H.—2o

8

Beport in Christie's Case. — Addendum No. 2. As the petitioners base their belief in Christie having acted without intent to defraud on their intimate knowledge of him and of his former dealings (see paragraph 3 of petition), and as, therefore, it may be desirable for the Minister of Justice to inquire into his antecedents, I may state that prior to his appearance as a trader at Oamaru he resided in Wellington, where he was manager of the Colonial Bank, and also executor to the will of Mr. Crawford, an old Wellington merchant. Sir Robert Stout conducted the proceedings against him on behalf of Mrs. Crawford. I omitted to remark with reference to the petition that the petitioners state that they have carefully perused the evidence taken at Christie's examination, while, in fact, a large part of that evidence was documentary, and has never been published, as far as I can ascertain, so that they harl no opportunity of perusing it.

No. 9. The Hon. Mr. Febgus to District Judge Wabd. Sib, — Department of Justice, Wellington, 25th May, 1889. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th instant. I do not propose to discuss further with you the action taken by the Hon. Mr. Hislop in this matter of Christie's, nor to yield to your apparent desire to make it a personal matter. I need only remark that Mr. Hislop was acting officially, and with the full knowledge of his colleagues, and that you seem to misunderstand your position when you think fit to comment, as you have done, upon his action and upon the statements concerning it made in my letters of the 30th April and Bth May. -» - As regards your private letter to myself, I regret that I cannot agree with you " that the manner of giving " the information contained therein " was not a matter of serious importance." It seems to me in the highest degree improper for a Judge to seek, by means of a private letter, to influence the mind of a Minister against a person applying for a pardon, or a remission, in respect of an offence of which he has been convicted by the Judge. You state that you "cannot for a moment admit that the Minister of Justice has a right to demand from any Judge an account of the private relations existing between him and any suitor or creditor appearing in his Court." I dissent entirely from this position. If a Judge does not perceive the obvious impropriety of adjudicating between persons to one or other of whom he is under pecuniary obligations, it becomes the duty of the Minister of Justice, in the interest of the public, to intervene. It is with great regret that I have to inform an officer of your lengthened experience that your views on this subject meet with the gravest disapproval of the Government. With regard to the last paragraph of your letter, I need scarcely say that I have made no charge against you. Should such a course become necessary, you may rest assured that I shall not shrink from the responsibility of making the charge in unequivocal terms, nor of taking such measures as may be deemed adequate to the occasion. I have, &c, Mr. District Judge Ward, Christchurch. T. Fbbgus.

No. 10. The Hon. Mr, Hislop to the Hon. the Minister of Justice. Colonial Secretary's Office, 28th May, 1889. I have to request that you will cause this memo, to bo attached to the papers in Mr. Christie's case. After reading Mr. Ward's letter which you submitted for my perusal, I felt that it would not be right that Mr. Ward's statements should go unchallenged by me, or that the unsoundness of his argument should not be pointed out. I have probably referred more fully to the statements which he made with regard to myself, and which I presume he meant to reflect upon me, than their importance demands; but I was anxious to clear away, once for all, matters with which Mr. Ward has attempted to cloud the real issue raised by you in your letter to him. The most important part of my memo, is from clause 14 to the end, in which I amplify the statements made affecting Judge Ward. I considered that the weight of the charges which are implied in my remarks demanded from me full and explicit treatment. I deal with Mr. Ward's statements seriatim:— 1. It is true that Mr. Christie was a client of my firm, and this I mentioned in my first communication to the Premier. It is also true that Mr. Newton and Mr. Creagh (my partner) appeared as his junior during the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court for Mr. Christie. 2. It is not true that I for a considerable part of the proceedings sat upon the Bench behind Messrs. Newton and Creagh, and the imputation that I was there in consultation with them is unfounded. I was, during the four days of the trial, only three times in Court, and in all not more than an hour. Once, having to wait for some information which I was having prepared in the Resident Magistrate's office, I went into Court for a short time. I did not speak to either_of the counsel. In the evening, when going home, I called in to see my partner. Mr. Newton was just closing his address, and I waked until the Court adjourned. The next day I called at the Court to tell my partner that I intended to go to Dunedin by the afternoon train. I did so as soon as it was convenient, and then left. It is true that after the conviction my firm took stops to have Mr. Christie released by proceedings in the Supreme Court; but it is not true that such proceedings were initiated before the petition was prepared. It is also true that the petition emanated from the office of Mr. Newton.