Supreme Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 57, 11 March 1904, Page 2

Supreme Court.

NEW PLYMOUTH, THURSDAY, MARCH 10. Before His Honor Mr Justice IEdwards. I: The Court resumed at 10 o'clock 'J on Thursday morning. v FLKMIXH v. SPRNOE. ' When tlii.s case was called on, Mr ' Jellicoe said that, since the case c was before the Court on Wednesday, ' he unci Mr Myers conferred, and ' agreed to withdraw the case. H ' was only right to say Hint all im- ' putations aguinst any persons, in- ' eluding Mr Spencc, were unreserved- ' ly withdrawn. ' Mr Myers accepted his friend's remarks, staling that Mr Spence had keenly felt the imputations, and he was glad that they had been with- ' drawn. If he had made any personal remarks during the trial, lie (.Mr Myers) desired to withdraw them. Of course, Mr Jellicou's remarks included the withdrawal of a»v imputations against Mr Liardet. ' His Honor inquired as to the position of the certiorari proceedings. ilr Myers understood his friend Mr Jellicoe liad withdrawn them also. Mr Jellicoe assented. His Honor said that it was only right to say, in this connection, thai, nothing had been done which could cast any reflection on Mr Stanford or Mr Spence. All mailers alleging Mr Spenre's influence with liie

Magistrate on account of family relations had. he understood, been eliminated, and the argument had resolved itself into a quest ion of law—a very fine ami interesting point. 100. The question was whether a Magistrate was debarred from presiding in a case in 'vhich he was a witness. lie referred lo the case cited by Mr .Myers, Uegjna v, Fairunt, which went to show I hat he was not debarred from silling on this account. The learned Justices in that case had referred lo the inconvenience which would arise if a litigant could prevent u Magistrate or Judge from udjiidicnting merely because lie had been subpoenaed as a witness just before the trial. For the information of the Magistrate be j thought he ought to state his opinion, although the matier was not now before him, that when u Magistrate was not a necessary or material witness it was his duty to ignore a subpoena, and to discharge the ■ duties of his olhce. He was inclined i to think, however, that if a judge or a Magistrate were a necessary witness then it wus a proper tiling and ; his duty to abstain from adjudicating, as he was under such ci'rcum- , stances disqualified. The question • of bias had been entirely withdrawn, • he repeated, and the whole mutter which had been left for him to consider was this delicate point of iaw. [ This concluded the business of the session, and the Court rose.