JUDGE WARD’S TROUBLES.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 328, 23 July 1889, Page 3

JUDGE WARD’S TROUBLES.

A SENSATIONAL CASE. Wellington, Saturdiy. There is now before the Public Petitions Committee a petition lodged by William Christie, of Oamaru, praying for the removal from that district of Judge Ward, in the interests of the due administration of justice. Voluminous correspondence in connection with the case of Christie, who was sentenced by Judge Ward under the penal clauses of the Bankruptcy Act to four months’ confinement, was submitted for the Committee’s consideration, and the reading of it alone occupied an hour and a half. It is stated that immediately on Christie’s conviction a petition for his release was signed in Oamaru and forwarded to the Hon Mr Hislop, the Minister, then in Oamaru, for transmission to the Minister of Justice. A copy of the petition was forwarded to District Judge Ward for his comment, this course being approved of by the Premier, and after requesting His Honor to report the evidence on which he held that the intent to defraud the Colonial and Investment Agency Company was proved, the Hon, Mr Hislop mentions that the statement was made that Judge Ward was largely indebted to the prosecuting company, and a request was made that he would state to the Minister for Justice whether there was any truth-in the report. Judge Ward accordingly forwards to the Minister for Justice his grounds for conviction, and explains that he purposely abstains from commenting on the_ Colonial Secretary's letter because the evidence in the bankruptcy proceedings showed that Christie had long been -a client of the Hon Mr Hislop and Mr Creigh’s. This called forth an immediate reply from the Minister for Justice to the effect that the Hon. Mr Hislop had not acted in this matter in any other capacity than that of a Minister of the Crown, and that the case, as far as it had gone, disclosed nothing more as regarded the relations existing betwean Messrs Hislop and Christie than was already known to the Government. The next stage brings us up to the most material correspondence—a letter written by Judge Ward to Mr Fergus, marked "private" on the envelope, and commencing " My dear Sir," in which the writer denies Mr Hislop's right to question his indebtedness to the Colonial Investment Company, whether he be acting as the Minister for Justice, on behalf of his own client, or as Colonial Secretary. At the same time Judge Ward sots forth his sole connection with the company in question. In acknowledging this communication, I hear that the Minister for Justice points out that in the matter of the petition to the Governor praying for a free >ardon for Christie he had to act in a quasi udicial capacity, Judge Ward had no right to address him the same as in an official character, and he resents Judge Ward's attempt to prejudice him by dealing with matters outside the charge upon which the conviction was made, Judge Ward, in his next letter, bitterly complains of the interference of Mr Hislop, whom he still treats as Christie's solicitor, and points out that as his letter marked " private ” was written some time alter Christie’s release, the imputation that it was penned with tbe endeavor to bias the Minister for Justice’s decision was unfounded. While not disputing his indebtedness to the prosecuting company, jhe denies that any such indebtedness on his part could have had the faintest influence on the decision he arrived at, nor did he believe it would have tl« slightest effect on any other judicial officer in the colony if placed in the same position. He also disputes the right of the Minister of Justice to demand from any Judge an account of the private relations existing between him and any suitor or creditor appearing in his Court. Mr Fergus dissentc entirely from this position, and remarks with some severity that if a Judge does not perceive the obvious impropriety of adjudicating between persons to one or either of whom he is under pecuniary obligations, it becomes the duty of the Minister of Justice, in the interests of the public, to intervene. He odds that it is with great regret that he has to inform an officer of Judge Ward's lengthy experience that his views on this subject met with the gravest disapproval of the Government. Judge Ward makes an answer that, notwithstanding this grave disapproval of the Hons. Messrs Fergus and Hislop, he adheres to his denial of the right of the Minister of Justice to demand from any Judge an account of the private relations existing between him find any suitor or creditor, but expresses no wonder that the Minister oi Justice and Mr Hislop contend for the exercise of a private inquisition, and says that the Hon. Mr Fergus, in so doing, completely misunderstands his position as Minister of Justice, Judge Ward then remarks, “ 8p J hear with considerable asperity that if, whenever a client of a Cabinet Minister is sentenced to imprisonment, such Cabinet Minister is to be permitted forthwith to transform himself into a Minister of Justice, & n d to intervene aft r Mr Jllslop'’ fashion with a Judge who convicted hie client. Such a course would simply be the destruction of the independence of the Bench, and would be an entirely new development in constitutional Government,” It is further whispered that attached to the correspondence is a lengthy Ministerial memo, by the Hon. Mr Hislop, in which ho completely meets Judge Ward's accusations as to his acting in Christie's interest, and

comments trenchantly on the obvious impropriety of a Judge sitting under tha circumstances mentioned, as well as of his addressing a private letter of the kind of Judge Ward’s to the Minister of Justice. Then, with cutting irony, he points out how different ie the principle by which Judge Ward regulates his own conduct from what he expected of the late Justice Chapman, in respect of whom he wished to define the rule as to self interest to such sn extent as to urge as evidence qf his being likely to be biassed the fact that he happened to have been a godfather to a child of one of the suitors, and that, therefore, be ought not to sit In the case. . Mr Hislop says that whatever may be the needful action to take, no officer should he allowed to permit the admlnstration of justice to edme under suspicion by sitting in a case where he may be taken tq be swayed by considerations personal to himself, nor to address a Minister in a judicial manner by a private letter, and attempting to prejudice his mind by referring to matters outside the charge. The toleration , of conduct (the Colonial Secretary remarks) i in variance with these principles must strike

at the root of judicial purity. Your readers will understand from the above, which is but a mere tithe of the correspondence under consideration, the pretty “kbttle of fish” that a complete perusal of it will disclose when the papers are laid on the table next week. They will, I am assured, create a sensation far more startling in its effeot than that occasioned by the production of the Atkiuson-Fishar correspondence. One oi two conviction?, it is asserted, seems inevitable—either that Judge Ward ought t< be Instantly removed from the Bench, oi that Mr Hislop’s retirement from tht Ministry is called fop.