COURT OF APPEAL. WELLINGTON.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 226, 30 May 1872, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL. WELLINGTON.

All the judges met for busines on Wednesday morning the 15th of May, and were occupied during the morning in making arrangements for the list of cases. There are three cases from Dunedin. One is the petition of Mr Smythies for re-admission to practice ; the second is the reserved points raised at the trial of Ewing for shooting the Chinaman ; the third is an appeal from a decision of Judge Chapman in the case of Catamore v. Murray. The two latter eases will probably not be argued until some day next week. The first case — that of Mr Smythies — gave rise to considerable discussion before the Court. The Attorney-General and Mr Henry Howorth appeared on behalf of the jjavr society, and Mr Smythies appeared in person. Their Honors the Judges complained that Mr Smytkies's petition was too bare a statement. The Act passed by the Parliament, under which Mr Smytbies was allowed to petition, required that he should either shew facts and circumstances, that if shewn at his trial iv England would, in the opinion of the Judges, have caused his acquittal, or else he should shew facts and circumstances which would satisfy their Honors that his crime was not one of siich moral turpitude as ought to cause his perpetual exclusion from practice. Mr Smythies, in reply to their Honors, said that the Act had placed him in a difficulty. He construed it to mean that he should present a formal petition, and then submit himself, his documents, and his witnesses to examination and cross-examination before their Honors. He complained that it was not possible for him to give an account of every act aud day of his professional career since hij admission in New 1 Zealand, and that if there was any fault to be found with him during that period, the attack should come before he was called on for a defence. The Attorney-General stated that, as representing the Law Society, and in so far as he represented the profession by virtue of his olfice of Attorney-General, he wished their Honors to hear this matter apart from any technical objection, and he would himself make no such objection, and would waive it if existing. He at the same time agreed with their Honors that Mr Smythies's petition was of the barest character, and that he ought to set out the facts and circumstances not produced at his trial, but which he now contends ought to influence this Court to re-admit him. Ultimately it was directed that Mr Smythies should amend his petition by inserting these p irticulars, and should vorify it by affidavit ; and the Court, on the application of the Attorney-General, further ordered that certain affidavits filed in the Supreme Court at Dunedin should be sent for by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, to be used along with the affidavit of Mr Macassey in opposition to the prayer of the petition. It was mentioned by one of the Judges daring the discussion that the affidavit of Mr Macassey was extremely long, and gave a detailed account of many acts of Mr Smythies during his professional career in Dunedin, which are charged to be malpractices of a sufficiently grave character to warrant his exclusion from the bar. The list of cases before the Court from other Provinces is a very heavy one, but nothing of interest to Otago ia contained in it, so far as we can yet learn.