The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JULY 30, 1889. JUDGE WARD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1923, 30 July 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JULY 30, 1889. JUDGE WARD.

Ik the final kick which Mr Hislop aimed at Judge "Ward he summed up the offences of which he contended the judge was guilty as follows : "1 will close this memo, by Mating that, whatever may bo the needful action, no officer should be allowed—- •' (1) To permit the administration of justice to oome under suspicion by sitting in a c-i»o where ho may be taksui to be by cODsidera'ions personal to b/mself. ( '(2) To address a Minister on a judicial matter by a private letter, " (3) In such letter or by auy other me:ins to attempt to prejudice the mind of a Minister by referring to matters outside the charge. It is obvious, if be does anything of this kind, his own mind must be swnyed by tha same considerations. "The toleration of conduct at variance willi ihns9 principles must strike at the root of judicial purity. " T. VV. Hisoop." Lee it be noted here that no attempt is made to show that J udge Ward sentenced Christie wrongfully, unless indeed, as he no doubt does, Mr Hislop thinks Christie ought to have been allowed to go scot free because he happened to have been Mr Hialop's client. Had he been the client of any other barrister we should never have heard of the Ward-Hislop trouble, but because Mr Hislop was his solicitor Mr Hislop thought he ought to have been allowed to go free. The first charge Mr Hislop makes against Judge Ward is that he owed money to the company that prosecuted Christie, and consequently ought not to have beard the case. To this Judge Ward replied that as the law stands a mandamus from the Supreme Court eould have been obtained to compel him to hear it ; that he had no option but to hear it. We presume Judge Ward understands the law, whatever Mr Hislop may do, especially when we find that Mr Hielop does not attempt to contra vert the assertion. Judge Ward, therefore, was bound to hear this case; and he did so. He found Christie guilty of fraud, and treated him accordingly. The whole question, therefore, is : Was Christie guilty of fraud or not ? Did be deserve the sentence passed on him or did he not ? The consensus of public opinion upholds Judge Ward's action. So far as we have seen no one has attempted to defend Christie. That being so, Judge Ward has been guilty only of the crime of passing sentence on a client and friend of a Cabinet Minister. The action of Mr Hislop must be characterised as nothing less than disgraceful, and, in his own words, calculated to " strike at the root of judicial purity." We know of no crime of which a Cabinet Minister could be guilty more heinous than to attempt to corrupt the fountains of justice. The very thought of it is abhorrent, and certainly if Parliament did its duty it would make short work of the whole affair, by kicking the wretched creatures guilty of such conduct down into the depths of the obscurity from which they so recently and so unexpectedly sprung. Judge Ward's other two crimes as catalogued by Mr Hislop aie really one. A petition was forwarded to him from Oamaru by Mr Hislop, accompanied by a most impertinent letter. It is usual in the Civil Service to make no comment on a charge against a Civil servant until he has explained his side of the story The usual formula is simply to ask him to explain. Mr Hislop had the consummate impudence to go farther than this, and in our opinion the reply of Judge Ward was too mild, when we consider the impropriety of which his vulgar persecutor was guilty. But Judge Ward, above all things, is first a gentleman, and doubtless thought it boueath him to bandy words with such a fellow. All he did was to send a note to Mr Fergus directing his attention to the fact that Christie's antecedents were questionable, _ and that he was mixed up in a lawsuit in Wellington, where the Minister could obtain all information concerning him. The charge against him now is that ho

- r<\'\r-.d -<f Hie Mi;iU'.U J ,r I'.:. -.Jv;:».:, r,!.ii;i'. information. Is it r.ot ''' ; ; ! •■■ vi!it in ilwi ;'M\in'i.'oje Oourf to ii.-i-;-i i;n-;.i ;;• i!>uc!i ;.ji uoHsibic the prnnous character of a prisoner ? Was it not right and just and proper that the Ministry should know whom they had to deal with. Mr Hislop, of course, did not wa:.it that, he knew it already. What he wanted was to release Christie, and he objected to any itnpediuaeuts 03ing thrown, in his way. The Becond crime Judge "Ward has been guilty of, according to Mr Hislop, is that he threw impediments in the way of a man guilty of fraud being released from the just consequences of his guilt. We once had a. good opinion of Mr Hislop. We can now only regard him as a mean, spiteful fellow, unworthy of any decent man's respect.