The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Morning. Tuesday, February 18, 1890. NATIVE LAND COURT EMBROGLIO.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 418, 18 February 1890, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Morning.

Tuesday, February 18, 1890. NATIVE LAND COURT EMBROGLIO.

Be juat and fear nos; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy Thy God’s, and truth's.

The scene which occurred in the Native Land Court on Friday last is, so far as we are aware, unprecedented. There

have been instances in which Judges or Justices sitting together have refused to

concur in a decision, but the only apparent parallel to what has occurred in the Waipiro enquiry is what sometimes happens in Ireland, where the Magistrates who are trying a quasi-political offence hold opposite political opinions. This very uniqueness makes the occurrence all the more remarkable, and impresses one with the gravity of the aifair. The statute does not appear to have contemplated any such event, and therefore makes no express provision for it. If a Judge dies, or retires after judgment, the Chief Judge is empowered to sign documents for such Judge. If between the date of an order or finding and final judgment, a Judge or Assessor becomes unable to act, the proceedings are not to abate in consequence. But what is the effect of the retirement of a Judge before any real step in the case beyond the reception of evidence has been taken ? Probably the Chief Judge

will have sufficient power in him to

substitute another or other Judges, but in any case the proceedings will most likely have to be commenced de novo. The ill effects of this may be averted to some extent by the parties consenting to the evidence already taken being read over to the newly-constituted Court. This course has, however, its disadvantages, and whatever is the result of the present difficulty, it must be prejudicial to the suitors, and will cause them unnecessary • trouble, vexation, and expense, besides which the whole affair is a public scandal, and presents Pakeha

institutions to the Maoris in a very unfair and not at all re-assnring light. The point, however, that must chiefly interest the general public in this matter is. Who is to blame ? It seems scandalous that a court should have gone on for nearly a month under the circumstances that are now disclosed. Two

Jud; ;es and an Assessor are by law required to consider all rehearings, but this rehearing seems to show that a decision upon it would in reality be the decision of one Assessor. Such a thing was never contemplated and would be absurd. It is said that there was no compatibility of temper between the two Judges, and therefore the Assessor has 'been virtually the Judge on all disputed points. The Assessor may be an if itelligent native, but it could never hav<j been expected that he should occupy such an important position as to da cide between two European Judges. Thia being so it remains to be shown whigih of the two Judges was most gens rally in the right, or was any of the dispk ited points the result of private or personal feelings on the part of tfea Bench. It is essential that the public ■ should have confidence in their tribua als, and it is extremely unlikely that th at confidence will be increased by jus) icial outbursts of this nature. For on r part we can exculpate neither Judge; for his conduct in the matter. If all fi hat Judge Barton alleges in his statement is true, it was quite time that someffii ,ug put a stop to an unseemly trifiJl. ol id wo Iwarllly trndom that

Judge’s remarks on what his duty required of him. It is, however, another matter whether he should have exhibited his feelings in the way he has done before the Maoris and suitors. Surely the withdrawal might have been arranged in a less public manner, so that such a grave scandal would be averted, and the persons in Court saved the pain of being witnesses of the outcome of differences among the Bench. But if we are to blame Judge Barton, where are we to draw the line? Can we logically blame that Judge for making his withdrawal in a public and sensational matter, and overlook the fact that Judge Wilson, the day before, threatened, in ano less public manner, to take steps which would eventually lead to the same result as the action taken by Judge Barton. There is but a slight difference between the threat and act, so far as good taste and decorum are concerned. The whole affair might, in our opinion, have been rendered less harmful if the gentlemen concerned had been a .little more conciliatory, and more ready to give and take. They appear, from Judge Wilson’s remarks, never to

have approached each other outside the Court, and a private meeting might have done much towards smoothing over matters, and thereby reaching a far more satisfactory conclusion. We can only understand why such could not havejbeen done on the assumption that they had personal antipathies before the case commenced, and this we can hardly believe. Both Judges should have had too much good sense to accept positions under such circumstances. Personally we regret, for the sake of the gentlemen concerned, that the affair has happened, but neither can be held free from blame. It was no doubt with the best of intentions that the Chief Judge appointed the two Judges to act together, one being recognised as an expert in Native matters, and the other as an able lawyer, but it is strange that no attention was paid .to the urgent objections made against Judge Wilson by the natives.