MR SMYTHIES' REPLY TO MR TRAVERS.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3308, 2 October 1871, Page 3

MR SMYTHIES' REPLY TO MR TRAVERS.

TO TIIE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENPENT. Sir, — Mr Travers, in closing his case last night at the bur of the Houso, said that he had made observations which, no doubt, I should 6nd an opportunity of replying to. The forms of the Hou^e do not give me this opportunity, so I have to request that favor nt jour hands. Your space, I know, will allow only a very short reply. I will state Mr Travers' observations (nt least such as space will allow me to answer) seriatim, with the reply :— Mr Travers: Tho profession were taken by surprise through my stating at the bar of tho House that I wus innocent of tho crime of which I was convicted. Answer : In the printed " case" that I sent to each member of the Houso at tho commencement of the session these words occur ■• — " All this has been done to tho petitioner, although ho is entirely innocent of the crime of which he was convicted, and can prove his innocence." And in my petition to the Judges in 1864 I said : — " In stating the facts of the case your petitioner has been obliged to make out a case of not guilty upon the charge of forgery." Mr Travers stated that I had grossly misrepresented the facts to the Houso when I asserted that the action of the Colonial Legislature Intel prevented my getting a pardon, and he read a letter from tho Duke of Buckingham (then Secretary for the Colonies), received in 1867, and relating to the first petition I sent, to prove his case, and he asserted that the Colonial Government had nothing to do with it. Answer : I presented another petition in 1869 through Mr H. James, M.P., for Taunton, and received the following reply : — " Whitehall, 17th Juno, 1869. "Sic,— l am directed by Mr Secretary Bruce to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th inst, forwarding a memoriul from Henry Smythies, praying the grant of a free pardon in order to enable him to practise as a solicitor in the Supreme Court of New Zealand, and I am to acquaint you that in the absence of any recommendation from the Government of the colony Mr Bruce does not feel justified in advising her Majesty to accede to the prayer of the petition. — I am, &c, " A. F. O. Lidjdkm. " Henry James, Esq." Mr Truvers : Soden instructed Fluker, his attorney, that he had signed no paper. Answer : Extracts from Fluker' s evidence : — " I saw tho said Soden and Miles, and although I forget exactly what, they said about the retainer or consent paper, I am certain that the impression made upon my mind was that Sodon did sign a con-ent." " Although the copy of his consent to become next friend was given to the said Richard Soden he did not instruct us to deny the fact that ho had given that written consent." Mr Travers : Smythies could not have taxed liis bill if he had not produced that pappr before the Master. He could not have recovered on his bill. Extract from Bull's evidence : — " Some observation was made by the Master as to tho proof o£ the retainer being a question in the cause, and not to bo decided by him." "It was produced before the Master, as evidence of a date." Extract from Fluker's evidence : — "He would not have objected if he had been applied to mid saw that it would have led to, the saving of expense to have admitted that such retainer had been given, as the question of retainer did not touch upon his ground of defence." Mr Travers : The Attorney-General was present when Stnythios was admitted, and he says there was no consent given by tho bar other than negative. Extract from Judge Ward's first letter to the Chief Justice ; — " The Attorney-General, as a fact, was not in Otago at tho time the order was applied for." Mr Travers read part of James's evidence, in which he stated that I had told him that Fluker was a grr-at blackguard. Answer : Not wishing now to assert anything myself, I will only say that James had an object in damaging Flukor's character to provide against my calling him as a witness. Mr Fluker is a most respoctablo Attorney, now practising in Symonds' Inn, London, and I would suggest the improbability of his now assisting me unless he was satisfied that this statement of Jumes's was false. Mr Travers said that I deceived tho Judges by not stating in my petition that I was convicted both of forgory and uttering, Answer : Ifc is true I mentioned only uttering, because in the first ploeo there was no difference in tho offences ; and, secondly, becauso, in fact, the jury found n?o guilty of uttering only — the forgery was the subject of a subsequent legal enquiry, tho report of which I referred to in my petition. I also laid before the Judges, at their request, tho " Times" report of the trial, so that they could eco the verdict for themselves. Mr Travers told the House that if I confessed myself to be guilty of forgory, the Law Society were quite willing to re-admit me among their ranks, but if I insisted upon my innocence, I could have no part with them — I am, &c, H. Smy'l'iiies,