THE WARDEN’S COURT.

New Zealand Graphic, 27 June 1906, Page 27

THE WARDEN’S COURT.

Meantime he was gaining additional experience in public life and publie oratory by active practice as a miners’ advocate in the Wardens’ Courts. It was not till after the Kumara goldfield was opened up that he became famous in this capacity; and in 18“‘J Mr. Rolleston told the new Warden of the district that there was “a political agitator named Seddon down there who makes a great deal of row because there is no one to attend to the rush on the Kumara field.” By that time he had l-ecome a mining advocate of acknowledged skill and authority. “Many a hard-fought battle,” says a writer in the Dunedin “Evening Star,” “did he win in the Warden’s Court against the learned of the wig and gown. lie knew every water right in the district and the history of every claim. It was therefore wise to give Richard John Seddon a retaining fee to watch important interests and avoid goldfield risks.” Strong testimony to the young “ bushlawyer’s ” ability has been recently offered by two of his contemporaries on the Coast. Mr. C. E. Button, who was then practising as a solicitor at Hokitika, describes him as a remarkably clever advocate, and once told him that it was a pity that he had not been trained for the legal profession. Dr. Giles, who was in those days a Goldfields Warden, speaks to the same purpose as follows:—“His cleverness as an advocate was beyond question. He never lost a chance when any legal point gave him an opportunity, and the readiness with whieh he grasped the bearing of legal points was remarkable, although, as we now know, this was only one indication of the brain power and mental acuteness with Whqh he was so abundantly, endowed. The litigious digger of that day delighted in nothing more than a g**4

bgal technicality, especially when he had nothing else to trust to, and he rightly appreciated the qualities of an advocate who had the capacity of discovering a good technical point, and making the most of it. Mr. Seddon’s excellence as an advocate was necessarily somewhat impaired by the want of regular legal training, and this sometimes caused a certain want of proportion in the view which he took of the importance of the different parts of a ease, and caused him to labour too much at some point which would really have been more telling if merely Suggested. But I have as little doubt that with a legal education he could have made a great name at the Bar as gratification in the knowledge that he was reserved for greater and better work.”