7

H.—2o

In view of the foregoing facts I have merely the honour to return my thanks for the information above specified in your despatch of-the 30th April. In your despatch of the Bth May you, in effect, charge me with endeavouring to bias your decision in this case by a private communication respecting Christie, dealing with matters outside the charge against him. If you refer to the date of this private letter you will find, I think, that it was written some days after Christie had been released from gaol, and prior to the receipt of your despatch of the 30th April. After Christie's release I certainly deemed that the matter was ended as far as he was concerned, though probably not as respected Mr. Hislop and myself, forasmuch as, according to Mr. Hislop, Christie had a right of appeal to the Supreme Court, the exercise of which was not prevented by the writ of habeas corpus, and had not chosen to use that right. As the act in respect of which he was convicted, and, in my opinion, the intent with which that act was done, were clearly proved and shown by the evidence, as stated in my report; as, according to his own confession, he had been trading with utter recklessness and gross dishonesty during the four years preceding his bankruptcy, and had, six months before filing, deliberately embezzled* the property of one of his clients, to whom he gave a release which he knew to be fraudulent and void; and as he had during the above term succeeded in incurring debts to the amount of nearly £23,000, after deducting the value of ail securities, while he only produced £430 of assets for division among his creditors, it certainly never occurred to me that you, in a quasi- judicial capacity, might deem him a deserving recipient for a free pardon. Had I thought this probable I should certainly have inserted in the addenda to my report words to the effect of those to which you refer, which were, in full, as follows: "If you wish to inquire into Christie's antecedents you will find him very well known in Wellington. He was manager of the Colonial Bank there, and. executor to the will of Mr. Crawford, an old Wellington merchant. Sir Eobert Stout conducted the proceedings against him on behalf of Mrs. Crawford." I would have inserted words to the above effect for the following reasons : In reporting on a conviction in bankruptcy it is impossible for the Judge to restrict his report purely to the crime of which the bankrupt has been convicted. In order to enable the Government to judge of the propriety of remitting any part of the penalty inflicted, an account of the bankrupt's trading should be given, and if, in addition to what appeared in evidence at the trial, it be known to the reporting Judge that previous legal proceedings affecting the bankrupt's character, and displaying his peculiar views of trade, have taken place shortly before the term to which the evidence has been directed, it is quite within the scope of the Judge's duty to indicate such proceedings to the Minister of Justice, leaving him to make such further inquiry as he may deem fit. In the present case this is especially necessary, inasmuch as, in the third paragraph of the petition, the petitioners refer to their intimate knowledge of Christie, and of his dealings generally, as a ground for their belief (on which they ask you to proceed) that he acted in the special matter referred to without intent to defraud. The question of Christie's character, and of the nature of his former dealings, is therefore distinctly raised by the petition itself. The indication of former proceedings given by me being thus clearly required, the manner of giving it was not a matter of serious importance. Your charge against me is therefore utterly unfounded. I forward herewith a second addendum to my report, which will probably prove sufficient. As you state in your last despatch that all that Mr. Hislop has done has been approved of by the Government, I shall now briefly advert to his letter to me of the 11th April. The first question in it refers to the intent of Christie to defraud the company—which I have already pointed out in my report was perfectly clear. Mr. Hislop next requests me to report "my " views as to " what class of cases are meant to be covered by the subsection under which the conviction was made " (subsection (7) of section 171 of "The Bankruptcy Act, 1883 "). It is not usual to demand from a Judge, in his report on a criminal case, his opinion on abstract questions of law. Moreover, in this case the demand assumes a most singular aspect. The rule nisi for the writ of habeas corpus was moved for on the ground (inter alia) "that the alleged delivery of a promissory note does not describe an offence under section 171," above cited. Thus Messrs. Hislop and Creagh, by their Dunedin agents, served me with a rule nisi —which I had a right to oppose —in effect inviting me to show cause why the order of my Court should not bo held " invalid " on the above ground; while Mr. Hislop, as Minister of Justice, demanded a report of my views on the same point " by first available mail " — i.e., before the rule could possibly be argued in the Supreme Court. Thirdly, Mr. Hislop desires me to " state the reasons which operated with me in refusing facilities to appeal." To this I have already adverted in my report; but I may here remark that the Judge of a Bankruptcy Court has no power to grant or refuse facilities for such appeal. These facilities must be given by the rules, and for them the Ministry of 1884, who framed the Order in Council embodying them, are responsible. Of that Ministry Sir Harry Atkinson was Premier. The last two questions in Mr. Hislop's letter, touching "wheat" and "bags," have already been answered in my report. I have now only to advert to the story which he mentions respecting the relations between myself and the Colonial Investment Company. Had every detail of that story been strictly correct it would not have had the faintest influence on the decision to which I came, nor do I believe it would have had the slightest effect on any other judicial officer in the colony if placed in the same position. It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether the true account of my only transaction with the company be made public or not; but I cannot for a moment admit that the Minister of Justice has a righj; to demand from any Judge an account of the private relations existing between him and any suitor or creditor appearing in his Court: and if either you or Mr. Hislop have any charge to bring against me in respect of this case you will find me ready to meet it. I have, &c, The Hon. T. Fergus, Minister of Justice. C. D. E. Ward, D.J.