RE BASSINGTHWAITE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5599, 4 February 1879, Page 6

RE BASSINGTHWAITE.

TO THB EDITOR OS THE LYTTELTON TIMES. > S in,—Your leading article in this morning's paper appears to be based on the erroneous assumption that in my application that Bassingthwaite should be admitted to bail, 1 relied on section 61 of “ The Justices of the Peace Act, 1866.” That section was not cited, and could not possibly apply to the case. The section of the Act on which I relied is section 63. I do hot think I referred to any particular section of the Act, the only authority which I cited being “The New Zealand Justice of the Peace, p.p, 2SO and 251,” on the latter of which pages it is stated, “ The • Justice ought to satisfy himself of the solvency of the proposed sureties to the required extent, and in order to do so he may examine them on an oath to make true answer to all questions demanded of them.” But it would seem that he has no right to examine them upon other topics, such as their moral character or political opinions, and that the fact of their being indemnified by the accused, even if it should make the Justice doubt whether the accused would ever come up for trial, is not a sufficient reason to justify him in refusing what would otherwise be reasonable sureties, —lam,&o. , J, B. GBBSSON, ; ; Solicitor for J. Bassingthwaite. Christchurch, Neb. 8,1879. TO THB BDIXQB 07 THB LYTTELTON TIMES. Sib,— Will you allow me to draw your attention to the fact that, in your article this morning on the above question, you have ignored the first application altogether. I opposed that application on the very ground of objection raised by you, and the Bench concurred witheut hesitation and refused the bail,. Afterwards one of the solicitors concerned f° r the prisoner brought to the notice of the Bench the following paragraph from Mr Justioe Johnston’s “Justice of the

Peace ” !—“ But it would seem that he (that is tho Justice) has no right to examine the ’bail upon other topics, such as their moral character or political opinions, and that the foot of their being indemnified by the accused—even »/ if ehould make the Justice doubt whether the accused would ever come op tor trial— is not a sufficient reason to justify him in refusing, what would otherwise be, mioimblo suretiM.” Mir JjM concluded, therefore, that he wm bound by mch an authority to accept the bail. I offer no opinion m to tho paragraph 1 have quoted, but if it really is the law, there can be no doubt that it ought to be amended. It is admitted by implication that the Justice is bound to act unreasonably. He is required by the Act to be satisfied that the bail is sufficient, but according to the paragraph I have quoted be is bound to toko bail which would be otherwise reasonable, and he is bound to take bail which is not reasonable, and which in the Justice’s opinion is not sufficient. In the present case the Justices admitted the bail was not sufficient, because they had secured themselves, and therefore refused to take the securities. Afterwards they found themselves compelled by the reference to the above authoritiee to accept the very bail which they considered insufficient. — I am. &c. H. WYNN WILLIAMS. [We received the two letters on Bassingthwaite’s bail case after, onr leading article which appears this morning was written. For this reason no mention is made of them ' in the article. The only remark calling for I any addition to our article is that one of i Mir Gfesson’s referring to tho number of the clause of the Act relied on by him. As the matter has passed, as far as we ar.e concerned, into a different stage, that point is quite immaterial now. As Mr wesson must be the best judge of his own contention in the matter, we accept his explana- ... 'tion cheerfully. In justice to ourselves, we inusfc say tfiiat, the sixty-first clause was -mentioned anct brought .before the Court, but ’not as we now see by Mr Gresson.who relied on the sixty-third. Hut if the sixtyfirst did pot apply to the case, we think our reasoning yesterday morning will be allowed by impartial judges to have done so.—Kn. L. 2’.]