JUSTICES’ JUSTICE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1453, 12 January 1886, Page 2

JUSTICES’ JUSTICE.

(Fiat justitia mat ccelum.) TO THE EDITOR,

Sir,— ln the case of Hayes v. Campbell, by Dr Campbell’s evidence it is made to appear that I took a mean advantage of him—that I came up behind him and attacked him unawares, I am unwilling to rest under such an imputation, and with your permission, as I know your columns are always open in the interests of fair play, I will make a few comments on the case to show that such imputation is not borne out by the evidence. I shall begin by discussing Campbell’s evidence and will show that it is contradicted in every material respect by all the witnesses for the prosecution, and that my evidence is supported by witnesses ; and, furthermore, that in parts of bis evidence he oven contradicts himself. Dr Campbell begins his evidence by a denial of Smith’s evidence in toto ; he denies having told Smith on the 16th that he intended to “go for” me. He led the Court to believe that he was quite incapable of using such vulgar expressions as “ go for” or “hammer”: yet this mirror of gentlemanly conduct admits that he called me a liar on the street, in the presence and hearing of a lady, without asking for any explanation of a case in dispute. In proof that Smith knew of Campbell’s intention to assault me, Smith, an unbiassed witness, states in evidence : “ I looked out for a row, but was a little too late ; 1 only saw the end of it.” As an incidental matter showing the involved state of Dr Campbell’s mind: Dr Campbell states when he accosted me he had only one gloye on (the left), then he took off his glove, and, stretching out his hand, pushed me away (an assault on bis own admission) ; then, further on, he states he was not clear for action as he had his gloves on. So, according to himself, he had one glove on when he accosted me first; then he took that off, and yet afterwards he .states he had both gloves on. Dr Campbell swears that I oast doubt on his qualifications ; afterwards he admits that it was only hearsay and his own assumption. As to my advancing towards him and touching him with my hand and arm, there is only my evidence against it (which I do not want taken into consideration) and his for it; of course the lady in the dogcart could have proved the contrary if I hod chosen to call her. Dr Campbell then states he went into the Post-office, was facing the counter or delivery window, on which he had put his stick and newspaper; ha was then, of course, in full view of Kussell, whose attention was drawn to him by hearing him calling me a “liar” and “coward,’’and seeing him deposit his hat and stick on the counter. Dr Campbell wants people to believe that although apprehensive of an assault, as he himself f'dmitg ) and although he alleges he heard me come in and ca l him a lunatic while he was facing the counter, yet he remains with his back towards me ! Bussell says l)e lieapd Dr Campbell comin calling out liar" and coward”—“J saw Dr Campbell at tbe same time lay his hat and stick pa the counter; be i

went towards (he door and I lost sight of him for a minute or two. and when I saw him again he had Dr Hayes’s arm round his neck.” This is important. Russell saw him go to the counter, put his stick and hat on it, then go towards me; the partition then obscured his view, and the next he saw was. Dr Campbell with his head in “ chancery.” So it is evident if I had assaulted him in the manner he described, and place ha indicates, Itussell would have seen it, as he had a full view opposite the counter. Had I pushed Campbell while on the steps, as he states,- Hargreaves would have seen it, and he would have fallen away “from” the steps ; but, as it was, he saw him falling “ out of” the door. The “ cross buttock ” took place in the passage, a yard or more from the door, and his head and shoulders were down the steps and his body inside the passage. As I came out and passed him lying on the steps he seized my leg, and tried to throw me, as described by Hargreaves and Pinckney. The fall, Dr Campbell says, was such a one that he could not use his hands at all- (probably the effect of an unbridled temper). Hargreaves and Pinckney swore that he did not appear to be stunned, but got up twice, “ went for” me, and struck me, calling me a “ liar and coward,” while I was standing back several paces from him with my hands down. Dr Campbell says he does not remember rushing at me, as described by Hargreaves and Pinckney. He also forgeta saying, in Pinckney’s hearing, about a quarter-of-an-houc after the assault, that he “ did not care, as he had his satisfaction.” (That is a speech more likely to be made by the aggressor than the assaulted.) Campbell’s memory seems to be singularly treacherous. He says, alluding to the time I had his head in chancery, “If I had chosen, I could have torn his nose off, or gouged out his eyes,” presuming, I suppose, that 1 allowed it. This might be considered the correct thing in Sepoy fighting, but «Uoh practices are not sanctioned in the British ring. As a slight index to Dr Campbell’s state of mental equilibrium, he (although he denied it in Court) stated to several in the hearing of the Rev. Thos. Hamilton, that he had the Divine approbation or sanction for his action. The evidence of his own witness, Story, cannot bo worth much, as he witnessed the affair from his stable window, a considerable distance off, and as 1 was between him and Campbell, unless he had Sam Weller’s million-magnifying glasses, he could not see through me what Campbell was doing. Now a word as to the Justices. My counsel could not get Russell’s evidence out in its entirety, as in the examination-in-chief he could not ask questions, but only tell witness to relate what occurred. It was the duty of the Bench to elicit full particulars. Apropos of what I mean, I will relate a case which occurred a short time since in Temuka. The police brought an action against a man for a criminal offence, but neglected to prove that it took place in a public place. The Bench noticed the omission, but refrained from assisting the prosecuting constable, although he had a skilled lawyer against him. I hold that an R.M. Court is a Court of Equity, and that a Magistrate’s duty is to see fair play done, and not throw out petitions on technical points raised by lawyers. One of the gentlemen who sat on the Bench during the case Hayes v. Campbell said afterwards that it was the “ popular belief” that I was the assaulter. Now, what has a magistrate to do with popular belief ? He is supposed to decide upon the evidence brought forward, uninfluenced by any outside opinion. I apologise for the length of my letter, but no doubt you will give the defendant, Campbell, an equal chance to refute (if he can) anything contained in it.—l am, etc., J. S. Hayes, M.D. Temuka, Jan. 8,1886.