PARLIAMENT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3308, 21 September 1871, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, September 20. The Speaker took tho chair at half-past fcwo o'clock DUNEDIN WATERWORKS DILI,. This bill was committed, and the chairman having reported progress asked leave to sit again on nexfc day. PUBLIC petitions committee. Mr T. KELLY brought up the report ofthe Petitions Committee on the petition of Benjamin Peyman, of Wanganui, stating that his property was destroyed in Wereroa Eedoubt by orderof fche Commanding officer, fco prevent it falling into tlio hands of tho enemy, and praying for redress ; fche committee reported thafc as fche petitioner had not offered any evidence as to the claim they could not mako any recommendation, bufc suggested that inquiry should be made by the Government into all such claims. Also, the report of the commifcteo on fche petition of five military settlers of the Waikato district, claiming field allowance during periods of active Bervice, wliich has been withheld from fchem, and praying for redress ; the committee reported that thoy could nofc recommend tho petition to fche favorable consideration of the House Also, the report of the committee on the petition of Jonathan Eanken Peebles, of Sydney, N.S.W., a claim for loss of personal effects when the s.s. Lord Worsley was wrecked near New Plymouth ; fche committee reported that as the petitioner had nofc offered any evidence they could make no recommendation, bufc suggested that the Government should consider the matter. Also, the report of fcho committee oa the petition of 642 cabinetmakers and others in the city of Dunedin, praying that the rate of dufcy on imported furniture be increased, so ob to develop local manufactures and industries ; the committee reported that as the matter involved a question of general policy, they could make no recommendation. Also, the report of the committee on the petition of 172 settlers and landowners, Palmorston, Waikouaiti, and Blueskin districts, complaining that injustice has been dona to the above districts, in not placing tho line of railway from Waikouaiti to Dunedin upon any of fche schedules ; fche report of tho committee was similar to that in last case. Also, the report of the committee on the petition of Wikatoria, which recommended that the Government should take into fcheir consideration the claim of the petitioner. petitions. WI PARATA presented a petition from certain natives praying thafc certain lands in Wellington which had been taken from them should be returned. TAKAMOANA presented a petition from certain natives of the Wairarapa district praying for an arrangement of the Waste Lands Court. tapers. Mr Gisborne laid upon the table a number of papers and returns. NEW member. Mr John Williamson, member for Auckland, took the oath and his seat. THE MOTUEKA ELECTION. Mr BRANDON brought up tbe report of the select committee appointed to enquire into the facts stated in the petition of Mr Parker. The committee found that Sir David Monro was not duly elected, and that Mr Charles Parker was duly elected, and should sit as member for Motueka. The necessary forms having been gone through, the Clerk of Writß was directed to amend fche writs by erasing the name of Sir D. Monro, and inserting in lieu thereof tho name of Mr Parker. WASTE LANDS COMMITTEE. The report of the committee on the Canterbury Forests Bill was read. It recommended that the bill should pass fche House, and ifc was then ordered to be committed on Wednes day next. THE CASK OF MR SMYTHIES. The purely formal business having boen disposed of, tho Speaker inquired of tho Ser-geant-afc-Arms if Mr Smythies and Mr Travers were in attendance, and on receiving a reply in the affirmative commanded their attendance at the bar of the House. Mr Smythies and Mr Travers having entered tho chamber, the latter in legal coßtume, the Speaker informed Mr Smythies that the House was prepared to hear his statement. Mr Smythies, in commencing his address thanked tho House for permitting him to appear, and said that he should have felt considerable diffidence in occupying the time of the House were it nofc for the circumstance fchafc a great principle was involved, viz., whether injustice had been done by the Legislature. Mens conscia recti left him no alternative bufc to believe and assert* that injustice had been done. That ho had defended himself in all the courts of the colony, and had now laid his case before this, tho most august, tribunal of the colony for final decision. " The judges of this tribunal are now assembled," said Mr Smythieß, " and I will take leave to say that I have so high an opinion of the honor and integrity of the gentlemen who occupy theae seats as to feel ussured that under no circumstances could they be induced to decide or legislate upon a case like tho present without making themselves acquainted with all the facts of the case, and listening to all the arguments which could be adduced in its favor," and therefore he knew that he should have a patient hearing. Ifc was no part of his duty fco defend that action of the judgeß which culminated in his admission to fche bar. Ifc appeared by Judgo Johnston's judgment delivered in the Court of Appeal, that their conduct required no defence. He Bays, "I do not express any opinion on the justice or injustice of the act ; wifch thafc we have nothing to do in this court ; nor could we admit the suggestion that by the retrospective operation of the act the legislature intended to express diiapproval of the admission of fche applicant. We could not listen to anything co monstrous as a suggestion that they would do such a thing without knowing what materials the judgos had before them, and what their reasons were when they admitted him, We aßSume simply thafc tbe legislature thought tho law ought to be changed. Ifc was remarkable, however, thafc fcho legislature had thought ifc right to change tho post law as well as the future, and, without disapproving of his admission, ifc had passed an act on purpose to annul ii." He came to Auckland in 1851, and in 1856 he asked the then Chief Justice (tho present Sir W. Martin) whether, if he applied to be admitted to the bar, he would admit

him — afc tho same time he told the Chief Justice of his conviction. The Chief Justice repl.ed, that had Mr S. nofc informed him of his conviction he should certainly have admitted him, as ho did not know ifc, bufc that having in formed him lie advised Mr S. fco wait a (ew years until ho became better known. Hia confession, perhaps, was more honest than wise. That ifc wus "ofc wise had been proved — if ifc were honesty little inducement had been held out for others to follow his example. In 1863 his case was mentioned before all the judges iv conference, and ho was directed to presont a petition afc their nexfc yearly meeting, setting out all tho facts. This was done, and in 1864 ho was directed to obtain evidence of certain allegations. This was dono, and laid before the judges in 1865, when they unanimously certified that he might bo admitted, and he was admitted, at Dunedin, in January, 1866, with the full consent of aU the members of tho Dunodin bar. Tho Chief Justice, in ono of hia letters to Judge Ward, said tbafc ifc was tho extenuating circumBtances of the case which induced them to admit him, and though he might with greafc justice demand that tho certificate of the judges bo supported, yet as fchafc was given upon extenuating circumstances only, he repudiated that advantage, as he was now prepared to prove his entire freedom from all crime, if nofc from blame, in tbe matter, and he wus willing to rest his caso upon his proving thnt fact to the satisfaction of the House. In 1846 he entered into parfc-

nerahip with aMr James afc Aylesbury. In 1847, a euit in Chancery was commencod by infants of tho name of Miles, and a person of the name of Soden became their next friend, and the wholo question was whether or no Soden signed a written consent. Mr Smythies read a great quantity of evidence, showing that up to fche time of the settling of the suit, all parties admitted that a consent had been signed, but tlie pnper had been lost, and Mr S., for the purpose of taking counsel's opinion upon its effect re- wrote it, and this paper was produced before the Mueter, upon tho taxing of tho bill of costs, not lo provo Sodon's liability, bufc to provo the time of its commencement. Thafc the paper was asked for by tho attorney on fcho other side, and Mr S. lost; four guineas by its production. That an action was brought to recover the amount of the bill, but Mr S. not being able to find tho original, withdrew the proceedings, and compromised fche case, and the whole matter was amicably settled, to the satisfaction of all partieß. Up to this time no imputation had been thrown oufc, impeaching the document, nor any charge of fraud or forgery made. Mr S.s partnership with Vir James continued dm-ing two years and a half, and during that time the business increasod from £800 a year to £2000. Mr S. did all tlie business himself, liis partner being engaged in busiuess in London. In 1849 James lost his business in London, and desired to come dowu to Aylesbury and have fche whole of tho bußinoas, offering Mr S. fcho situation of his managing clerk. Mr S. having refused fco fail into this arrangement, James, in his absence, seized all the papers in the oflice, including tho papers respecting Soden, arrested S. for £1000, which he swore he owed him, although S. afterwards found that James was at the time indebted to j S. Bribed Soden and ono ofthe Mileses by a release of the bill of costs, £400, to ewear that Soden signed no paper; entrapped S. into a harmless conversation, and gofc him to write a letter acknowledging the truth of what James had said, without saying what thafc was, and which wus put in afc the trial, after James had sfcafced thafche had then charged S. with forgery, and then summoned S. to Bow Btreet to answer the chargo of forgery. The case waß dismissed, and then James obtained a true bill from fcho Grai d Jury of Middlesex. Having obtained the bill, and so held S. out to fche world as a forger, J. got rid of him as a partner, and secured fche business. Ho then gave notice that he should nofc proceed with the prosecution. S. gave James notico of trial, and retained Sergeant Wilkins as his counsel. Sergeant Byles was retained for the defence. Tho Sergeants met afc the Central Court, and Sergeant Byies told Sergeant Wilkins fchafc there waa no evidence of fraud, and therefore he should not take the case into Court. S. insisted upon a public acquittal and apology from James, to which James would not consent, and tho caso was adjourned, James paying the coßts of the day. In August S. again gave notico of trial, but Sergeant Wilkins had nofc roturned from Circuit j as, however, S. supposed he had only to appear to be acquitted, he gave a brief to a junior counsel, and provided no evidence. When ths case was called Sergeant Byles appeared, with two other eminent criminal counsel, to prosecute the case. All the witnesses, including Soden's. attorney in the action, subpoenaed on benalf of tne Crown, wero sent out of Court, and, therefore, could nofc hear the evidence given, and only a clerk of James's brother-in-law, James himself, Soden and Miles were called. Soden's Attorney afterwords made an affidavit contradicting all the material factß, and he said that had he heard the evidence he should have contradicted it in Court, for Soden had always acknowledged signing the paper. Mr S. waß found guilty of forging the paper and uttering ifc at the taxation. Mr S. then showed that tho act of 12 Geo. 1., upon the authority of which tho Colonial act of 1866, making ifc penal for any solicitor convicted of forgery to practise in New Zealand, was framed, did not prevent a solicitor who had been convicted of forgery from practising, and thafc Mr S. could now praotice in England if he thought fit, and he road two opinions of English counsel, Mr James, Q.C., and Mr Cleave, to that effect, and he stated that the Attorney General of England had also advised that the act would not be put in force to prevent a solicitor practising iv England. He also showed that an application which he had made to the Home Government for a pardon had been refused solely on account of the colonial act. He then complained of some letters and papers of a hostile and ex parte nature baying been published in the proceedings of the House, and was reading his answer to Mr Pox's lefcter to the Editor ofthe Independent when the time for the rising of tho House— half-past fivearrived. Notices of motion having been given, tho House adjourned at half-past five o'clock until half-past fcwo nexfc day.