SIR. BARTON IN COURT AGAIN.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 80, 3 April 1878, Page 4

SIR. BARTON IN COURT AGAIN.

We take tbe following frotn tbe New Zealand Times report of the proceedings in tha Supreme Court in Wellington last Fiidiiy ; — PETOS V. JOSEPH AND CO. This was ft motion for a rule nisi lo set Dsidf nn orde' made by his Honor the Chief Justice in chambers, allowing the defendants to withdrnw their pleas, and to psy £10 into Court in satisfaction of all claims by plaintiff. Mr Barton strongly complained of tbe conduct of the solicitors on the other side, alleging fh«t the order had been obtained ky their representing that he bad consented to it. He had known practitioners in Dunedin who •would have been threatened wit high consequences for doing much less than that. Ha asked that; the order be set aside, aa it had been obtained hy fraud. Mr Travers'. clerk declared this statement to be false. Mr Travers' rose to explain. Mr Barton said he did not want any verbal statements, and asked him to make an affidavit. He would take nothing short of the order being upset. There has been a been a downright attempt to tie our hands by saying we consented. Under existing circumstances they ought to be doubly careful in dealing with him. If he was a little warm his Honor must pardon him. His Honor : It is not on offence against me, but I do think it is an offence against the decorum of the Court. If proved that a fraud, as you mention, was perpetrated, I should certainly be ready to punish the parties. Mr Barton said it was on the admission of the defendants' solicitors tbat he bad never consentad. He asked if it was creditable to gentlemen of the profession to do such things, and then allow him to come into Court to set it aside? He required a rule nisi on all the grounds, and if he did not get it that Way be would not fake it all. Mr Travers : I need not apologise to tbe Court if through inadvertence anything of tbat kind has crept into the rule. Mr Barton : We will have no poetical justice about it if your Honor pleases. It is very notorious that we have such poor assistance in this town in tbe way of clerks tbat we cannot help ourselves. His Honor: How will this affect (he trial, Mr Barton, of this cause ? Mr Barton : The reeult will be that we will go to trial on the original pleas. It was a nice attempt to fix us in a difficulty out of which we coulJ not get, but please gooduess, we will get out of it. His Honor: I do not see it. Mr Burton : But I see it your Honor plainly, stupid as I am. My friend gets that order turned out, and thicks I am fool enough to go to trial on it. Not me, I'll go to some other place rather tban that. I seethe object of it plainly. According to your Honor it is poetical justice. I*l ia Honor: You do not understand me. ' Mr Barton : I have had fifteen or sixteen years' experience of your Honor, and I ihink I know you by this time. His Honor said, wiib his experience of Mr Barton, he could uot understand him. He bad made up his mind, with Some hesitation, to grant the rule upon the grounds asked. It appeared to him at first sight that the rule was not properly drawn up with the consent, of plaintiff. It was of an extraardinary character. He agreed that it was a matter of urgency, but he could not dispose of it beiore the return of the Chief Justice. He did not see how he could I name a day in the absence of the other side. Mr Barton : I'll tbke no favors and I'll aßk no consent. lam not going to take a rule merely for the fuu of arguing it when it is too late. His Honor : You can do as you like. Mr Barton : Then I understand that you won't grant me the rule returnable in four days. His Honor : Iu my opinion, if you had succeeded in getting this order ;setaside, you would not be enabled to try the case of Peters and Josoph at the present circuit. Mr Barton : If your Honor will sit in banco between the criminal and civil sittings, I will accept tbat. His Honor : Juet for the purpose of adjourning (he case. Mr Barton : No ; to grant it. His Honor : The Court is not to answer conundrums. » Mr Barton .- Well, the Court must not propound conundrums. His Honor : Your language ia disrespectful, I have told yon already I consider the case is a reasonable one, and is of soma urgency. It has been pending a long time, and I want to see it tried. I will sit here on Friday next in banco, pro forma, just to ad* journ it. Mr Barton : What ia the result of tbat ? I prefer to let the case go ; let Peters go into the Bankruptcy Court, and all the wrong be done. If my client is to be put in that position, to be a sort of half-and-half, it will turn out nothing at alt. \ Hiß Honor : I can do nothing more than that. Mr Barton : I will take my rule if it is to be a reality, but if it is merely going to be a promise to be broken, I won't. His Honor : That is not at all respectful language to the Court,

The rule was mado returnable for Friday nest. Mr Barton : Now I ask your Honor will you give me a hearing for the ease ? His Honor : I have gone to thß full limit. Pass to the next case. Mr Barton : Will your Honor , tell me vfha* you will give roe ? His Houor ; I have told you over am! over again. The Registrar will tell you. Will you Bit down ? The Registrar commenced to read over (he decision, Mr Barton interrupt- ! ingr. His Honor : Will you sit down, , Mr I Barton? Mr Barton : Will your Honor tell me what the rule was that was granrh in this ■ His Honor : Sit riown and be silent. Mr Barton : I require to be told. His Honor (to the Registrar) : Take a note of thie, if you please. I shall call you to account for this, Mr Barton. Mr Barton complained of the bad conduct of the officers of the Court. His Houor : Take a note of ibis, M Allan. Mr Allan ; I will, your Honor. Mr Barton : What is the note Mr Alian has taken; will he please be good enough to read it out ? His Honor : Sit down, Mr Barton. You have no right whatever to see it. You have distinctly imputed to the officers of the Court misconduct towards you. Mr Barton : If the note ia read to me I will either admit it or refute it. I have before tried to get from the officer what b.BB passed and he has refused me the in formation. Hie Honor : There biß many witnesses present. Mr Barton : Then I will ask everybody to take a note. I ask laave to withdraw my motion in Joseph v. Peters to review taxation.— Granted. APPLICATION TO QUASH COMMITMENT. Mr Barton made a motion to quash his commitment to goal for contempt of Court. He read the affidavit of Mr Barrett, his head clerk, which showed that no record of Mr Barton's confinement was filed, into a considerable time after his incarceration. He then quoted the case of ; Pollard v. the Chief Justice of Hongkong, Law Report, 2, Privy Council, page 206, in which a penalty for contempt of Court had been upset on appeal. , His Honor expressed on opinion that the plaintiff bad' not been femlty of contempt, and added, " We would not think so much of it in Wellington if it went do further than that." He then proceeded to deliver his decision stating that if he bad the slightest doubt as to what his decision ought to be in this cuse he would take time to consider. He could not say that he bad any doubt. Mr Barton, in this argument, had relied exclusively upon the authority of a judical case brought before the Privy Council. The only expression which related most in his favor was that in the judgment any person who should be punished for contempt of Court, which waß a criminal offence, should have the specific offence distinctly stated to him, and an opportunity of answering it given to him. The expreesion of their lordships must be taken with reference to the circumstances before them. The alleged contempt in that case was committed in the course of a conversation during the trial of a case at nisiprius on the 27th of the month, and ouc of that conversation it was impossible in his (his Honor's) opinion to pick out a contempt of Court. The Chief-Justice animadverted upon the expressions, and did not proceed to judgement until eome days after (the 29th), when he said he would give his decision on the occurences of the 27tb. No lawyer could read the report and lay his finger upon that which amounted to a clear contempt of Court, but he apprehended that the case had no relution whatever to the doctrine that the Court may punish instanter contempts committed. All decorum in Courts of Justice would be done away with if, after every interruption of the the Court, it was necessary to proceed by rule. He was satisfied that the Judicial Committee could not attempt to lay dowo auy such doctrine, and quoted a recent case which had come before the House of Lords, the result of which was summed np in the heading of it, viz., that a judge in the legitimate exercise of his duty may commit an offender for contempt of Court instanter. He apprehended that the contempt in the present case was obvious to those who had any knowledge of the circumstances, and as for those who had not any knowledge of the circumstances, they had no chance of exercising their judgment upon if. If these oontempta were allowed to pass unnoticed the Courts would be in danger of being tamed into bear gardens. He would make no rule in this case. The Court then adjourned.