The Unpaid Magistrate.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XX, Issue 6298, 4 July 1895, Page 1

The Unpaid Magistrate.

Some of the J.P.'s who occupy seats on the Port Melbourne Bench recently gave occasion to the Solicitor-General to administer a smart admonition to them. It appears that some two or three weeks ago a man named Yorke was brought up charged with severely injuring another man by throwing a brick at him. There were three Justices on the Bench, one of them, Mr Close, being the employer of the accused, and the plaintff's lawyer naturally objected to the latter sitting" in judgment on a case in which he had a certain amount of interest. Mr Close, however, declined to leave the Bench, asserting that he was >.ot going to take part in the hearing of the case. This declaration, however, did not prevent him, later on, leaving the Bench to give evidence in accused's favor, and then returning to his seat. He took no part in the decision of the Court, which was that Forke should pay a fine of LlO or suffer three months' imprisonment, but he successfully exerted his influence to have the sentence mitigated. He told his brother Magistrates, Messrs Francis and Quinn, that the man's circumstances would not permit of him paying LlO, that if the fine was lowered to L 5 he would probably be able to:pay it, and if he could not he (Mr Close) would find the money himself. The two Magistrates were so moved by Mr Close's argument that they reduced the fine to L 5, with the alternative of six weeks' imprisonment. This interference with the course of justice was brought under the notice of the Crown Law Department, who requested Mr Close and his brother Magistrates to eive an explanation of their conduct. The explanation furnished, as might have been expected, cannot have been regarded a satisfactory, for the Solicitor-General wrote to Messrs Francis and Qufnn, expressing "his surprise and regret" that they should have allowed themselves to be influenced by a gentleman who should not have meddled in the matter at all. To Mr Close he stated that he viewed his conduct with grave reprobation, pointed out that he had no right either to have remained on the Bench or to have interfered with the sentence, and hoped that he would riot repeat such conduct. Mr Close apparently resented the tone of this letter, for he did not attend the Court on the next occasion when his turn came, and the business of the Court was considerably delayed in consequence.