THE Marlborough Express. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1870.

Marlborough Express, Volume V, Issue 265, 17 December 1870, Page 4

THE Marlborough Express.

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1870.

“ Givh me tlie liberty to know, to utter, anti to rrgue freely according to conscience, above all other liberties.’* —Milton.

In another place we have copied an article from the Nelson Colonist, in which, under the title of “ Small Cases,” the writer animadverts—as he had a perfect right to do—upon the recent case of imaginary Fenianism sent from Havelock to the Supreme Court, and to what he has to say on that part of his subject we have no objections to raise ; but carried away no doubt by feeling he indulges in a “sneer”—his own phrase—at the attempts made to get what we have an undoubted right to, namely, periodical Sittings of the Supreme Court in Marlborough. He insinuates that the least possible chance will be taken by this Province, or a few persons in it, with a view of proving its necessity ; and further says that it is not the first time frivolous cases have been sent to Nelson, which “ ought to have been settled on the spot,” and would have been “had common-sense and judicious legal counsel prevailed.”

We must confess that we never saw the matter in this light before. Time after time we have heard loud complaints at the hard necessity which compelled a number of people to travel so far to obtain justice, and we believe—nay, we know that a very lenient view of offences has been frequently taken for that reason, but here we have a direct statement that “ more than once the Grand Jury (true the Nelson juries are proverbial,) has expressed an opinion in Court, and more frequently in their own room, censured cases as too frivolous which have been sent from this Province through injudicious legal counsel.” We have no recollection of any case wherein a member of the legal profession had anything to do with sending it to Nelson, nor have they power to affect the matter in any way, especially as we have no Crown Prosecutor; indeed judging from their frequent complaints as to the necessity of attending at Nelson, we are quite sure their counsel, if sought, would have been directed to quite a different purpose. The disposal of tha cases rests entirely with the Magistrates, but our contemporary, having laid the blame on our legal friends, clenches it by adding, not sneeringly of course, that “ it would be monstrous to imagine that any magistrate, whether stipendiary or the ‘ great unpaid,’ would lend himself to trump up cases for the sake of securing periodical Sittings of the Supreme Court in Marlborough, but what is wanted is the exercise of more discretion!” and thereupon he proceeds to lecture the Magistracy of this Province ! It is not necessary however for us to defend either the Bench or the Bar from such a vain attack, as this, but a few remarks on. the late Sittings at Nelson suggested by it will not be out of place.

Out of six cases dealt' with, three were from Marlborough. One of the latter was most noticeable, yet the Colonist did not allude to it although the Judge denounced it as one which should never have been brought, and most certainly it came under the denomination of “ small cases.” It was in the same estate—the heritage of the fatherless and the widow—as a similar one heard at the previous Sittings, and was raised by a Nelson professional man; it involved the attendance of all the lawyers (three,) from this Province, besides a, banker and his clerk, and its object was not to evade the payment of a sum justly due, but to discover whether an acceptance had been sufficiently stamped, evident marks showing that a stamp had been there, but it was doubted on the side of the defence whether it had represented Two shillings ! So small a case was it, and so easily settled out of Court had “ common-sense and more judicious counsels prevailed.” The costs in this “frivolous case”—exceeding we are informed, =£7oo—were at the expense of the bereaved ones !

We are not surprised at Nelson feeling annoyed at Marlborough seeking to have its own business done at home, for does not Nelson—we shall not say live upon it, but —profit largely by the enforced attendance of twenty or thirty persons from hence once a quarter ; but to pretend to lecture us for coming there seems odd, to say the least of it. The Colonist further tells us that in connection with the pressure brought to

bear on the Government by our Members in the General Assembly, to obtain periodical Sittings of the Supreme Court here, a return has been called for of Marlborough eases. We do trust that this return will be a fair one extending over the last ten rears say, and not, like the letter written some time ago to the Government stating ihat in a certain year there was but three Yarborough cases, forgetting to add that [he District Court held sittings here at the line, and decided in nineteen cases; besides a number at Picton. It would be veil too if the return was also to state how aany witnesses came from Marlborough n such cases, and the costs incurred by hem. Take the case of Atwood v. Redrood for instance.