H.—39

Wyles, and yet he sat on the beach aad awarded himself ss. for freight on his own vessel, and included it in " goods deficient " from the whaleship. The judgment was contrary to the evidence, and I can bring every one who was present in Court to prove that the Bench showed vindictiveness. I have always occupied a respectable position in the district, and never before was I charged with an offence in a Court. I would, therefore, most respectfully request you to make an inquiry into the case, and I am confident from the evidence the judgment will be in my favour. I have, &c, The Hon. the Minister of Justice, Wellington. J A. Subeitzky

Fobwaed the complaint to the convicting Justices for explanation and remarks. —Thomas Dick. 16th July, 1881.

Refeeeed to Mr. Ball—R. G. Fountain. 18th July, 1881.

No. 2. Summons. To John Anton Subritzky, of Awanui, in the Colony of New Zealand. Whebeas information hath been laid before the undersigned, one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the Colony of New .Zealand, for that you, John Anton Subritzky, on the 26th day of April, at Awanui, in the colony aforesaid, unlawfully had in your possession certain goods—that is to say, two coils of whale-line, part of a cask of pork, and part of a keg of butter, belonging to the barque " Janus," cast on shore at the Awanui Heads, in the colony aforesaid, contrary to the 65th section of " The Larceny Act, 1867 : This is to command you to appear on Friday, the 13th day of May, 1881, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Mangonui, before such Justices of the Peace as may then be there, to answer to the said information and to be further dealt with according to law Given under my hand this sth day of May 1881, at Mangonui aforesaid. Robeet Wyles, J.P

No. 3. Mr. John Lundon, M.H.R., to the Hon. the Ministee of Justice. Sib,— Bth July, 1881. I can vouch for the correctness of Mr. Subritzky's letter, for I happened to be in his store a week or ten days previous to the warrant being issued, and saw the goods there. Mr. Subritzky pointed out the articles to me, and related how Captain Gifford had told his (Subritzky's) son to take any of the floating wreckage he might find of use to him (Subritzky). I was in Mangonui after the hearing of the case, and it was the universal cry " that a great injustice had been done to Mr. Subritzky. In the interests of justice, I venture to suggest that you cause an inquiry into this case. Mr. Subritzky is held in high esteem in the district, and is connected by marriage with the families of the Rev Messrs. Matthews and Puckey In the event of an inquiry being held, I beg to suggest the names of Messrs. Clendon and Spencer von Sturmer (Magistrates of Bay of Islands and Hokianga respectively) as Commissioners. I have, &c, The Hon. the Minister of Justice, Wellington. John Lundon.

No. 4. Mr. J Ball to the Hon. the Ministee of Justice. Sib, — Mangonui, 2nd August, 1881. I have the honor, in answer to the charge of injustice made by Mr. J A. Subritzky against the Bench of Justices sitting at Mangonui, to remark that this complaint in origin and execution is the work of Mr. R. M. Houston, and the key to this action will be found in my reply to another charge by the said gentleman, and transmitted to me by letter bearing date the 17th November, 1880. In my answer I predicted that, as it was not the first, so it would not be the last, unless the existing order of official relations were disturbed. In addition to this operation, lam informed that a petition referring to this matter has been presented to the House of Representatives, the purport of which has not come to my knowledge ; and, further, I am served with a notice of action in the Supreme Court, attaching a claim of £500 damages for alleged false imprisonment. As to the merits of the case, I have herewith forwarded a certified copy of depositions which I obtained for the purposes of the threatened action, and which you will please to return to me when considered, for my future use. A few remarks, however, may be necessary. Mr. Subritzky fails to state that Mr. Houston, who is also a rival storekeeper, was at the scene of the catastrophe in company with Mr. Kelly, of the Customs, and the constable, on the lookout for himself, long before Mr. Wyles, who was there to assist and advise. Captain Gifford distinctly denies having given permission to any one to appropriate any portion of the goods, which denial, being incapable of proof, must be estimated by character and probabilities, and weighed against the discrepancies and inconsistencies of witnesses on the part of the defence. Admitting, however, the alleged permission, the goods recovered could never have been found or taken in the condition attached, as the depositions and subsequent findings place beyond dispute. In proof

2