BARRISTERS IN NEW ZEALAND. A "WIGGING" IN COURT.

Colonist, Volume VI, Issue 596, 10 July 1863, Page 3

BARRISTERS IN NEW ZEALAND. A "WIGGING" IN COURT.

: (From the Canterbury Pret».) Some amusement was caused in the Supreme Court on Monday by the appearance of Mr. Slater in. the wig and gown of an English barrister. His Honor took notice of the fact, stating that the Judges of. the Supreme Court had not determined whether gentlemen below the bar in England were to be allowed to wear a costume hitherto confined to those, only who had been called to the bar. He did not wish to settle the question on his own responsibility without the cognizance "of the other judges. Mr. Moorhbuse, on behalf of the members ©f the bar, disclaimed- the wish to appropriate a particular costume. . . The question is one whichHhas, we believe, been frequently agitated in the profession in this colony. . There is, we should fancy, but one conclusion to which all rational men can come. The wig means nothing, and is"not a peculiar symbol of rank. The gown on the other hand is especially so. Just as in the Universities a particular gown indicates to the world that the wearer has taken the degree of Master of Arts, so the barrister's gown signifies that the wearer has taken the degree of " Barrister at Law " at some Inn of Court authorised by law to grant that distinction. Any one wearing such a gown who has not taken that degree proclaims to the lookers on what is not the fact; and as we always like facts and not shams, we think it highly improper, not only that such gown should be worn, but),-even improper that the Supreme Court should allow it to be adopted. The question whether the two branches oi" the profession should be kept distinct is one which will bear good .argument on both sides. In New Zealand they are distinct. Attorneys are not barristers, they are merely allowed to act as such during the time when there is a deficiency of barristers in the colony. There is of course nothing really in a gown. A man is not a better lawyer because he wears a wig. And it is in the power of the Court to allow Counsel to plead before it in white kid tights if he likes, but it would not be right for the Court to allow solicitors to adopt a dress already adopted by men called to the bar in England, because it would tend to destroy a distinction actually existing. The desire to wear a wig at all is peculiar. "We should have thought it more likely that barristers would put their wigs in the fire, than that attorneys would claim the privilege of their discomfort. There is no accounting for tastes.