BENCH AND BAR.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 264, 31 July 1908, Page 2

BENCH AND BAR.

——— : — STOniViY SCENE IN COURT . ■ WARiI-M'ORDS OVER A DOCUMENT. • " (BY TKLEGRArn.—SrRCtAL'XOItItESPOXDfcNT.) . . AucliianU, July 30. , J.here was a stormy sccne.-iri. Court yestef. day during tlie hearing of.a c.ii-il casts, before Mr. Kettle S.M.. The matter at issue was a claim for. the. recovery of • possession of a certain cellar. ...The question, of 1 an original Slid a copy of an alleged lease cropoea up frequently. The plaintiff was cross-exam-ined at lcngth about the signatories of'the documents by- Mr. .Lundon, !for.' the defendants, the witness asserting that:the'-."ori-ginal" was in possession of defendants, and he. held a copy signed by all parties three months after. " .'• ;. .' Mr. Kettle, S.M., asked Mr. Liindon ; to. produce the .original document, but Mr.' Lundon said lie was" unable to do so. ' ' Mr. Kettle :-Hand'me that document, Mr., Sundon, please. ' Mr. Sundon: lam unable to do so, sir. ' Mr. Kettle: I order ybu to produce that; document, Mr. Lundon. • .. !. _ . Mi - . Lundon: Well, T refuse, sir.' ' Mr. Kettle (angrily): Well, -then, I ad- ' journ the Court and. will take steps to deal with you. • - - . .However, the Magistrate agreed to.'go on, and reserve the point, but'.another, re?' ; fefence to' the lease 'broflgnt a request from ' him to both counsel to' produce ooth copy and'original. ' ' ' " Mr. Buddie (for plaintiff) 'handed'!'the-' "copy" in, but Mr. Lundon. again declined, Mr. Settle once- more demanded'' his "original" copy. ■ > ' ■ Mr. Lundon: \our'Worship is not;g6ing to dictate to •me how 1 1 am to conduct my. case;' " '•' : ■ •-!• . ■; " = Mr; Kettle: 1 order' that document'-to'be handed to tho Clerk of the Court.-. , ■*• ■: "lii my own'- time,"- replied Mr,' 'Liindon. ' \ ■ ■ • •'•--• - Mr. Kettle :> I order it. to be done cat' once. ' ' • Mr. Lundon: And I-. refuse-to do'it, sir. ?i--Mr. Kettle 1 : Then I will take, steps to deal; with you. ■ .' '• •!! ! Mr. Lundon : Very well,'sir. :.:•• • •.; ..r After Mr. Kettle had read a clause indica-. !: ting that Mr. Lundon-was liable to a fine .' of' £10 or imprisonment- the atmosphere' cleared again, his Worship reserving to him- ■ self th'o right to demand the "document literon if/ necessary, and compel Mr. Lundon to obey-him. . In'the meantime, lie; declined to ; : fellow cross-examination of plaintiff, oil tile' "copy" handed in !By .Mr.' Buddie, which- ■; proved to be unstamped, and; therefore, in-. . -admissible. ' • 'V ■ ' : . ■ " / , - ,At a later stage' the question came up 'for • a' third time, wheii 'Mr. Kettle" refused toadmit any' evidence' based upon-'the <• lease--., ■whicli. Mr.' Luiidori- 'had:' refused .to produ'eo:--until it was' 1 -handed- into' the Court. "That - • is 'elementary la\V{!'' ' added his Worship. "Eventually , the' document ivill 'have to' 1 be-' .produced:" -f : -v KettlS then'-formally-tuled-the evidence' - inadmissible. . ""•••'■ -• " Mr.' Lundon proceeded'to his cross-esamina-; tion of Taylor,, one of the defendants,, on-de-tails which appeared irrelevant to the Magistrate.- - ; ' ■ '- ■-• Mr. Kettle: You are wasting, the time of ; the! Court,- Mr. Liindon: : -r . . Mr. Lundbn: Your Worship -wastes i mora time than anyone, coming into this. Court? ' Mr. Settle: What do you mean, sirP" -' '■ Mr.-Lundbn: What I-— . • ■ >; Mr.. Kettle: Will you kindly.sit .down-Mr... ' Lundon and hold youi' tongue. You'have no right to say such things...Sit down. ~: '.! Mr;.Lundon: I am-,only, telling'.tho truth,' ' your - Worship, andwhat is known; to tholagal profession: coming into this Court. • (Mr. Lundon t-hon Bat down.) !i, . ' • : - His Worship said .that: before: Mr.. Liindon/! • could make his. defence; good, lie must -prov : duce,the original document, and he. , could not give/judgment until ho saw it. , ■ After a great deal of argument,'mere or , lefes heated, Mr. Kettle told Mr.. Lundon -to again proceed with his questions,; which-'if inadmissible he would rule out and see'.that' his ruling was obeyed. :. ~ ; After an objection was made by Mrrßiiddle" as' to Mr.' Lundon's. cross-examination! tho-i latter handed' in the much-discussed/.original', which also, proved to be unstamped, and, , therefore,' inadmissible: : On Mr. - Lundon's! Engaging to have it stamped,, and ,pay: tho - fine of. £5 next' morning, .cheerfulness once. ? more reigned.- . ■■ '■ _ - '1- ' ' . When the 'case'came on again to-day the " ■Magistrate gave Mr. Lundon a severo lecture, ropeating his assertion that counsel had deliberately wasted time in defiance of his Worship's ruling. He stroncly resented Mr; Lundon's "insult" to the Bench*, and to uphold the dignity of the Court called on-him. to . make'a statement in. mitigation. Thereupon - ' Mr. Lundon, naively confessing'that ho did not know a-.reporter, liad been-in Court, apologised, and withdrew his.remarks, pleading a; non-angelic temper. Mr. Kettle then allowed. , the matter tp drop. •••; ,