THE WARD-HISLOP CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 914, 6 September 1889, Page 12

THE WARD-HISLOP CORRESPONDENCE.

MR HISLOP CENSURED. The Ward-Christie Committee of the Legislative Council reported on Sept. 3 as follows:—“ The Committee to whom it was referred to inquire into and report upon the circumstances that had occasioned the correspondence between Ministers and Mr District Judge Ward have the honour to report that—(l) Your Committee, having made careful inquiry and taken evidence, report that evidence and proceedings to the Council. (2) This Committee is of opinion that the correspondence of the FI on. Mr Hislop with Mr District Judge Ward merits the gravest disapproval.”. The evidence, which has not yet been circulated, forms a very bulky paper. Judge Wardattended, and gave evidence on the 19th August. The Chairman (Mr Wilson) at once stated that the Committee considered they had nothing to do with the judgment or judicial proceedings of the Court, but would confine themselves to the personal charges made against Judge Ward —namely, that in Christie’s. case and Meikle’s case the Judge acted under pressure and with prejudice. Mr Ward replied, “I had not the faintest prejudice in the matter.” He explained that he went to Invercargill to take Meikle’s case in 1887 on account of Mr Justice Williams being detained in the North. He had no idea he should have any creditor to deal with in the proceedings, either as prosecutor or otherwise. The fact of a creditor of a Judge appearing in Court did not in his opinion disqualify the Judge from sitting. As to the Dunedin case, the Queen v. McLean, he simply sat as a dissenting Judge when the appeal was heard, and his action had no effect on the case at all. He was indebted to McLean in a sum secured by mortgage. Meikle’s case, he said, was a very bad one. One Templeton was brought forward to prove that the princi-

pal. witness for the pibsecutidn was at a different place tliaii He stated, bdt the next day Templeton got upi and recanted everything. In Christie’s case “no appeal was possible. An appeal is to be made according to certain rules. No such rules had ever been made. In the next place I need not state it is no part of the duty of the Judge either to grant or refuse facilities for appeal. An appeal must, be made in accordance with rules framed for the purpose. I had no power to frame rules.” In answer to further questions, lie said a District Court Judge was renibVable iri ease df niiscoridiict, but not. responsible in the discharge of liis duties except, of course, to the Appeal Court. He considered he was perfectly ■ right in committing Christie to Dunedin. An application was made to have Christie admitted to bail pending appeal, but ho (the Judge) had no power to give bail after conviction. Speaking: from hearsay, he was informed that Christie, when in gaol, “was never put to work) was never , dressed in the prisori clothes, aiid ilad liis rileals ffotii aii hotel over the way. This was after his conviction, and he was supposed to be under sentence of hard labour.” Supposing the District Court J udge had sat when he should not have done so, the matter would have been brought before the Supreme Court, and steps taken to set aside the decision. The Minister of Justice had nothing to do with that. If he had been a shareholder in a company interested he would have refused to sit, as he did in an action brought by the National Mortgage Company some time ago. The warrant of commitment was drawn by Mr Downie Stewart. He (the Judge) admitted that he was entitled to a share of the blame for not seeing the mistake in it. In answer to a further question he said a responsible Minister had nothing to do with the Judge’s judgments unless he could prove misconduct, and then the misconduct must be of a very extraorclinarydescription. To thebest of his belief it was the Resident Magistrate at Oamaru who informed him how Christie was being treated in gaol. Mr Reynolds, M.L.C., was examined, and said that Judge Ward’s Hokonui Estate, upon which the Colonial Investment and Agency Company had advanced money, contained 512 acres. He would not hesitate to advance LICOO upon it, and possibly a little more. In answer to Mr Oliver, he said the land was not infested with rabbits when he saw it last. William Gabriel Filleul, clerk of the District Court at Oamaru, was examined on the 23rd. He gave evidence as to telegraphing to Judge Ward about the mistake in the warrant, and receiving instructions first to alter the name of the month and then to issue a duplicate order with the right date. He also got a telegram from the Judge—- “ Ask Inspector of Police if there is a “prison” at Timaru; if not, insert “Dunedin.” As the order had. been sent away he was not able to do anything. On the 18th April he met Mr Hislop in the street, and Mr Hislop asked to see the last-mentioned telegram about the alteration of the prison. He showed it to him, and Mr Hislop “ said something to me to the effect that if I altered these orders in that way I would get into trouble. I replied that I could hardly get into trouble by obeying my superior officer. He then said, ‘ Oh, but there is some one here now above your superior officer.’ I took that to be a reference to himself as one of the Ministry. I replied, ‘ I do not dispute your authority in the least, but I have never had any instructions from you.’ He then said, ‘ I will give yjn some instructions,’ and wrote on the back of the telegram, ‘ Mr Filleul telegraph to Mr Ward stating that his telegram has been submitted to me, and that I have instructed you to do nothing pending instructions from Wellington.’ I told Mr Hislop that it was not much use my telegraphing to the Judge, as I had already told him I could do nothing ; but if there were any further communications from the Judge I would comply with his instructions. That was all that passed. I did not do anything. I did not communicate any further with the Judge on the subject.” In answer to Mr Stevens, the witness said Mr Hislop’s reason for doing this was that the warrant ought not to have been altered after the Judge left the Bench. He considered that, as Mr Hislop was a Minister, he ought to carry his instructions out. He inferred that as much for his protection as for anything else, as the matter was to be referred to headquarters. He saw Christie in gaol, and observed that be did not seem to be treated like an ordinary prisoner, and wore his ordinary clothes. He saw Mr Hislop in Court while the case was going on, but did not see him interfere in any way. * Mr Larnach deposed that Judge Ward’s Hokonui property was ample security for LBSO. J. S. McDonald, the police gaoler at Oamaru, stated that as Christie was ill when he was brought to the gaol, he. was kept in a warm room, in pursuance of the instructions of Dr Niven. He was employed in writing up the Police Index book, Mr Sumpter, the visiting" Justice, having made an order to that effect. There were no clothes in the prison big enough for Christie. He had Christie examined by two doctors and took every precaution, because he feared that he would commit suicide. The food given to him was the same as that supplied to ordinary prisoners, and he had no liquor. Mr Hislop was examined on the 26 th of August. He gave an

entirely different account of what took place between himself and Filleul. When Filleul told him of the Judge’s instructions, he said “ well, that is rather a serious matter. What do you intend to do?” Filleul said he supposed he would have to obey the Judge’s order. Mr Hislop said “ That would not protect you. The Judge has no power to do such a thing.” He pointed out a 1 so that the Judge could not act when he was outside his own district. Filleul explained that he could, and showed him an amendment of the Act legalising it. After further conversation Filleul said he would obey if Mr Hislop told him not to alter the warrant, or not to do anything further in the matter. Mr Hislop said he would not do that, but would telegraph to the Minister of Justice to get the SolicitorGeneral’s opinion. In order that Filleul might not get into trouble he endorsed the document, as had been stated. He made the endorsement because he did not want the clerk to get into trouble ; Mr Filleul looked so extremely uncomfortable over the whole thing. Lieutenant-Colonel Hume, Inspector of Prisons, was examined as to the correspondence relating to the “ prison ” at Oamaru. Judge Ward * placed a long statement before the Committee, and Mr Hislop obtained permission to make a statement also. He complains in his statement that he was debarred from going into the validity of the judgments and the precedents which had been established justifying the Executive in taking action. —(1) To review the decision in certain cases brought before it ; (2) in making inquiries from a judicial officer in regard to a matter decided by him ; (3) in calling upon a judicial officer to explain his conduct or his relation to suitors. There were three parties involved in the inquiry, namely, the Judge, Mr Christie and the Government. The Judge and the witnesses suggested by him had been called. Mr Christie had been afforded no opportunity of being called, and he (Mr Hislop) had only been allowed to answer statements made by others. Unless these other matters were gone into the inquiry could not be exhaustive.