Untitled

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2112, 11 October 1875, Page 2

ThERE can be no doubt that the metaphorical meaning of the old saw " what is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose"—we believe we have quoted it correctly, if not we can only apologise on the plea of not being well up in proverbs —is very often very true, more often very just, and almost alwaya very-desirable. But still like a great many other things equally desirable it is not always applied to the rule of everyday life, when its application means nothing more or less than treating all men alike, without fear or favor. We have, however, been shown an example of one way in which it should be, and moreover has been applied by ■Judge Fenton and Mr E. Isaacs, who occupied the Bench of the Auckland Police Court on Thursday last. The case was this. Three persons were summoned for non-payment of the Education rate. The parties who had refused to pay may or may not have been present for all we know, but it is at least fair to suppose 1 hat they had— or believed they had —good reasons for refusing to pay, and were probably in attendance to state their reasons to the Court; at all events it is perfectly reasonable to suppose they were present and ready to go into the merits of the case. "When the case was called on the solicitor for the prosecution did not put in an appearance, and, probably to the surprise of all present, the clerk of the Court, who had of course nothing to do with the case, rose up to ask for an adjournment because he (the solicitor in question) found it inconvenient to attend. That is the solicitor for the prosecution, having put three personstotheexponse, annoyance, and inconvenience of being summoned to the Eesident Magistrate's Court to answer a charge which he had brought against them, finds it inconvenient to appear to support that charge, and so does not even appear by deputy, but coolly requests an officer of the Court to ask that the cases may be adjourned until some time when it may better suit his convenience to attend. No consideration is made for the three defendants in the case, each of whom may have had for ought we know valid reasons for non-payment of this rate. No notice is taken of the inconvenience it may be to them, having attended the Court once, to be obliged to attend it again; the only reason given is that it is inconvenient to the solicitor for the prosecution to attend on the day he himself appointed, and so the defendants must make it convenient to themselves to attend on some other day when it may not be inconvenient to him. The judge and the magistrate conjointly refused to grant such a request, made in a manner as disrespectful to the Bench as unjust to the defendants, and consequently the cases were struck out of the list, a result unsatisfactory to the public if the defendants were liable to the tax, and unfair to them if they could show cause why they should be considered exempt. We do not mean to say that the unfairness towards the defendants was the result of the action on the part of the Bench. Far from it. It was the only fair course open to them, and the course which we rejoice to see they took. Now, we do not mean to say that favoritism—or (to keep up our proverb) treating similar people with dissimilar sauces—is so prevalent amongst us that cases of fairplay are so isolated as to make it necessary that we should pick them out, and hold them up to public view, as it* to show that we have yet one righteous judge left. But at the same time we are glad to see that the system of obtaining adjournments on frivolous pretexts, or often on no pretext at all, has received a decided check. Things must have come to a pretty pass in the Auckland Police Court when a solicitor can imagine that he has but to tell the clerk of the Court that he is desirous of obtaining an adjournment to have that adjournment granted. Gf course in some cases adjournments must be applied for, as in a case where the police arrest a person and can only offer sufficient evidence lo the sitting magistrates to justify them to grant a remand. Here, we can see, time must be allowed them to perfect their case or justice would often miscarry. But in a case such, as that which we have alluded to, it can hardly be possible that an adjournment sheuld be necessary. A plaiut

is deliberately laid against certain persons, the solicitor appearing in support of that plaint has ample time to prepare his case even before the plaint is lodged, he is not bound as to time by fixing it for any special day when such cases are decided, and in other respects has an ample margin allowed him wherewith to suit his convenience ; he certainly then would seem to have no right to summon people to a court and then to put them off, simply because he wishes it, without rhyme or reason, much less right has he to imagine that judges are so partial as to grant his unsupported request to the prejudice of other parties. Perhaps this lesson may be given not without its effect, and that a salutary one. It will certainly show plaintiffs generally, and solicitors for the prosecution in particular, that they cannot have times and seasons altogether subservient to their will, but that if they make a charge they must appear to substantiate it.