ROSSITER V. STODDART.

Press, Volume XII, Issue 1476, 1 August 1867, Page 3

ROSSITER V. STODDART.

TO THE BDITOB OF THB PRESS. Sib,—-I crave space for a few remarks on eoinethmg that occurred at the Chrietchurch Besident Magistrate's Court as reported in the " Lyttelton Times " of, this morning The report referred to. states that a witness was committed by the Resident Magistrate for contempt because she persisted in refusing to ajtfwer a question put by the opponent's solicitor, a question that appears utterly irrelewaMift fc he matter at issue. Such being the case, how comes it that a sharp lawyer ihouldbave co influenced the magistrate to • paniflh thfrwitnew by committal? Surely he mart have been maddened by curiosity, and thought he would frighten her; but it is to be .hoped (hat such an experiment will not "be repeated,.as it will bring the Bench into contempt by all lovers of right. ' ;T !■ should very much like to know why the -defendant was not also punished in like man» her, seeing that he refused to answer a -qtteition of the same kind—perhaps the Court thought by that time that'it .was going to far. ': Bur, ac an Englishman who lovee to see justice maintained and its institution respected, .1 should be very slow to cay a word against _ihe.Beiident Magistrate, but in this case I feel bound to express ,my indignation. I have looked at what authorities are accessible to mc, and I cannot discover how such a committal could be sustained, and it is therefore to be hoped that the parties concerned will " hare the'milter Drought into the Supreme Court. I, for one, would be glad to give a trifle to help them in euch a course, if neces-

sary. The- quality of Justices' justice is well enough known, but we expect something better ,-ftm '-31 Resident Yet here is a ease that makes my blood boil, and not mine only, for the aotf nai'been denounced by all I. hare conversed with on the subject. I remain, sir, yours, &0., C. D. E. Chratchurch; July 81,1867. [As thjs esse was merely a claim for wages, we don't quite, see how the question as to when and where the witness was married, could have been relevant; but as the defendant had oounsel to conduct the case for him,'no doubt

all proper, objections were raised; but as they appear io have been overruled, and the witness n jitjiy answer, the Magistrate was perfectly justified in taking the course he did.— Ed. BaßSsrj