The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1889. THE WARD-HISLOP CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1939, 5 September 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1889. THE WARD-HISLOP CASE.

“ Ceeses, like chickens, come home to roost.” Mr Hislop realises the full meaning of this to-day. Pursuing a mean, paltry spite he has tried to injure Judge Ward, but the whole thing has recoiled upon his own head, and Judge Ward stands before the colony a much persecuted man, but far more popular and more respected than ever, Mr Hislop has shown himself to be a meanly spiteful man. Mr John Church, of Oamaru, contested the electorate with him last election. Mr Church got 100 votes and was defeated, and Mr Hislop was elected; but when Mr Church some time afterwards applied for the position of valuer under the property tax for an Oamaru country district he did not get it, although he was recommended by the County Council. There was a great deal of noise made about it at the time, and the general impression was that Mr Hislop used his influence against him. We find him next following np Judge Ward, against whom he has had a grudge, with the persistency of a sleuth-hound. According to Mr Fisher, it was Mr Hislop who prevented the appointment of Judge Ward as a Supreme Court Judge. Judge Ward |has the satisfaction now of feeling that if he is no Supreme Court Judge, Mr Hislop ia no Minister. So generally recognised was the claim of Judge Ward then that the Government found great difficulty in getting a lawyer to accept the position. It is now asserted that the present Judge Connolly refused the appointment because he recognised Judge Ward’s claim. Mr Hislop succeeded in keeping Judge Ward off the Bench then, hut he over-reached himself when he came out into the open and attacked Judge Ward publicly. Ho is no match for Judge Ward, and now he has found it out. In the many-sided duel which Judge Ward had to fight there is the material for an excellent farce, in which Mr Hislop’s part would be that of the defeated villain. First, Christie was brought before the Judge on the criminal charge of fraudulent bankruptcy. Judge Ward asserts that during the trial Mr Hislop was prompting Mr Newton, who defended Christie. 'lbis is a nice position for a Minister of the Crown to occupy! It is certainly opposed to all conceptions of justice for a Minister of the Crown t® assist in the defence of any one charged with a serious crime." It would have been more in harmony with the fitness of things if Mr Hislop had assisted the prosecution. Then he instructed Mr Newton to prepare the petition, and got his own clerk to engross it, Then he constituted himself Minister of Justice, and demanded an explanation from Judge Ward. The balance of the transaction is pretty well known. Christie took proceedings against Judge Ward for illegal imprisonment, and the Government would not allow Parliament to inquire into the matter until - this lawsuit was decided. Christie next refused to go on with the case against the Judge until Parliament had inquired into it. Parliament has now inquired into it. The Committee of the House of Representatives reported that Christie deserved the sentence Judge Ward passed upon him, and the Legislative Council has reported that Mr Hislop deserved the gravest censure for his action. The result of it all is that Christie was guilty of fraud, and that Judge Ward did nothing but his duty in sentencing him. Indeed, it is alleged that, considering the gravity of the offence, the sentence passed by Judge Ward on Christie was far too light, and that he deserved four times the same punishment. It was obviously the duty of the Government under such circumstances to protect Judge Ward, but instead of that they have disgracefully persecuted him. Mr Hislop is I certainly the chief aggressor, but five hold that Mr Fergus and the i Premier are equaJy as guilty, and

that both of them ought to resign as well. From the very first Sir Harry Atkinson has countenanced the whole proceeding, and even went to the disgusting length of regarding the demand of the House to inquire into the dispute as a no - confidence motion. He thus endeavored to burk inquiry, he wanted to shield Mr Hislop from the consequences of his guilt, and he now stands in the position of an aider and abettor in the scandalous affair. Mr Fergus was still worse. He used hie position as Minister of Justice to harrass and annoy the judge with the most impertinent letters ever written by a man in his position, he took the responsibility of Mr Hislop’s actions on his shoulders, and even went the length of using threats to the judge, The whole affair has been most discreditable to the whole three of them, and both the Premier and Mr Fergus ought to follow Mr Hislop’s example and resign. Their conduct has been disgraceful from beginning to end. There is no offence which Ministers of the Crown could be guilty of more serious than to corrupt the fountains of justice. Here we find the Premier and two of his Ministers trying to brow-beat a judge for having administered justice fairly and honestly, as is proved beyond a question of disputed under dsuch circumstances where Is the safety of the public ? All judges, and especially all resident magistrates, are not equally as strong, intellectually, as Judge Ward, and a Government that has tried to interfere with him would undoubtedly try to influence a weaker subject. There is danger to our liberties in such men being in power, and the sooner they are bundled from office the better. We have said that the reason Mr Fisher was turned out of the Ministry was because he was the houestest man amongst them, and every day is bringing fresh evidence of the truthfulness of the assertion.