THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. KINROSS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 385, 28 June 1879, Page 20

THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. KINROSS.

* Mr. Mansford, R.M., sat at 9 a.m. on Saturday, to proceed further in the charge of perjury against Mr. J. G. Kinross. Mr. Rees, who appeared for the prosecution, read the following correspondence : “Wellington, June 18, 1878. “ Sir, —I hare the honor to request that, on behalf of the Legislative Council, you will permit Mr. Stowe, clerk of the Council, and Mr. Bothamley, clerk assistant, to appear and produce the papers and original documents with Council paper No. 97 of 1871, and also permit those gentlemen to be examined before Mr. Mansford in a case now proceeding against Mr. J. G. Kinross, on a charge of perjury. Mr. Kinross was (as appears by the records of the Council) examined upon oath before a select committee of that House upon the subject of the Hawke’s Bay land transactions, and his evidence then given is the subject of the prosecution now beiug carried on against him for perjury. The objects for which this evidence is asked are : to prove that Mr. Kinross was duly sworn, and that he used the words whioh are contained in the minutes of evidenee.

“The Standing Orders of the Council provide that the permission of the Council must be given before its officers can be permitted to produce papers belonging to the Council, or to give evidence of anything that has taken place in committee before them, but the invariable custom in England is, that on the application of the parties to a suit, the Speaker of the House of Commons duriug the recess gives his permission, unless there be something in the case which renders it necessary for the matter to be brought .before the House itself. The present case being one not falling under the restriction, I beg respectfully to request that you will allow the papers to bo produced aud evidence to be given. “ I am compelled to inform the magistrate as soon as possible whether my application to you will be successful or not, and I should be deeply obliged if you would give the earliest attention possible to the matter, consistent with your own convenience. : May’s Parliamentary Practice ’ lays down the procedure as I have above stated. I beg to assure you that my clients will be put to great expense aud inconvenience, and justice will be delayed, unless this evidence, which I can obtain in no other way, is permitted to be produced by you as President of the Legislative Council.—l have, <fcc., (Signed) “ W. L. Rees. “The Hon. the President of the “ Legislative Council.” “Legislative Council, Wellington, “June 19, 1879. “ Sir, —I have the honor to injoriu you that I received your letter dated the 18th instant at half-past four yesterday afternoon, and that I have given it my immediate attention. “ Having carefully looked into the question it is quite clear to my mind that whilst in ordinary cases where the ends of justice might suffer by delay, the Speaker has power during the recess to authorise the production of docu-

ments or the attendance of officers of the House in Law Courts ; at the same time May clearly prescribes the limits within which the Speaker will exercise such discretion. “In all cases involving * any question of privilege, especially the privilege of a witness,’ May lays down the rule for guidance to be that such cases are a subject for the discretion of the House itself, and that the Speaker will decline to grant the required authority. “In the present case the privilege of a witness is concerned, and I am therefore unable to comply with the request contaiued in your letter. “ I have the honor to be, Sir, “ Your obedient servant, “ (Signed) William Fitzherbert, “ Speaker of the Legislative Council.”

That letter strengthened his belief that the Council had no power to interpose its privilege in a case like this. However, he recognised that it was impossible to get the evidence he required, and he should not take up the time of the Court in argument supporting his view that the production of the printed copies of the Journals was sufficient. He might say this on the point as to whether the appendices formed part of the Journals—that he had made every inquiry, and consulted authorities so far as possible, with the result that he found differences of opinion existed. Sir William Fitzherbert, Mr. O’Rorke, the Attor-ney-General, and the Solicitor-General, agreed that the appendices were part of the Journals, while Mr. Stowe, clerk of the Legislative Council, and Major Campbell, clerk of the House of Representatives, held the opposite opinion. He was going to ask leave to withdraw the case, but he should advise the natives to petition both Houses of Parliament on the subject, and would ask the Court that the depositions taken and all documents received in evidence should be impounded by the Court, so that they might be produced at the bar of the House for inspection if necessary. Mr. Travers said the ordinary course was for the summons to be dismissed. He should have no objection for the papers to be left in the custody of the clerk, but he objected to the word “ impounded,” if used in its legal signification, because it implied that prima facia; evidence of an offence had been adduced. Mr. Rees said he had not intended to use tho word iu that sense. He merely wanted all papers left in the custody of the Court. The charge was then formally dismissed.