LEATHAM V. MACKIE.

Thames Star, Volume IX, Issue 3023, 23 October 1878, Page 2

LEATHAM V. MACKIE.

(To the Editor of the Brening Star.) Sib,—l hare been-waiting for someone to reply to Mr Brassey's long effusion in the Advertiser of the 15th hut., bat as ' no oae interested hatidoneso, I presume a few remarks from a disinterested person may not be out. of place. Mr Brassey seems to lash himself into a fury against the magistrates and all and singular concerned, in the case, and especially Mr Bullen—apparently because they are not on " amicable terms " together—therefore Mr Bullen has given him dire offence by performing an act of civility, if not of duty—the latter lam inclined to think *■ the correct view—when Mr Brassey ap-' peared on the other side;, whereas, in fact, any impartial person conld see Mr Bullen's application was made purely from consideration to the poor girl who had been made a victim by his (Mr Brassey's) client, and, ai girls may always be considered to be, - ignorant of the usages of a Court of justice, or had mistaken the time, if the summons had been dismissed, as Mr Brassey " urged," the- consequences to her might have been that the defendant would have made himself scarce, etpe* cially after the legal advice he would have' received from his solicitor, as well as being mulct in oosts, including Mr Brassey's fee, payment of whioh might have been demanded before the issue of the second summons. This might have . been the means of shelving the complaint, as girls in the position of the complainant are not over-burdened with ready money. Under this view of the case, it is nothing but " fair play" to infer Mr Brassey complains he was unsuccessful in defeating the ends of justice. .Referring to hit remarks on the prohibition of public officers from replying to attacks upon r. them in the Press, Mr Brassey says "there is nothing at all to prevent them from so. doing if they please." He must kn.oir h« » stating a deliberate ontntftl^ftOexcept, perhaps, in one Sense. Puttinftit by way of metaphor, it may . be ..said; by the same rule there v nothing jto "prevent" Mr Brassey from cutting his throat; but if he performed the operation effectually, it would, in all probability, be fatal—to his life. If ha doubts my statement, let him try the experiment ; there is nothing to " prevent" him. Mr Brassey puts a -supposititioua ease where the complainant does not ap> pear, and asks could Mr Bullen have . compelled the parties to proceed with the ; case. Mr Bullen is not charged, even by j Mr Brassey, with attempting to compel^ the parties to do enything., He merely requested the Bench to give another day to the hearing from consideration to the. girl. An extract is taken from Mr Miller's letter to the effect that Mr Bullen'e interference was the means of dealing Out justice to the .defendant, to which Mr „ Brassey replies: "This may be Mr Miller's opinion, but is not public opinion." -_ Mr Miller states a fact, not an opinion. Allow me to tell Mr Brassoy the "public opinion" he baa , called to his aid is dead against him, and, further, that, some of the questions put to the girl, and his running comments on her replies are commented upon by " public opinion " as most obscene and. disgraceful, and are believed by " public opinion " never to have been heard before in a Court of justice. He complains that the papers did not report the M fracas," at he terms it, " because it was certainly rery interesting." I may tell him that 11 public opinion " gives credit to the reporters for eliminating those "interesting " observations made by that gentleman in the conduct of the defendant's case. I shall encroach too much upon your ipaoe if I reply to one half of this precious production ; etiil, I cannot oonolude without referring to the note of explanation in the Advertiser of the following day, purport. ing to be a conversation "with Mr Allora, referring to Mr Bullen's conduct, which, to me and all those with whom I have conversed upon the subject, is wholly unintelligible.—Yours, &c, Jitvxkix. Thames, 19 Oct., 1878.