Judge Ward.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6648, 12 September 1889, Page 2

Judge Ward.

The Australian Press ia taking considerable interest in Judge Ward's case, as will be seen from an article which ■we republish elsewhere. We are dosed by the Ministerial Press with the opinions of the Melbourne Argus. Of that -journal they make their heavy father. It delivers itself oracularly, and delivers itself in great part wrong, as distant oracles almost invariably do. The error consists in representing Mr Hialop sb a disinterested person, compelled by outraged public 'opinion to call a Judge to task for having taken his seat upon a case between parties to one of whom he was indebted. Repetition of the passage in a million newspapers will not make that a correct description of Mr Hislop's position, though it may deceive many — which accounts for the repetition perhaps. The principle is, of course. Bound, th»t no Judge should ever have before him, as suitors, persons to whom he is under obligation. Sir George Grey, who really saved the Ministry by the masterly speech he contributed to the discussion which followed the announcement of Mr Hialop's resignation, | made the most of that perfectly good principle. Judge Ward's contention upon it, in the correspondence, is that he had no option, as a mandamus of the Supreme Court would have compelled him to act. He, moreover, made light of the obligation, aa not within the category of the things affected by the principle. In the latter part of his contention we cannot agree with him. His judgment atOamaru was not in any way affected by the matter. But that is not the point. Hia reply as to the mandamus is a thing the Upper House Committee ought to have pronounced upon. Though there has been no flaw whatever in the administration of juf.tico, ifc is a melancholy faofe that a cardinal principle is left in an unsatisfactory position.