ARTICLED CLERKS V. SOLICITORS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 111, 24 March 1870, Page 5

ARTICLED CLERKS V. SOLICITORS.

In the Resident Magistrate's Court, on Thursday, 17th instant, W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M., on the bench, the subject of Articled Clerks v. Solicitors was brought before their Worships. A case was called on, and Mi". Mouat, addressing the Court, said that he wished to call the attention of the Court to a letter which appeared in that morning's Tuapeka Times, signed "John Copland, solicitor." The letter referred to purported to give an account of some remarks made by the Court a few days since, and he (Mr. Mouat) wished the Court to say whether the letter was true or false. Mr. Keen said that he also wished to call the attention of the Court to the matter, and for the same reason. Mr. Mouat having handed the paper containing the letter to the Bench. Mr. Simpson road it aloud, and having so done, spoke as follows :—: — I have been asked by Messrs. Mouat and Keen to say whether the statements I contained in this letter are correct or otherwise- ; and I now state in reply that upon the occasion referred to in this letter my remarks were, that as a qualifled solicitor was now residing here, and as it was possible that in cases where Messrs. Mouat and Keen might be retained in the same case, that solicitor might object. I hoped that some arrangement would be arrived at between the articled clerks and the solicitor (Mr* Copland), so as to prevent any unpleasantness in Court; and as regards the gentlemen now sitting at the table — I refer- to Mr. Mouat and Mr. Keen — I have to say that they have ever conduoted themselves and their business in a manner deserving the confidence of this Court. They have secured that confidence, and I am satisfied that they have also deserved the confidence of the public; because if the opposite were the case thay would not have been for years entrusted with business. It never fell from my lips that I did not intend in the future to allow articled clerks to appear. Such was not my intention, neither is it my intention now. I simply stated that if Messrs. Mouat and Keen happened to be retained on the same case, and the solicitor (Mr. Copland) objected, I must sustain his objection, because he has certain rights and privileges, and I could not allow an unlicensed agent on each side, with a qualified solicitor sitting idle in Court ; but where the solicitor is engaged, I will always allow one- of these gentlemen (Messrs. Mouat and Keen) on the other side — that is to- say, in the absence of a second solicitor. To do otherwise would be allowing the scale to be unequally balanced, because the party securing Mr. Copland's services might have an advantage over the other side, and his case would be one of special circumstances ; and I am sure that the public have, during the years that these agents (Messrs. Mouat and Keen) have been allowed to appear in Court, benefited- by the^r services, and I am by no means slow to acknowledge that they have been of great I assistance to this Court. When I was first appointed a Magistrate, I found agents practising on the goldfields, and I consulted Mr s Justice W T ilson Grey upon the propriety of allowing it. He stated, as he has frequently done since, that so long as solicitors were absent he would allow it-*-that he had found it very advantageous to the public and to the Court, and that Justice could be arrived at far more easily through their agency. I therefore never had any intention of shutting the months of these gentlemen, as stated in this letter.. As regards the second statement, that I said that his Honour Judge Ward had addressed some very strong remarks from the bench on the subject, Judge Ward did distinctly disapprove of the practice, and I explained the reason of and for it. I explained that there ■were not until lately any solicitor on the goldfield, and that the agents were of great use. (And while speaking of this, let me remind persons who may be listening to me that in a case which occurred here some-eighteen months ago, where I found' that a» agent was appearing who was of bad character, 1 immediately forbade his. continuing to practice). When I told Judge Ward that I wa3 following the practice and advice of Judge Grey, he (Judge Ward) immediately said, " That will do, Mr. Simpson ; you follow the very host advice in r.o doing." Now, as regards the statement made in this letter, +o the effect that Judge Ward sent for me and had a private conversation with me : that is not true. I never said anything of the kind. I could not have done so, because nothing of the kind ever took place. All that was said to me by the Judge w,as said to me while X was

in the witness box as a witness in a casei. This letter, therefore, contains two mis-, statements. I may further add that an eminent member of the bar, in addressing the jury at the last criminal sittings, in referring to this practice of allowing agents to appear, strongly defended it, stating that in the absence of solicitors, it had been and still was highly conducive to the public good, and of great assistance to the bench.

Mr. Copland said — Your Worship has explained this matter ; but it does not depend upon your Worship's views, Ton sit there as a dispenser of the law, The Legislature has declared that a solicitor has a right, and it is only in the absence of a solicitor that articled clerks oan occupy his place, I have waited patiently till these gentlemen finished certain cases they had in hand, and which they wished to complete. These are finished, and others are brought on by them.

His Worship said there was no fresh case had come before him where both, agents referred to had appeared when Mr. Copland was present.

Mr. Copland said Mr, Mouat told him. there was a case to be brought on that day where both himself (Mr. Mouat) and Mr. Keen were to appear. He only wished to draw his Worship's attention to the law. It would be improper forhim, now that his Worship had spoken, to go into the matter. He distinctlyunderstood his Worship to say that the conversation referred to with Judge Ward was a private one. He wished to. draw his Worship' 3 attention to anothermatter. He understood Mr. Keen waa the Court reporter of the local paper, and he thought it not only strange bvt unfairthat no reference whatever had been mad© to the statement made by his Worship on the previous week. On this occasion his Worship had made a statement, and he (Mr. Copland), as a matter of course, must consider it final. Had he been asked before that statement was made, ha would have gone fully into the matter.

His Worship said that his attention had just been drawn to the letter, and he simply mentioned the fact that said lettercontained two mis-statements. In the first place, he had no private conversation! with Judge Ward on the subject ; and in the second, he did not say that he would not allow articled clerks to appear- as solicitors in that Court

Mr. Copland said he could only bring evidence from those who were present in the Court at the time.

His Worship said he had no intention of depriving Mr, Copland of his sight,. No R.M. had power to do thaf. He only wished to prevent any scene taking place in Court — that was 1113 only object in making the statement he did make.

[Our reporter had here a difficulty in catching the remarks made by his Worship and Mr. Copland, as both were speaking^ at once.]