THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. KINROSS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5688, 23 June 1879, Page 3

THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. KINROSS.

Mr. Mansford, R.M., sat at 9 a.tn. oa 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 i 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 being 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 ho used, the words which are.- contained in the minutes of evidence.

“ The Standing Orders of the Council provide that the permission of the Council must bo given before its officers can be permitted to produce papers belonging to the Ooundil, 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 during 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 to request that you will allow the papers to be produced and 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 X 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 and inconvenience, and justice will be delayed, unless this evidence, winch I‘can obtain in no other way,; is permitted to be produced by you as President of the Legislative Council.—l have, Ac., - (Signed) “W. L. Rees. “The Hon. the President of the ' ' “ Legislative Council.”

“ Legislative Council, Wellington, . , “ Sir,—l have the honor to injorm 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 documents 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 contained in your letter'. . ■ ■ “ I have the honor to be, Sir, -1 r “ Your obedient servant, “ (Signed) Wiw-um Fitzherbert, “Speaker .of . the Legislative “ Council.”

That letter strengthened his belief that the Council had ho power to interpose its privilege in a case like this. However, he recognised

that it was impossible to get the evidence he i required, and he should not take up the time of the Court in argument supporting his i view that the production of the printed copies j of the .Journals was sufficient. He mvdir ,-i.v

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 os possible, with' the result that he found differences of opinion existed. .Sir William Fitzherbert, Mr. O'Rorke, the Attor-ney-General, and tho 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, hut he should advise the natives to petition both i foil-as 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, hut he objected to the word “ impounded,” if used in its legal signification, because it implied that prima facue evidence of an offence had been adduced. Mr. Rees said he had not intended to use tho word in that sense. He merely wanted all papers left in the custody of the Court. The charge was then formally dismissed.