The Ell Case.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5270, 29 May 1895, Page 4

The Ell Case.

(Ly.teZ.on Times.)

The letter we published from Mr G-. W. Ell a few daya ago, read in the light of recent events, will probably arouse a good deal of additional sympathy for its author. Those who have followed the history pf Mr Ell's straggle to obtain redress for undoubted wrongs must have marvelled equally at his indomitable determination to obtain justice and the apparent impossibility of the task he has set himself. His dealings with the ill-Btarred house of Harper and Co. involved him in a considerable loss — how large we shall not attempt to say — and after wasting the remnant of hia eub--Btance in futile litigation, he is told that he is now exactly where he was before he commenced proceedings, and that he cannot even rank as a creditor in Harper and Co.'s estate unless he first undertakes a long and costly legal process. Surely this is an instance of the divorce that too often exists between law and justice. A man on trial for a crime may, if he has no means, have counsel provided to watch over his interests ; but in a civil matter a person may suffer loss of fortune and be reduced to penury and yet have no help in procuring justice. Mr Ell's grievance has formed the subject of a number of lengthy and careful inquiries, and those who have investigated the matter agree in holding that he has suffered wrong. Three years ago the Public Petitions Committee reported that "serious injustice to Gt. W. Ell has existed for many years," and recommended Parliament and the Government to grant him reasonable assistance to obtain redress. The outcome of this was a Boyal Commission which Bat a year later and recommended that ,£2OO should be awarded to Mr Ell as compensation for the mistakes of certain public officers. This Commission did not, of course, deal with Mr Ell's claim against Harper and Co. : it merely attempted to repair the errors that had delayed- the prosecution of his suit. Mr Ell. refused, we understand, to accept the compensation, deeming it altogether inadequate, and no practical benefit has since come to him a. the result of all bis litigation and agitation. It seems to us that something ought to be done to remove this scandal. We do not suggest for a moment that the Courts are placing unnecessary or unusual obstacles in the way of the litigant ; or that the officers dealing with the case are less anxious than we are to arrive at an equitable settlement; but we believe that the methods of the Court have permitted a grave wrong to be inflicted upon a man who is no longer able to maintain his struggle for justice. If nothing else will suffice, an Act of Parliament should provide means by which this case might be sifted to the bottom.