JUSTICES’ JUSTICE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2080, 2 August 1890, Page 2

JUSTICES’ JUSTICE.

TO TUB EDITOB. SIE, —It is not usual for justices to notice any correspondence criticising their decisions in the E.M. Courts, but as I am about to leave the district I shall ask you to insert these few lines, which may prevent the public from being misled by the remarks made by your correspondent “ Onlooker ”in to-day’s issue. In the first ease referred to, Cameron v. Hitchcock, when the defendant reprimanded the plaintiff for doing his work unsatisfactorily he (the plaintiff) used such abusive language as to cause sufficient provocation for the defendant to attempt unsuccessfully to eject the plaintiff from his premises. In the other case, Scannell v. McGrath, there is no doubt that the money was lent, but no proof for the purpose of being then and there spent in drink. It was very evident that the counsel for the defendant had a very weak case, as the only point of law on which he relied, and which was repeated several times, was a point of law where a party had lent money for the purpose of paying a gambling debt. This had no bearing whatever on the case, nor does it in any way apply to the same. It is now the custom in England when counsel attempts to gain his case by mere legal quibble the bench decide the case by equity. I consider that the inhabitants of the district should be thankful in having such a painstaking and clear-headed man as Mr Clarke to gratuitously preside and administer the law at the E.M. Court. —I am, etc., ¥m. Upton Slack. The Willows, Temuka, July 31st, 1850.