The Waipawa Mail WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1878

Waipawa Mail, Volume I, Issue 12, 23 October 1878, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1878

Mn Barton’, one of the members for Wellington city, has made some very grave charges in his place in Parliament against two of the Judges of the Supreme Court. Were the charges made in any other place they might not be deemed worthy of notice. We have not the slightest sympathy with Mr Barton. The month’s imprisonment for contempt of Court inflicted upon him by the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Richmond appeared to those unacquainted with the circumstances of the case, out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. However, there are few who were witnesses to Mr Barton’s repeated acts of misbehaviour who do not beileve that he richly deserved the punishment awarded him. Every time he appeared in Court there was a “ scene.” He not only quarrelled with the Judges on the Bench, but with almost every one of his brother practitioners. The fact of the matter is that Mr Barton is a man with a very extensive grievance. Before he came to this colony he was in practice in Melbourne, and he alleges that a corrupt Bench hunted him out of Victoria. The whole judicial world is in a conspiracy against Georoe Elliott Barton, if he himself is to be believed. It is to be regretted that Mr Barton was ever sent to Parliament to air his grievances. There is an ignorant and suspicious class in all communities who are ever ready to believe the worst of those in authority, and this class largely sympathises with Mr Barton in his charges.’ How much his imprisonment h;nl to do with his j

return to Parliament it is hard to say. We are of opinion that the majority of those who voted for-him had no intention of easting a reflection upon the conduct of the Judges of the Supreme Court. It should not be overlooked that Mr Barton was the working man’s candidate in a time of great political excitement; when Sir George Grey had addressed large audiences in every great centre of population in the colony. The opposition candidate declared himself adverse to a property and income tax at a period when such a tax was the watchword of the democracy of Wellington. Hundreds voted for Mr Barton who strongly' condemned his conduct towards the Judges. It has been remarked by more than one speaker in Parliament that the people of Wellington returned Mr Barton to Parliament, as that was the only way by T which he could obtaiu redress. This is, however, ail erroneous impression. There were many causes at work to secure his election, not the least of which was the block vote of a section of the community who are dissatisfied with the present Education Act. It is not to be inferred that Mr Barton speaks with the weight of an important constituency at his back. We believe that the majority of those who voted for him now heartily regret his return. Mow that Mr Barton lias made the most specific charges in Parliament against the Judges, the matter cannot be allowed to rest. In the interest of justice an enquiry must be held. Mr Barton thus delivered himself in the House of Representatives on Friday last :—“ I charge these Judges (and 1 here repeat my charge, and declare that 1 have ample proofs of it) with corruptly favoring my opponents, and with refusing and delaying justice .to clients in my hands. I charge that they have acted as counsel against me ; have worked earnestly to defeat the right whenever my client was the possessor of that right. I charge the Chief Justice with falsification by placing on record, under the seal of the Court, the statement that 1 had consented to an order which the Chief Justice admits he could not have made w ithout my consent, to which I never consented, and which was the forerunner of the ruin and bankruptcy of my client. I charge Mr Justice Richmond w ith violating the truth from the Bench to sustain an order against my' client, which, but for that statement could not have been sustained. 1 charge the Court with tying up the ease of another of niy clients until his opponents should get the benefit of a statute of limitations. I charge the Court with ticlaying the case of another client who had got a verdict in his favor, until his opponents had issued a writ in a cross action for matter decided by that verdict, and until he had got a judgment against my client and made him a bankrupt. I charge Judge Richmond with misdirecting a jury so as to defeat t he manifest right, and 1 further charge that when he found upon that jury a person, who was really, though not ostensibly a codefendant, sat to decide his own case, he (the judge), contrary to the clearest principles of English ‘ law , ref used to set aside the verdict, though that verdict was based on a quibble directed by himself, and in clear violation of the equity of the case. I declare myself able to prove all these charges and many more, and I have in this address charged IVIr Justice Richmond with writing a 1 otter' at variance with the truth from the beginning to the end of it, and I ask—is it for the public good that such charges should remain uninvestigated ? ” Such serious charges have never been levelled at the Courts of Justice for this colony. Either Mr Bartonls a slanderer or the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Richmond are unfitted for a moment to occupy their present high and honorable positions.