of'the law, and however he may have failed in substantiating., such a charge,, it does not follow that the defendant.in having .so acted must have been necessarily actuated by malicious or vindictive feelings, or by any desire to 'mislead men more foolish than himself. ..,

I recollect on the occasion of Attorney-General •v. Carlisle for. libel, the defendant'addressed the Chief Justicethus: " In making use of the words mischievous and malignant, you'have added insult to injury. As.respects the word mischievous, I would not have complained, I could have borne the term as a reproof; but I would give the lie to the king if-lit! were to say the libel, was malignant. If I know myself, in me there is ?io malice.- He then observed by way of precedent, that when the -Parliament' Rebels beat the Church and King-men they termed them malignant.^ that is, your party were then called malignants." Well, then, I will say, from what I have known of Mr. Saunders' during a period of almost as many years as his Honor's experience can have extended weeks, there is no man who has presented himself to his fellowcitizens as a-public character, or who has been solicited to come forward in that character, who can with greater truth declare, that in the discharge of his public duties he was never actuated by malice, however severely he might have reprobated the public conduct of those whose actions he may;have called in question. And notwithstanding the law may declare that for a man to arraign the conduct of a public functionary at the bar of public opinion, lie must be considered to have been actuated by "malice aforethought," and however much we may be forced to bow to the majesty of the Law, we may nevertheless''be'allowed to doubt the justness of the conclusion.

It may be possible for a Judge to act in direct violation of the Laws of Evidence, through ignorance, or from a want of proper attention to the case as it proceeded, and by such conduct excite the reprobation of those subject to the consequences of that ignorance or neglect, without the most distant insinuation of corrupt or wilful perversion on his part. And I am further of opinion that so far from coming into Court with the audacity to enli3fc the sympathy of the jury, and that of his friends behind him, that he came there morally satisfied in his own mind that what he had asserted would be borne out by the evidence he had been led to expect he could produce, as fully so as was the moral conviction of the Court, the Bar, the Jury, and the public present, that the person charged with sheep stealing had beetv guilty ot the fact; but thennridr fact as to who was the real owner, not being proved, the major fact, though proved, legally fell to the ground. Suppose that injured individual was to bring an action for libel against the prosecutor in that case, and charge him with a malicious and wicked accusation against his character, and produce his acquittal as a proof of the malignity of the charge, what, 1 ask, would be the charge of the Court to the jury in such a case. ? Could the defendant plead a justification in the face of the acquittal of the plaintiff through a verdict of not guilty? . - ...... Yours, &c, SENEX ALBUS.