GOLDFIELDS MAGISTRATES

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 247, 24 October 1872, Page 7

GOLDFIELDS MAGISTRATES

(To tlie Editor.) Sir,— ln the " Bruce Herald "of the 16th instant I observe a very uncalled for accusation made against Mr. J. N. Wood and Mr. Vincent Pyke, R.Ms.— uncalled for, because untrue. The writer exhibits gross ignorance both of the subject he takes in hand'and of the gentlemen whose iharacters he attempts to impugn. The first couple of sentences of the letter shows Mr. O Teinpprecs' utter ignorance of the subject he presumes to write upon, for it is well known that the Otago goldfields comprise but one Resident Magistrate's district. It is not difficult, I think, to recognise in the norn de plume of this writer the Roxburgh^ correspondent of the "Bruce Herald," 'whose elaborate report of the O'Connor v. Cosgrove case appeared in one of his recent letters to that journal. This said correspondent, being a very harmless limb of the law, who graduated in Lawrence, is evidently riled at losing a client, through Mr. Pyke issuing a summons to take Cosgrove to Tuapeka, in the case of Kemp v. Cosgrove, instead of having the case heard at Roxburgh. When the Case of O'Connor v. Cosgrove was heard at Switzers, Mr. Wood administered some wholesome rebuke to this same individual. Hence the tirade of abuse launched against these magistrates. This correspondent says : " If we are to pay men to fill the office of magistrate, then let us have men mentally and morally fit to till the office." I, in common with every reasonable being, can only add my amen to that.

Speaking from what I know of Mr. Pyke'3 long career as Warden and Magistrate, both in this country and in Victoria, I believe there is not a man who sits on the bench better qualified for the discharge of the duties, appertaining to the position, and whose decisions give better satisfaction to the general public. No doubt both he and Mr. Wood occasionally use some expressive language when they are tortured by some beetleheaded wculd-be lawyers. A few weeks ago, when the case D'Conno* v. Oosgvove was.he<u*d at Switzers, the same correspondent made a wretched exhibition of his incapacity and dullness of comprehension. * The question .of Mr. Wood's jurisdiction was discussed by Mr. Savage, who contended that the Whitecomb was nearer Roxburgh than Switzers, and therefore, the case should have been heard before Mr. Borton ; and in substantiating his assertion, he dragged in the name of Mr. Beighton as an authority. Mr. Wood, on that gentleman's • name being mentioned, asked *' what has Beighton to do with the case of this low shanty keeper from the Whitecomb," or words to that effect. Mr Savage, true to the obtußeness of conception, with which a wise Providence has thought proper to endow him , took it up that Mr. Wood referred to Mr. Beighton as being "alow shanty keeper," and conveyed a long story tothatg-entlemanoftl c libellous language used by Mr. Wood towards him. I hestr that letters h*ve passed between Mr. Beighton and the Government on the subject, and that a libel case is imminent. — Yours, &c, Justice.