TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In your issue of the 13th ult. appeared a report of the case of Raeburn v. Craib, heard before Dr Drysdale and Mr Wm. Reid, J.P.s, and from which it appeared that I had been bound over to keep the peace. As since then inquiries have been freely made why I did not obey the order of the justices, I have to ask, as a matter of simple justice, that you will allow me to explain to the public what were the actual facts.
On the date mentioned I appeared at the Port Chalmers Resident Magistrate's Court as complainant on a sworn information against Mrs Craib, whom I had aßked Bhould be bound over to keep the peace against me. I and my witnesses gave evidence in support of my complaint, and one witness was examined on behalf of the defendant. Yet the Bench ordered both of us—complainant and defendant—to enter into a recognisance in the sum of L2O, and to find the two sureties of LlO each, to keep the peace for six months. Feeling that I had been deeply wronged, in that the decision of the justices affirmed that I was equally to blame with the defendant, I instructed my solicitors to move the Supreme Court to have the order of the justices, so far as it related to myself, revoked. The grounds are thus stated in my affidavit : That no complaint was ever made against me ; that I was never charged with any offence ; that no application was made to the justices for an order against me ; that no opportunity was given me to show cause why I should not be bound over; and that no evidence was given at the hearing to show that I had threatened to do any of the acts mentioned in subsection 4of section 8 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1882. The following letters which passed between my solicitors and Mr Haggitt speak for themselves : Dunedin, July 10.
Messrs Adams Bros. Dear Sirs,—Dr Drysdalo has consulted me about the matter to respect to whioh you gave him notice of intention to take proceedings in prohibition, and I have advised him to proceed no further in enforcing the order to And sureties of the peace, so far as your client is concerned, and ho will not do so, nor will Mr Reid. You noed not, therefore, incur any expense in applying for prohibition.—l am, etc, B. 0. Haooitt. 19th July. Doar Sir,—Wo have your letter of to-day's date heroin. The necessary affidavits were sworn last night, and all the papors are ready to i9sae. Miss Raeburn insists that tbe order was made In open Court, and without any justification or notice. The stigma ca«t on her by It should bo removed by a revernil of the order in open Court. Of course, we need not say that whilo the order remains it may at anv time be enforced, and our client is entitled to hnvo this rendered impossible. We would suggest that you should agrco to accept service on behalf of tuo defendants, and cjnsent to an order prohibiting further proceedings, in which caso wo shall not ask for costs. - Wo are, etc., Adams Bros. July 20. Dear Sirs,—l havo soen Dr Dryalale in refon noo to your letter of yestorday. There ii not the slightost chittice of tho order Win;; nnfo'ced, as it is not in writing. I cannot agree lo lh» course you f nggest. If you chooso to proceed with tho prohibition tbe case will be defended, and It will be shown that, whatever ground there may bo for contending that there was no notice to your client, there was on the evidence quits sufficient justification for binding her over.—l am, etc, B-. C. HAaam.
22nd July. Dear Sir,—Dr Dryedale has, no doubt, forgotten the fact that the order is in writing and that he has Mailed it, and that it now remains on record in the Court. As you will peroolve, this alters the oaf e very materially; but we shall he s ttisflod i( the name of our olient is struck out of the order. This the clorlt could easily da, and the matter would thus be quietly ettled.—We are, etc., Adams Bros. July U. trouble of wri'int: for a reply to yours of the 22nd, but I had to write to Dr Drysrtalo before I oould reply, as he had assured me most positively that he had not signed an order in writing. He has Just called on me, and he reiterates that there is no order in writing and nothing whatever bearing his signature beyond the record of the conviction on tho back of tho complaint. This ho is not justified in altering, and cannot alter. But I am authorised to assure you that tho documents prepared by tho clerk of tho Court to (five effect to the order for sureties, and which were sent to Portobello to Mr Kerr, 1.P., to be completed, have been recalled, and are now in pobsessioH of tns clerk of the Court, and that be has boen in9truoted to prococd no further, and that nothing further will be done. If you nre not6atiafled with this you must go on with your threatened action. The Justices can do no more to remedy their mistake, if it is one, whioh lamby no means sure of.—l am, tto , B. C. Haqoitt. I would merely add that it cost me LlO 15s, to say nothing of the mental worry to which I have been subjected, to vindicate my character in this matter.—l am, etc., J. S. Raeburn. Broad Bay, September 5.
Permanent link to this item
AN EXPLANATION., Evening Star, Issue 8006, 7 September 1889
AN EXPLANATION. Evening Star, Issue 8006, 7 September 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.