THE CASE OF MR. MANILAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 190, 11 August 1921, Page 9

THE CASE OF MR. MANILAL.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—As an Englishman, I confess (I Am only voicing the opinion of the British worker) that I am ashamed' of the decision given by the Full Court in the case of the Hindu barrister. Mr. Manilal. The Court does not assume anything regarding the impartiality of such outsiders as Messrs. McCombs, Bartram. Holland and Howard, M.P.'s. On the contrary, the Court presumed against them that they did not have the necessary opportunities to judge concerning Mr. Manilal's part in the strike. Even such witnesses from-Fiji as Messrs. Fremlin, Wihitcombe and Gustafsson are disregarded, although they furnish details of personal investigation, whereas Mr. Scott, solicitor for the Colonial Sugar Refining Co., who acted for the Fiji Government without any fees, just to strike terror amongst Indian workers and cause them to go back to their work, is assumed to baye all possible material to specialise in judging of Mr. Manilal's part_ in the strike. I have reliable information that both Mr. Scott and the Governor of Fiji told an influential man in Fiji that they bad really no evidence presentable in Court against Mr. Manilal. But the New Zealand Court does not call upon Mr. Richmond to produce Mr. Scott in the witness box, and assumes Mr. Scott's opinions to be true. Why have not the authorities in Fiji responded to the Indian challenge to give Mr. Manilal a judicial trial? Why is h still allowed to remain on the rolls in Fiji and London, where he can still appear as counsel before the Privy Council in any appeal against a decision of our own Appeal Court? Surely it is only logical to conclude that a man whose character is good enough for the highest Court in Great Britain is presumed to be good enough prima facie for our Colonial Courts; the more so as the presumption is backed up with the affidavits of our own M.P.'s, and a ".wilderness of testimony" from Fiji itself, and must certainly prevail against the mere suppositions or suggestions of a small clique of capitalist.- 1 who produce no evidence in broad daylight, and only exploit insinuations about some confidential matters in the folds of the Secretary's dispatches, or the delicacies of the indentured labour questions. Our Courts have deplorably missed this opportunity of acting up to the best traditions of British justice.— I am, etc., J. PURTELL.