JUDGE WARD AND JUDGE CHAPMAN.

Southland Times, Issue 1948, 17 July 1874, Page 3

JUDGE WARD AND JUDGE CHAPMAN.

THE COKBESPOJTDENCE. We are indebted to the Guardian for the following : — Wellington, July 14. Return to an order of the Legislative Council, dated the 9th July (No. 1), 1874, that copies of all correspondence and telegrams which have passed between the Government and Judge Ward in reference to His Honor Mr Justice Chaprnnn he laid on the table, on the motion of the Hon. Mr Waterhouse. — " Mr District Judge Ward to the Hon. J Voyel, Premier. — Oamaru, April 21, 1874. — Most urgent. Great excitement in Dunedin in the caae of Macassey and Bell. Judge Chapman made this order ex parte en the 13fh March last on the affidavit of Mr Kettle : ' I order that the plaintiff, or his solietor, prior to the trial be allowed to inspect and take copies of all original telegrams of this action, original telegrams relating to the subject matter of this action.' No grounds were shown except an advantage to the plaintiff; thus every telegram between the defendant and his solicitor, counsel, witnesses, and agents, has been ordered' to be produced to plaintiff, partner of the son of the Judge, during the past five weeks, without the knowledge of the defendant, and without giving him a chance to object. The order was only recently discovered by the defendant A rule to rescind was moved by MrTurton. Defendant's solicitor was absent when the order was granted. It is believed that no telegrams have been shown, but it is felt that Mr Bell has no chance of a fair trial before Judge Chapman. It is suggested, in the interest of justice, that you send down Judge Johiißton to try the case, on the ground of gross partiality of Judge Chapman, now exposed, and suspend Chapman until the Assembly meets to take action. My telegrams to my solicitor, Turton, were demanded by plaintiff. The DeputyRegistrar of the Court at Dunedin could telegraph, to you Kettle's affidavit and order; both show the day of trial, May 5. It was decided by Mr Justice Grove that telegrams should not be produced, but treated as mailed letters. On the 20th. of January last a report appeared in the Daily News re Taunton election petition: — C. D. R. Waed, District Judge."— " The Hon. J. Yogel, to Mr District Judge Ward, Wellington. — April 22, 1874. — Am I to consider your telegram relating to Judge Chap- ' man as addressed to me in my official capacity? : If not, I must request". you to withdraw it. The imputation is one ft :i of the most serious nature, and suchi as I e^Bnoi receive except officially. It! you '.the telegram, 1 beg that it. may . Jjesunply withdrawn, and that no com- '/.;" be made on the subject otherwise than to me officially. \ am informed { by joUf officially that the |tele-

gram already received i 8 addressed to me officially. The Government will submit it to the Governor, t nnd take into consideration what p fclvice they will give him as to the action to betaken in reference thereto. — Julius Yogel." — "Mr District Judge ! Ward to the lion Mr Yogel, Premier.— d ' Oamaru, 22nd April, 1874 —My telegram , was marked ' official,' and intended to be so. I do not make private accusations. Of course I knew you could not suspend j Judge Chapman without reference to the * Governor. The statement of facts is strictly correct. Kettle's affidavit is ' merely that he has served Lubecki, the ' Dunedin telegraphist, with a subpoena to " produce certain telegrams, that he { (Kettle) has asked to see them, and Lubecki said he would not show them without a judge's order ; that inspecting j them would bo of material advantage to I plaintiff. On this affidavit, Chapman on , the same day makes a general order quoted in last telegram. Macassey is a [ partner of Chapman's son, and on most j intimate terms with the Judge, who is [ godfather to one of his children.— C. D. R. Wabd, D. J." " 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 ; the ease 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 the last telegram : 1. That Kettle's affidavit specified my telegrams to Turton (my solicitor) as amonj those plaintiff wished to inspect. I mention this to show that I am not a volunteer, but a party aggrieved. 2. Some weeks previous to Kettle's application, the defendant, Bell, filed an affidavit stating that, within his knowledge, I had nothing to do either with the action or the article. 3. Mr James Smith, the defendant's leading counsel, informed me that it was arranged that Chapman, plaintiff's partner and the Judge's son, was to bold a brief at the trial. — C. D. E. Wabd, D.J." — " Oamaru, April 24, 1874.— [Official.]— I have re-perused your telegram I have no copy of my own, which was written in the 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 every word I have written I hold. I ought further to say that my telegraphing to you was without any consent of Mr Bell or his legal advisers in Dunedin, who were wholly ignorant of my intention to do so. I felt that to ask them to join would place them in even a worse position than at present at the trial if Judge Chapman presided at it. Injustice, therefore, I am wholly responsible for this application to you. If you desire it I will forward a despatch with detailed statements.— C. D. E. Wabd, D.J."— -"The Hon. J. Yogel to Mr District Judge Ward. — Wellington, 25th April, 1874.— 1 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 consi dered 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 be good enough to understand that the action taken by the Department, and which may be taken, is not consequent on your communications. I ttiay, however, inform you that, besides the order of which you are aware, an officer in the Telegraph Department has been subpoeuaed to produce the same telegrams in Court ; the Department is applying for leave to argue against their production. Eespecting 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 grounds for connecting it with the domestic circumstances to which you refer, whilst they are of opinion that, unless the Judgea are to be condemned to lives of celibacy, they will be liable to have offspring, and that these, when ther 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 tor his information. — Julius Yogel." — " Mr District Judge Ward to the Hon. J. Vogel— Timaru, April 27, 1874.— 1 regret to see, from your second telegram, that I have failed to place Ministers in full possession of the facta of the case. I knew of the subpoena long since, aud should never have troubled you about that. As for the foundation for the order complained of, it is not of slightest importance. First, because, according to law and English precedent, Judge Chapman has no authority to compel the production of these telegrams. Secondly, because the fact that I have had no communication with the defendants, as shown in the filed affidavit, would prevent any telegrams to others from being put in evidence. Thirdly, because, as lam advised, every existing telegram specified in this subpoßna is between counsel or solicitor 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 be produced at the i rial. The ex-parte order for their private inspection by plaintiff was therefore grievously unjust. The domestic circumstances you allude.to I mentioned to show tho close connection between, the Judge who made the order, andj the suitor who obtained it. I should be the last person in New Zealand to advocate the. condemnation of Judges to celibacy.

"When fuller facts come to your knowledge by the newspapers, I am assured that no "error 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. K. Wakd, P.J"