Wanganui Herald. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1886. THE SHAW PROSECUTION.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XX, Issue 5816, 12 January 1886, Page 2

Wanganui Herald. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1886. THE SHAW PROSECUTION.

The charge against Mr Edward Shaw, barrister and solicitor, Wellington, of having wrongly misappropriated certain moneys entrusted to him by a client for a specific purpose was, after a lot of evidence, dismissed by Mr Wai-dell, R.M. The facts as disclosed by the evidence were that Alexander McMinn, journalist, of Palmerston North, had sent Mr Shaw, who defended him in the libel action Russell v. McKelvie and Mc^linn, a cheque for £83 2s 2d to pay Izard and Bell's taxed costs in that action which went against the defendants. McMinn also sent a promissory note for £12 10s in payment of the balance due to Mr Shaw for his services. The latter acknowledged the receipt of the promissory note early in January, 1885, but said nothing of the cheque, although McMinn in sending the cheque for Tzard and Ball's costs requested Mr Shaw to send, him that firm's receipt for the money. Nearly twelve months afterwards McMinn was astonished to receive a demand from Izard and Bell for payment of £82 2s 2d, coats due to them. After some further communication with that firm McMinn deposed that he went to Wellington and settled the account, receiving a receipt from Izard and Bell on the 11th of December last. He then laid an information against Mr Shaw for misappropriating the £82 2s 2d entrusted to him twejve months before to pay Izard and Bell's bill. On Tuesday last, after the case had been adjourned more than once, McMinn received a telegram from Mr Shaw that he had Izard and Bell's receipt for the full amount, and asking him (McMinn) to withdraw the charge. McMinn, under cross-examination, said he had not done so, as he was under the belief that he could not do so without compromising himself. Mr Izard deposed that the sum entrusted to Mr Shaw by McMinn had been paid to his firm by some person unknown a few days ago, since the prosecution had been commenced. Mr Wardel) dismissed the information on the grounds that McMinn's letter covering the cheque was not produced, and that he 'did not consider words repeated from memory were sufficient to base a criminal charge upon, and that he did not consider the evidence adduced sufficient to support the charge of wrongful conversion. There was, to his mind, no misappropriation. The money was handed over for the purpose of paying a bill. That bill had been paid, although not at the time the information was laid. He, therefore, dismissed the information. There are several funny features in the ca3e ; first, Izard and Bell demand payment of their account from McMinn twelve months after ho sent the cheque to Shaw to pay them, and he had to settle with them, and then laid an information against Mr Shaw. How came fzaard and Bell to settle with McMinn, and then receive" the money from Shaw or his representative after the prosecution commenced, If they settled with McMinn they had no claim on Shaw for the money entrusted .to hihi by McMinn so long before. The R,M., in refusing to take a verbal statement as to the contents of a letter which could not or would not -be produced, went beyond what usually obtainn in such onsen.

Where letters are lost and not producible, tho writer or the receiver are allowed to give evidence of what they believe from memory to have been the purport of such letters. Such evidence is admitted every clay by the Judges o* 1 the Supremo Court ; but the H.M. at Wellington would have none of it, and rated the writer for not keeping a copy of the document? It would be wise to keep copies of all such letters, no doubt, but it would be wiser to keep clear of the necessity of doing so. In dismissing the case, Mr Wardell took too much upon himself, and really tried it, instead of simply contenting himself with seeing whether there was sufficient jyrima facie evidence to warrant him in sending the case for trial. Had the charge been against some friendless person, its 'whole aspect would have been changed ; there would not have been a mysterious first hearing during which nob a person in the Court knew what all the whispering going on in front of the Bench was about, nor would so many adjournments have been so eagerly granted. We express no opinion as to whether the charge was well founded or not. But we do say the whole action of the R.M. during the different hearings it underwent, was anything but edifying or calculated to raise him in public opinion as an unbiased Magistrate. He displayed from the first, judging ly the imports in the Wellington papers, a most extraordinary tenderness for the person placed before him on a serious criminal charge ; and in dismissing it, made the prosecutor feel that in the Court's eyes he was tho wrong-doer because he had not kept a copy of a letter. It is evidently time Wellington had a fresh man on the R.M.s seat, as Mr Wardell has shown himself quite unequal to the position, and not able to uphold his independence where the profession has been concerned. He has more than once allowed solicitors to make a bear garden of his Court, and seems to labor under an abject fear of falling out with them. A man of sterner stuff is required, and no doubt the Wellington press will insist on one being appointed ere long.