"WARD-CHRISTIE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 179, 30 July 1889, Page 5

"WARD-CHRISTIE CASE.

IN REALITY A SIDE ISSUE,

(by telegraph—special correspondent.)

Wellington, this day. The " Wanganui Chronicle " attributes tbe Government's overlooking Judge Ward when appointing Judge Depniston to his action in the Christie case. *

The "Post" yesterday evening combats this successfully, by showing that the appointment was made in January,* and Christie was not tried until April, contending that the Government could not have been influenced in January by what did not occur until April ; but knowihg that they had treated Judge Ward most unjustly in the former case, and would probably be called to account for ib, they in the latter month eagerly seized an accidental opening for raising a false issue, causing a scandal affecting the Judge, and trying to create an impression of his unfitness for the judicial position. Evidently they had a strong personal prejudice against Judge Ward. That is proved by the correspondence. It was owing to this prejudice that he was not appointed to the Supreme Court Bench, and they had no scruple when the opportunity occurred of trying to use subsequent; events to, in some measure, justify actions which they ielfc it would nofc be easy otherwise to defend.

The Chrisfcie-Wardcorre3pondence, which Isentfyou up early in theweek,basnowbeen reviewed by the "Evening Post," which' seems in favour of Judge Ward. "The correspondence has now been printed in full," * says this paper, "as presented to Parliament, and a careful persual of it shows that His Honor the Judge has very much the best of the argument. The Hon. Ministers do not figure well in it. Mr Hislop in particular shows up very badly. Indeed, his carping bitter officiousness is conspicuous in almost every, line. Both Minieter3seem to have addressed the Judge « a manner entirely unbecoming his position and theirs, and if heretaliated wifch excessive vigour he certainly had great provocation. The Ministerial attempt to throw a slur on his character by insinuating that he was corruptly influenced in his conduct as a judge, must be pronounced to have entirely failed. It was a most improper attempt to make, and Judge Ward's vindication can be accepted as conclusive. The same can scarcely be said regardingthecounter-charge against Mr Hislop of his having been influenced in his conduct as a Minister by his professional business relations; although we will not go so far as to say that the charge is absolutely established. It \!°a , have been better, however, nad Mr Hislop avoided giving grounds W even_ a suspicion on the subject ny refraining from interfering in a patter entirely outside his own department. The correspondence towards the cioso is pretty spicy on both sides. The most amusing part of it is to find Mr Hisop lecturing Judge Ward on law, and laying clown its 'elementary principles 'to a gentleman who is acknowledged to be one of jne ablest members of his profession in the