THE WARD-CHAPMAN TELEGRAMS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4155, 15 July 1874, Page 2

THE WARD-CHAPMAN TELEGRAMS.

The followiug correspondence was laid before Parliament yesterday by Mr. Vogel, in response to a motion proposed by Mr. J. L» Gillies, and agreed to by the House of Representatives : Mr. District Judge Waed to the Hon. J. Vogel, Premier. Oamaru, 21st April, 1874. Most urgent.—Great excitement in Dunedin. In the case of Macassey v. Bell, Judge Chapman made this order ex parte on 13 th March last, on an affidavit of Kettle :—"I order that the plaintiff or his solicitor, prior to the trial, be allowed to inspect and take copies of all original telegrams relating to the subject matter of this action." No grounds shown except advantage to plaintiff ; thus every telegram between defendant and his solicitor, counsel, witnesses, agents, has been ordered to be produced to plaintiff—partner of the son of the Judge. During the past few weeks, without the knowledge of defendant, and without giving him chance to object—order only recently discovered by defendant—rule to rescind moved. Turton, defendant's solicitor, absent when order granted; believed that no telegrams shown ; but it is felt that Bell ha 3 no chance of fair trial before Chapman. It is suggested in interests of justice that you sefc "" down Johnston to try case on ground of gross pai-tiality of Chapman now exposed, and suspend Chapman until Assembly meets to take action. My telegrams to my solicitor, Turton, were demanded by plaintiff ; Deputy-Registrar of Court at Dunedin could telegraph to you Kettle's affidavit and order. Both show day of trial sth May.: It was decided by Mr., Justice Grove that telegrams should not be produced, but treated as mailed letters, on 20th. January last. Report in Daily Notes re Taunton Election Petition. C. D. R. Wabd, District Judge. The Hon. J. Vogel to Mr. District Judge Waed. Wellington, 22nd April, 187'!. Am I to consider your telegram relating to Judge Chapman as addressed to me in my official capacity ? If not, I must request you to withdraw it. The imputation is one of the most serious nature, and such as I cannot receive except officially. If you withdraw the telegram, I beg that it may be simply withdrawn, and that no communication be made on the subject otherwise than to me officially. If I am imformed by you that the telegram already received is addressed to me officially, the Government will submit it to the Governor, and take into consideration what advice they will give as to the action to be taken in reference thereto. Julios Vogel. Mr. District Judge Waed to the Hon. J. Vogel, Premier. . Oamaru, 22nd April, 1574. My telegram was marked official and intended to be so. I do not make private accusations. Of course, I knew you could not suspend Judge Chapman without reference to Governor. Statement of facts strictly correct.. Kettle's affidavit is merely that he has served Lubecki, Dunedin telegraphist, with subpiena to produce certain telegrams ; that he, Kettle, has asked to see them, and Lubecki said he would not show them without Judge's order ; that inspecting them would be of material advantage to plaintiff on this affidavit. Chapman on same day makes general order, quoted in last telegram. Macassey is partner of Chapman's son 7 and on most intimate terms with Judge, who is godfather to one of his children. C. D. R. Waed, District Judge. Oamaru, 22nd April 1574. I thank you most sincerely for giving me opportunity of withdrawing my first telegram. No doubt it bears marks of haste—case was urgent—but in all my correspondence with you, either private or official, I do not remember ever bringing a charge against a Government official, and I certainly should not do so without expecting an immediate inquiry. I omitted three matters in last /telegram. Eirst, Kettle'saffidavitspecifiedmy telegrams to Turton (my solicitor), as among those plaintiff wished toins2?ect. I mention this to. show that I am not a volunteer but a party aggrieved. Second, some weeks previous to Kettle's application, defendant Bell filed affidavits stating that within his knowledge I had nothing to do either with action or article. Third, Mr. James Smith, defendant's lending counsel, informed me that it was arranged that Chapman, plaintiff's partner and Judge's son, was to hokl brief at trial. CD. R. Waed, District Judge. Timaru, 24th April, 1574. Official.—l have re-perused your telegram. I have no copy of my own which was written in Telegraph Office. There can have been no want of courtesy to yourself in mine. But if there was any informality or any appearance of presumption on my part in suggesting a course of action to the Government, I beg to tender my apologies. With this exception, to e very word I have written I hold. I ought further to say that my telegraphing to you was without any concert with Mr. 801 l or his legal advisers in Dunedin, who were wholly ignorant of my intention to do so. I felt that to ask them to go on would place them in even a worse position than at present at the trial, if Judge Chapman presided at it. In justice, therefore, I am wholly responsible for this application to you. If you desire it I will forward despatch with detailed statement. C. D. R. Waed, District Judge. The Hon. J. Vogel to Mr. District Judge Ward. ? Wellington, 25th April, 1574. I have to acknowledge your various telegrams relating to Judge Chapman. I may explain to you that on the order to which you refer being brought. under the notice of the Telegraph Department, it was considered so objectionable as to make the Telegraph Commissioner decide that it should not be obeyed •unless it was made a rule of Court. This was decided before your telegrams, and you will bo good enough to understand that the action taken by the department, and which may be taken, is not consequent on your communications. I'may, however, inform you that besides the order of which you are aware, an officer of the Telegraph Department has been subpoenaed to produce the same telegrams in Court. The department is applying for leave

to argue against their production. Respecting your complaints against the Judge, I have to inform you that Ministers, though disapproving of the order, see no reason, supposing their view of its objectionable nature is correct, to consider that its issue was other than an error of judgment. They see no ground for connecting it with the domestic circumstances to which you refer, whilst they are of opinion that unless judges are to be condemned to lives of celibacy they will be liable to have offspring, and that these, when they arrive at years of discretion, should be as free to choose and. pursue their avocations as other members of the community. Ministers will not advise His Excellency to take any action in the matter. A copy of the correspondence will be forwarded to Judge Chapman for his information. Julius Vociel. Mr. District Judge Ward to the Hon. Julius Vogel. Timaru, 27th April, 1574. I regret to see from your second telegram that I have failed to place Ministers in full possession of facts of case. I knew of the subpoena long since, and should, never have troubled you about that, saving as foundation for order complained of. It is not of the slightest import.ince, first, because according to law and English precedent Judge Chapman had no authority to compel production of these telegrams. Secondly, because the fact that I have had no communication with defendant, as he states in filed affidavit would prevent my telegrams to others from being put in evidence. Thirdly, because, as I am advised,, every existing telegram specified in this subpoena is between counsel or solicitors and clients, and as such held private and privileged from production or inspection in every English court of justice. Every lawyer knows that these telegrams cannot beproduced at the trial. The ex parte order for their private inspection by plaintiff was therefore grievously unjust. The domestic circumstances you allude to I mentioned to show the close connectionbetweenthe judge who made the order anol the suitor who obtained it. I should be the last person in New Zealanol to advocate the condemnation of judges to celibacy. "When fuller facts come to your knowledge by newspaper, I am assured that no errors or informalities of mine in this correspondence-will prevent you from giving them the grave consideration which they deserve. This telegram is paid, but it is of course official. C. D. R. Ward, District Judge. Timaru, 25th May, 1574. Otar/o Daily Times published on Friday telegrams asserted to be mine to you. They are grossly inaccurate. Will you kindly forward copies of mine to me by wire. C. D. R. Ward, District Judge. Mr. E. Fox to Mr. District Judge Ward. Wellington, 26th May, 1874. I have been directed by Mr. Vogel to forward you copies of your telegrams to him, which are appended. E. Fox. The Hon. J. Vogel to His Honor Judg-e Chapman. ' Wellington, 28th April, 1874. "* I forward for your information copies of telegrams which have passed between me and District Judge Ward. Julius Vogel. Messages Appended.—2l-4-74. —C. D. R. Ward to Hon. J. Vogel. 22-4-74.—Hon. J. Vogel to C. D. R. Ward. 22-4-74..—C. D. R. Ward to Hon. J. Vogel. 24-4-74. —C. D. R. Ward to . Hon. J. Vogel. 25-4-74.—Hon. J. Vogel to C. D. R. Ward. His Honor Judge Chapman to the Hon. J. Vogel. Dunedin, 27th April, 1<574. Telegram received. I return you my thanks for your courtesy in communicating the same. H. S. Chapman. Mt. District Judge Ward to the Hon. J. Vogel. District Court Office, Timaru, 25th June, 1874. Sir, —I have the honor to return my thanks for the copies of ray telegrams to you touching Mr. Justice Chapman and the illegal order for production of telegrams. It is said that a motion will be made in the Assembly for their production next session. If you propose to produce copies to the House, may I suggest that the copies should be taken from the originals in my handwriting, as there are numerous slight clerical errors in the telegrams forwarded to me.—l have, &c, • C. D. R. Ward. The Hon. J. Vogel, C.M.G., Premier, &c. Mr. District Judge Ward to the Hon. J. Vogel, Premier. Timaru, 11th July, 1874. Official.—Press telegrams state you informed the House that my telegrams touching Judge Chapman closely resembled forgeries of Daily Times. Southern Mercury states Messrs. Reynolds and Richardson said the same at Dunedin. Pray kindly compare real telegrams with forgeries; you will find them grossly dissimilar. Authoritative statements that they are nearly alike seriously prejtidice me, as my telegrams are not printed, while forgeries of Times, are industriously circulated. C. D. R. Ward, District Judge. The Hon. J. Vogel to Mr. District Judge Ward. Wellington, 13th July, 1874. _ Copies of original telegrams are to be laid on table of each House. Julius Vogel.