MR BARTON AND THE JUDGES.

Temuka Leader, Volume I, Issue 89, 23 October 1878, Page 3

MR BARTON AND THE JUDGES.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply on Friday last, Mr Barton said he would mention one or two matters which showed that he had grounds for complaining of the conduct of judges. The judges refused to grant an injunction •which would have enabled a client of his named Mr Gillon to protect his rights ; but Gillon asserted his right to enter tlie premises, acting under the advice of his solicitors. This the judges used as a

ground, for refusing a second application an adjournment, which was followed ’ ’ by the defendants making away with the property ' in’ litigation, and moving to make Gallon a bankrupt for LSO, the cost of the application, upon which he (Mr Barton) was committed to prison, though • a jury had previously given a verdict that 'Gallon was entitled to three years’ salary at L3OO a year. He regretted that Mr Gillen had been so unfortunate as to entrust the case to him. He had since been compelled to desist from practice in Wellington. When the judges had assailed him with unjust expressions he wondered why he had retained his temper on another occasion, and went so far as to publicly ask an officer of the Court to endeavour to discover who wrote the letter. •Judge Richmond had also publicly charged his firm with having endeavoured to entrap the officer of the Court, and on another occasion, when he (Mr Barton) refused to abandon a client, Judge Richmond charged him publicly when he was only seven minutes late. The j udge had assailed him in insulting terras, and prevented his defending a client on a charge of murder. On another occasion, when he wrote a-letter to the judge, signed legibly with his own name, the judge endeavoured to produce the impression in Court that the letter was sent anonymously, with a breach of common honesty. The common remarks of the Gourt against himself were, “Your remarks are foolish,” “ You are too per- ’ tinacious. sir.” The judges had taken a witness under examination out of his hands, and when he had argued, he was told it w T as useless. He was told, “Sit down, sir,” “ Hold your tongue, sir, or I will commit you,” “The Court was not talking to you, sir.” He charged the judges with having shown corrupt favoritism towards his opponents, and with injustice, and he charged the Chief Justice with falsification in stating that he (Mr Barton) consented to an order which he had never consented to. He charged him with violating the truth of the Bench to sustain an order which otherwise could not have been sustained. He accused the Chief Justice of tying up a case until an opponent could take the benefit of the - Statute of Limitations. He charged the Court with tying up the case of another client, who had recovered judgment against a defendant, until • the latter had taken steps to delare his (Mr Barton’s) client a bankrupt, and thereby escaped the effect of the judgment. He charged Judge Richmond with so directing a jury as to defeat a manifest right, and where a juryman sat to decide his own case the Court refused to set aside the verdict, though it was based upon a quibble in a direction by that judge to the jury, and which direction was in opposition to the equity of the case. He (Mr Barton) regretted that the House had refused an opportunity for inquiry. He charged J udge Richmond with writing a letter contrary to truth from beginning to end. Such charges as he had brought forward should not remain uninvestigated. When he J (Mr Barton) requested the Government to * grant an inquiry, he was told he must await the return of Ministers who were absent, and when they were all in Wellington he was informed that he must apply direct to Parliament for an inquiry. ,[The hon. member quoted from the cordespondence.-] He could not understand

how, when all tl»e Ministers had thus acknowledged that inquiry was necessary, (hey should afterwards resist the attempt m.i : o to secure one from the House. He wi !: d imt conclude with any motion, nor would h- ask f 1- red-'-ss, but would leave his own vindicate m to time, in full coiifidou'-e that such vindication would he accord -d.

Mr Fox asked .the Attorney-General what action the Government proposed to take with reference to these strong charges advanced by .Mr Barton 1 The Attorney-General said the Government could not be expected, under any parliamentary usage, to reply to a mere speech on going into Committee of Supply. Mr Rolleston expressed astonishment that the Government had not taken some action from a speech which contains some of the strongest charges he had ever heard against the Judicial Bench. Mr Gisborne challenged the member for Wellington to move a resolution. Mr Manders denounced the charges against the Judges. Mr Hodgkinson defended Mr Barton, Mr Bowen strongly reprobated the conduct of Mr Barton as being a breach of the recognised English practice ; that the conduct of a Judge should not be arraigned unless there were prima facie evidence to justify his removal from the Bench.

Mr Kelly combatted the argument that the dignity of the office of the Judges shielded them from enquiry. Mr Wood supported enquiry with liability to some punishment to the Judges if the charges were established, and some consequences equal to expulsion from the House against Mr Barton if they were disproved. The Minister of Justice said the aspect of the question had entirely altered since the Judicial Commission Bill. Distinct charges were now alleged, and {the Government would therefore thoroughly consider the m itter and would endeavor to state on Monday the course they would adopt. The matter could not be allowed to rest where it was.

Mr Fox said he quite concurred with this view of matter, and had no wish to hurry the Government into a decision on the question. His only desire was to have some assurance from the Government that the matter would not be allowed to rest where it was.

The debate was adjourned till Monday.