THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 1889.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9445, 16 August 1889, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 1889.

The correspondence between the Colonial Secretary, the Minister for Justice, and Judge Ward, has caused so much stir, and raises points of such great importance, that it is well the public should clearly understand its scope and purpose.

A Mr. Christie, engaged in business as an auctioneer and agent in Oamaru, became bankrupt. In April last lie was sentenced by Judge Ward to four mouths' imprisonment with hard labour for transactions complained of by the Colonial Investment and Agency Company (Limited). Christie's business in ISB7 was extensive enough to enable him to turn over £110,000 during that year, and ho appears to have been previously making money quickly till pulled up by the sudden fall in grain and produce in 1885. The securities which he then held for advances to fanners and others were greatly depreciated, and in fact, almost unnegotiable. The Colonial Company, to whom he owed a considerable sum, undertook to carry him on if he would keap the securities afloat, and wait a better time for their realisation. Christie maintains that he did this by applying to this branch of his business the profits derived from the rest. In the course of business he purchased a large quantity of wheat sacks to hold the grain which he was to receive in payment of one of" the liens. Instead of paying in full to the Colonial Company the proceeds of this grain, he used part of it, as he alleged in Court—but did not at the time prove—to pay for the sacks, to the extent of some £'254. Using this money formed the charge on which he was sentenced by Judge Ward, coupled with conduct which the Judge considered reckless generally. Christie had lived at the rate of £1200 a-year, believing that his property would endure. When ho failed he appears to have had only a few hundred pounds worth of free assets. His debt to the company was £32,125, against which they held securities—chiefly liens and promissory notes—which reduced it to £15,715 at

the time of adjudication. The sentence passed upon the bankrupt seemed hard and unjust to the people of Oamaru, and a petition signed by 177 residents was immediately sent to Government asking for his release. Various grounds were stated : He was declared to be an agent and not a trustee for the company, and his ti-ansactions were declared free from the intention to defraud, which alone could render the sentence just. It was also stated that ample proof had become available to show that the sacks in question were really used for the purpose stated by Christie. Other reasons were given, but these are sufficient to show the nature of the case. And here comes the conflict which has given to it so large a public interest: The firm of Hislop and Creagli, of which the Colonial Secretary is senior partner, were solicitors for Christie, and employed Mr. Newton, another solicitor, to act for them. Mr. Newton prepared the petition, and was, it seems, active in obtaining signatures. He then gave it to Mr. Hislop, who happened to be at Oamaru. The Premier in Wellington was acting for Mr. Fergus, tho Minister of Justice, then absent in Melbourne. The petition was sent to the Premier through Mr. Hislop, who thought it his duty to save tirae by sending at once to Judge Ward a copy of the petition and a letter commenting upon it. The letter was unobjectionable so far, but unfortunately went into other matters, and called upon the Judge to give his reasons for refusing an appeal. It further informed the Judge that it had been reported to him (Mr. Hislop) that lie was indebted to the Colonial Company, and that the interest on his debt was in arrear. He had informed the Minister of Justice of this report, and desired to let Judge Ward know what had been done, in order that he might at once make his own explanation to the Minister in Wellington. Round these points a controversy raged. Had Mr. Hislop or any other Minister a right to interfere with a Judge in this manner? Had lie a right to call upon him for reasons 1 And was the letter sent to him either j)roper in tone or suitable in time 1 Mr. Hislop's colleagues supported his action, and Mr. Fergus, the Minister for Justice, took part in the subsequent correspondence in a tone tiiat can only be characterised as rough and rude. Judge Ward's replies are full, and impress the reader with the belief that he acted in full faith thafc justice was being done. They are also calm, and even dignified in tone, offering in this respect a favourable contrast to those of his " superiors" in power and place. We use the term "superiors" advisedly ; for the Premier, in the course of the recent debate, -laid it down as a distinct maxim that all, excepting the Judges of the Supreme Court, were only Civil servants, and amenable to Ministers as much as any other of the Civil servants in the public employ. The doctrine, may be technically correct, but its application becomes serious if it makes justice dependent on a Minister's smiles or frowns. Therein lies the greatest public interest in the matter.

Judge Ward repudiates the right claimed by Ministers. He holds that if he has clone wrong there are proper and regular means of investigating his conduct. He objects to the right of a Minister to interfere with him personally in the performance of his duty. He objects above all to a Minister hearing reports as to his private affairs and making use of them in the way in which they had been used. The Minister rejoins that the Judge should have felt himself debarred from sitting on a case in which those to whom he owed money were concerned. The Judge denies that the debt, which was a mortgage on land twice the value, was of the character alleged. On this point the correspondence Is also lengthy. It is far, let us add, from being polite on the part of the Ministers, and often sarcastic on the part of the Judge. Other matters complicate the question, but the pith of it is in the points we have given. The correspondence, when laid upon the table of the House, naturally created much discussion. The issue was a large one. What are the respective positions of a District Court Judge and a Minister? If the Judge had acted in the manner implied in the Minister's letters, he ought not to continue as a Judge. But it happened that his colleagues thoroughly supported the Minister, and take the responsibility of his action. Hence a censure on one would be a censure on all. Motion was made in both Houses of the Legislature for a committee to enquire into the whole matter. In the Legislative Council it was opposed by the Government, but carried against them by 21 to 13. The Council's committee will therefore sit and enquire into the whole affair. In the House, the Government opposed the request, and finally made it a no-confidence question. The motion for a committee was therefore lost by 40 to 36—a very narrow majority—leaving the affair in a more unsatisfactory position than ever; a position in which ib cannot be allowed to rest.