MACKAY v. ORAM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 8398, 23 January 1889, Page 3

MACKAY v. ORAM.

TO TIIK KMTOU. Sin,—l sec that an account of what took place ou Friday last in the Supremo Court here iv the case of filackuy v. Ocam has been telegraphed to your city, and appears in your issue of Saturday last. Iv justice !o iuy.s<?lf 1 would ask you to insett the following correct accouut of the scene, which you will him; \n>U< a dill'urent aspect on the whole inaUei : —In the first, place, Mr Seager, the witness ii.-ferred 10, had not previonsly intimated his iuti ution to clinru erp jnses in cjiuu court. I was therefore taken by surprise, -111(1 fit 12.30 I asked tho juc'lg^ to take the usual adjournment fur luuc'u lo enable my client to settle with Mr Keiger, wliosu.dO.euly churned, as an expert, £5 5-;, a sum most people ilo nut carry in their pocket.-. It was on his Honor's most peremptorily refusing this reijuest that 1 complained of w.uitr.i' courtesy. His Honorthen said that frons what hud come before the couri. in another ease h<? did not consider I was entitled to [there is evidently an omission here, but «'c print the letter as received] and submitted thai,

the judge had no right to make the remark or allow it to influence the case iv hand. The judge asserted that he had, and on my again protesting ordered me to sit down. I sat down,, and then rose and said: " Your Honor, after what has occurred, I decline to appear before you any further in this case." I ttaeu sat down aud waited. After a pause Mr Bowman, my junior counsel, was appealed to. I did not throw down my brief and leave the court immediately, nor in any way lose my temper. What I paid was said deliberately and without passion, believing that F had just cause to take thy course I did. Moreover, the judge did not refer to a disgraceful case in which my name had appeared, nor make use of any .such expression ; and, indeed, he had no reason to do so. I did not know exactly what he had in his mind. I resented the remark on tho principle of fairness to the plaintiff in the case then before the court.

In conclusion, allow me to say that the scene on Friday was only a climax to what had taken place on four previous days.—l am, &c, Christchurch, January 21. H. S. Austin.

been DISSOLVED,