Supplement to the Evening Star.

AUCKLAND, MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1871.

PUBLIC SAFETY VERSUS THE LAW.

" For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong that needs resistance, i'or the future in the distanoe, And. the good that we can do."

12fY.THijN TG- that shakes the faith of the

community in the justice and protec tion of the law, cannot fail to have a demoralising effect. It signifies nothing whether the evil is in the law itself or in the wrongful purpose to which it may be applied, the result is all the same. "We cannot regard it as other than a calamity that the pro ceedings in our own law Courts have gupplied illustrations of how the law can become, not a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well, but the instrument of simple legalised robbery, and a terror to quiet and peaceable and fair-dealing subjects of Her Most Gracious Ma jesty. It would not be difficult to supply instances in point illustrative of the foregoing. "Beyond all other places in the colonies perhaps, it is notorious that attempts are made in Auckland habittially to prostitute the law, and to employ its machinery for purposes of vindictiveness and extor tion. But a few days ago, our res pected Eesident Magistrate drew pointed attention to this detestable state of things, and its growing pre valence in the district; and quoted from high authority to show the danger to the public from this im proper use ol' the Criminal Law. But this is not the most perilous aspect of affairs. A system has grown up among our lawyers, of taking up cases on the chance of plunder, and some of these learned gentlemen, who have opportunities of carrying on legal proceedings at a cheap rate, are pre pared to take up the most rotten case, on the private understanding that they are to get a certain, often the largest proportion of what can be extorted from the defendant. We are perfectly aware that this is utterly opposed to the principles of the legal profes sion, and that its detection would lead to the expulsion of the offender from practice in the Courts. But those whose profession it is to unravel the mysteries of human villauy are not to be caught tripping, and through their clerks or otherwise the bargains are made and sealed. How to prevent this dangerous and scandalous practice we know not. Legislation could not do it, nor could it be prevented by any systen of rules and regulations ; and possibly the only hope is in the action of the profession itself to purge away the disgrace and restore confidence to the public. This state of things has had its cause in the competition induced by the unprecedented crowd of law yers which the New Zealand provincial system, and the amalgamation of the professions have developed. But, all the world over, the profession of law is high-souled and honorable, and it will be deplorable if orie of the noblest, learned, and most gentlemanly profes sions becomes the harbor of tricksters, aud a terror to the public.

Neither is this the only aspect in which our Law Courts must be regarded with a feeling akiu to dismay. On the case of " Mohi v. Craig," we do not desire to dwell. It illustrates the state of the law itself, and shows how injustice can be perpetrate..!, through the use of powers that legislation can confer. We question if the law courts of civilised nations can present a parallel, and the perusal of it is enough to wake a N-dw Zealand colonist bow his head in very shame. That this is iiofc a partial view, but one that has presented itself generally to the minds of those who have read through the details of this miserable scandal to oar Courts, is evident from the strong comments or our contemporaries. As an illustra tion of what we have said we take the very unusual course of reprinting in our columns a number of the various leading articles and letters from cor respondents elicited by this remark able case. We give insertion also to the Bill of Costs with all its " re freshing" details, with which the defendant, Mr. Crai-/, lias been saddled by three shillings in direct opposition to the strongly expressed aud indig nant feelings of Ihe Jury ; and we commend the perusal to all those in whose breasts the desire for the public

welfare is not wholly dead. "We ques ■ tion if there is one in Her Majesty's dominions who on reading impartially through the whole case would not endorse the statement of the Jury— words revealing a state of things that is a burning shame to our institutions ; " The law has in this case been made " the instrument of spoliation and " oppression which shocks every " sentiment of natural justice."

[FEOM THE " NEW ZEALAND HERALD," SEPTEMBER 18.] In our issue of Friday last we pub lished a letter from Mr. James Mackay. jun., on the subject of the Native Lands Acts of the colony. Mr. Mackay is an authority on this subject, and what lie says is entitled to consideration. There is scarcely any subject of greater im portance to the North. Island, aud through it to the colony, than (he law relating to the method tor ascertaining the title to native land, and for regulating the aliena tion of those lands to the colonists aud others desirous of settling in the colony. As the law now stands, tlie treatment o1 native lands is invested with pecu'iar difficulties and anomalies, for which there is no occasion, many difficulties surround the acquisition of native land, aud so many risks have to be run by the purchaser from facilities afforded by the law to dishonest natives, that the trans actions are daily becoming fewer. This result, so much to be deplored, operates injuriously to the honest Maori who de sires to sell, reducing the price or value of his land, and is opposed also to the soundest colonial policy, which would be promoted by the alienation from the natives of millions of acres now use less and unproductive, and the acquisition of those lands by settlers who would render them productive aud thus a source of wealth to the colony. Now, those vast tracts of oour -v—"Native Districts" - on which neit .; nor beast are found, form one of th political difficulties of the colony ; over them the Queen's writ does not run ; through them v few wretched, half-naked Hauhaus prevent the exten sion of roads, telegraph lines, and other insiguia of civilization ; bub in the hands of Europeans none of these difficulties would exist, while the taxable wealth of the colony would at the same time be greatly increased. It follows then that the provisions for the acquisition of native lands should be simple, rapid in execution, and cheap. We do not hope for such results if the bill criticised by Mr. .Vlaukay becomes law. One of the greatest evil.-: attending the present system is the facility given to the natives for extorting inon >y from the intending purchaser by periodi cal repudiations of the bargain the natives may have made between the time of salo and the time of the issue of the grant or certificate of title. Such things have been done again and again, with compira tive impunity. Purchases made honafide with the native owners have been tam pered with by designing Europeans, who, desirous of appropriating the advantages of the bargains made by others, have aroused tho cupidity of the Maori by offering either a larger rental for the pro perty, the subject of the previous bargain, or by the tempting offer of a payment over again to the owner of the soil for the very land already purchased and paid for by another person. And as the law now stands this can, and has been done, for all transactions before the issue of the certificate are by law declared to be " null and void." This system, as we have be fore stated, is a positive injury to the native himself, leading him to do with impunity that which a European dare not do, acting most injuriously to the honest native, rendering it most difficult for him to dispose of his land, while to the bona ■fide settler the operation of acquiring land or flax country, or timber on iand from the natives, is attended with great risk, and his been followed in some cases with positive ruin. The recent case of Mohi v. Craig affords a good illustration of what may be done in the existing stat~ of the law by designing Kuropeans, through the medium of a plastic native not burdened with strict notions of equity. The phamphlet published in this case discloses the difficulties pur chasers of native lands have to contend with, and the hardship which may be in flicted on an enterprising man, in the sacred name of justice. The learned Chief Justice, who has had to administer the law in this notorious case, is bound by the penal statutes on this subject; he cannot alter, he can only interpret the law as it exists, and though even injustice may follow the administration of that law, his duty is clear; he must be blind to results, so that the law as it stands be carried out. The real sinners are those who put a bad law in motion to give effect to their wishes, regardless of the consequences to their opponents. Moui v. Craig was tried before a special jury chosen by both parties from the whole district. The foreman of the jury was the Hon. James Farmer, M.L.A. For nine long days, with exemplary pa tience, they listened to the voluminous evidence brought before them—to the almost endless wrangling of counsel — and the unsuccessful attempts of de fendant's counsel to escape the legal web so deftly wound around his client. At the conclusion of the trial, a verdict, sub stantially for the defendant, was recorded, but which, by legal interpretation of the existing law has become, as far as costs are com-erned, a verdict for the plaintiff. The whole jury have since signed a remarkable document. We reprint it, as xollows: —

We, the undersigned, do hereby state as follows : —That we served as special jurors in the case of Mohi Mangakahia versus Thomas Craig, heard before His Jloner the Chief Jusiiee, in the Suprame Court at Auckland, in June last. That the trial lasted nine days, and that at the end of the trial we fully under stood the merits of the whole caso. That our verdict, was unanimously lor tho defendant, except as to certain issues, with regard to which I he Chief Jusiiee t-xuresaly directed us in law to find for the plaintiff, with three shillings dam ages. That in ouj- opinion, the action was a most unriglueous and v.-xatious one, and instead of Mohi being entitled to damages for the pre tended wrongs complained of by him, we con -ider Craig to hare been in tho whole matter the injured party, and if it had been in our power in that action we should certainly havo awarded substantial damages to Craig as igainst Mohi and his aoeomplicu, C. A. Harris, jun., for tho grievous wrongs he ha* sustained it their hinds. That in spite of the denials hi oiitli of Mohi an I tliwis, we are perfectly satisfied that, to all intents and purposes, Oicse two aro one, anh have throughout. worked in concert, at least as against Crui*. Chat we give it as our deliberate opinion and i.'onviction that tin; two thousand logs, more or less, cut down and squared by Craig at Dpi tonui, and no v lying there, or at Harris's mill, ure in all honesty and good conscience the absolute property of Thomas Craig, aud hat M >hi and Harris have not the shadow of an equity on which to ground a claim to such logs. Tnat being sntisli.-d, therefore, that the law ha 3in this case been made the instrument of spoliation and oppression, which shock* «very sentiment of natural justiue, wo sh add be highly gratified if the legislature would devise and carry into effect a measure calcu lated to repair suuh an intolerable wrong. — James Fauaibb (foreman), Cjiakle3 Stich buuy, F. X Claudu, Baktox Xurla.nl>, I A MAN O'A KILL, VV. it. LOO-AX, JiMKI Wallace, 11. J. Taylor, J. C. Mouein, GtEOUGE IIV6V, A. BAIiNHS, C. IT. OXWAY. Further comment is unnecessary. No condemnation of tno law as it stands could be moro conclusive and sweeping. For tunately the Legislature is now in session, and a remedy may bj applied. Ihe caso referred to requires one, and we hope our legislature will not separate without mak ing provision for compelling gentlemen like Mohi doing substantial justice tv their dealings with their fellow men. hnglish men are slow to move, lieforms are difficult to bring about. A bishop blown up or scalded to death has before now been required before needed railway reforms have been inaugurated : surely the ruin of a man like Craig will suffice to call attention to the iniquity resulting from the law as it stands. Mr. Mackay suggests a clause which we thiuk would meet such cases, and that it is for the Court on the investigation of the title also to hear the facts connected wish the bargain, and if satisfied of the justice of it to validate that bargain, and make the order for t;ie certificate subject to the agreement already made. Hal such ben the law the ruin of Craig- would hive been impossible, and the transactions disclosed in tie pamphlet published by Mr. Craig would never hare occurred.

[FliOil TiCfi " DAI [A' SOUTHERN CROSS,"

SEPTEMBER 20.1

The cau-je " .Ylohi v. Craig" will pro bably long liolil a prominent position among les causes celebrea of New Zea land; but if it result in compelling such attention in law as is cleariy necessary, its occurrence may afford grounds for gratification. Probably few will have gone to the trouble of following the in tricate windings of this case, and the somewhat involved transactions in c >n neclion with the lands and lo^s in the neighbourhood of Mercury Bay; hu! a peru>al of the pamphlet on the subject recently published, will in most cases leave but a va^ue and undefined con viction, which it is difficult to throw off, that Craig has been singularly the victim of smart transactions ; and that under pakeha tutelage JViohi Manga kahia, whom from his blood we should expect to bo unskilled in the wiles of the Kuropean, has developed a good deal of that character immortalised recently by an American poet, in connection with the " heathen Chinee." For in ways that ;ire dark and tricks thil are vain, the Celestial, in manipulating the cards d>es not appear to have exhibited more sur prising skill than tha1; exhibited by Kohi in working the machinery of our law courts. It is not our purpose to go into the intricate details of the case ; but to the most cursory reader the extraordi nary manifesto issued subsequent to the trial by the twelve jurymen who for nine days had been engaged investigating the various transactions must bring home the conviction that there is a wrong that needs righting. Here- we find twelve in telligent citizens impelled by a sense of fair play to travel so far from the ordinary path as to issue a declaration, virtually to the effect that they had been compelled by the state, of the law to deliver a verdict contrary to justice. They declare in effect that the oaths of the pla^n; ilf's were not worthy of credence, and yei they (ire compelled to give such a verdict that defendant is saddled with heavj costs. These words of the jury with reference to their own verdict, pre sent the most remarkable commentary on the administration of law in modern times that we Ivive ever read. "In our opinion," say the jury, " the action was a most unrighteous and vexatious one; and instead of Mohi being entitled to damages (or the pretended wrongs com plained of by him, we consider Uraig to have been in the whole matter the injured party ; and if it had been in our power in that action, we should certainly have awarded substantial damages to Craig as against Mohi, and his accom plice, C. A. Harris, jun., for the grievous wrong 3he had snstained. at their hands."

And tho jury further added : " Being satisfied, therefore, that the law has, in this case, been made the instrument of spoliation and oppression which shocks every sense of natural justice, we should be highly gratified if the legislature would devise aud carry into effect a measure calculated to repair such an in tolerable wrong. That such a protest should issue from a jury so strongly declaring a miscarriage of justice is not to be ignored ; and we trust that the legislature now in session will not only onco and for ever end the legalisation of robbery at tho hands of natives, but by retrospective action repair the grievous wrong that has been done under sanction of law in the transactions between Man gukahia aud Mr. Thomas Craig.

[from the "thamks advertiser."]

Frobibly most people in this province, when they meet with anything in a news paper about the^case of Mohi v. Craig, at ■ ■nee pass to something else ; and this is certainly not to bi> won leivd at, seeing that the case his bee.i before the public for so long a time that everyone is weary of if., !in.l that it his become so uompli cated that it is exceedingly difficult to fallow through nil its windings. It is pretty certain now that th> case has issued in the loss, and probably ruin, of the party who has had equity on his side. This is not an infrequent result of liti gabions in any country, and of ils'lf would probably not attract much public notice or sympathy. rut in this ease, the evil has been caused by the positive enactments of the law, under which natives may do what a European can not. JNot that in such cases natives get any advantage; there is always a European behind. In the present ease, \lr. Craig purchased land, and leased seve ral kauri forests at Whangapout, on this peninsula, nearly opposite Corouvindel, before the pissing of t!ie Native Lands Act. Thousands of pounds were spent in building, cutting timber, &c, but now vlr. Craig finds himself ruined by legal expenses, deprived of his property, and supplanted by the Messrs. Harris. To go into a detailed statement of the circum stances would b'i tedious, but we may show how men who have; ha I tlie whole facts fairly laid before them think on this matter, by giving the following sentence* from a .statement signed by the whole ol the sp 'cial jurors who tried the last of the long series of actions. These gen tlemen in their written declaration said :—

That lii-itig satisfied, therefore, tint tho law has in this ease been made the instrument of jpoilaiiou and oppression whii'.h shocks every sentiment of natural justice we should b»: highly gratified if the Legislature would deviso an I ear ry into effdot a m -asure calculated to ri'iKiir such an intolerable wrong.

This is the practical question. From the changes tli'it haw been ma le in tlie law, we should think it unlikely that a parallel case to that of Mr. Craig can occur again. Surely, however, it lies with a co-man nity to see that equity is not outrag d without compensation being given t > the suffering party. And the only way in which this can be done is by the Assembly appointing a comm tteo to investigate into the whole circumstances, and with power to award such compensation as they shall deem suitable.

[FROM THE "' EVENING NEWS," BEPT. 21.]

We were supplied some weeks ago with a pimphlet entitled " Craig's Troubles, or our Antipodean Courts and Laws," which we read with very painful interest at the time, aud then laid nside. It relates to the celebrated case of Mold versus > raig, which occupied the attention of the Supreme Court for a period of nine days in the mouths of June and July last, and discloses an amount of wrong-doing seldom to be met with anywhere, yet not to be reached, it seems, by the law of the i.-010 .y, as it n»w stands What the jury who tried the case thought of it, and of' what ought to bo done to repair the. wrong inflicted, may be gathered from the following statement;, which appears us an appendix to the pamphlet:—

We, the undersigned, do licreby state as follows : — That we served as special jurors on the trial in the case of Mohi 'Vtaugj.kahia v. Thomas Craig, heard before his Honor the Chief Justice in th i Supreme Court at Auck land in Juno last. That the trial lasted nine days, and that at the end of the trial we fully understood the merits of tho whoie ea*e. That our verdict was unanimously for the de fendant, except as to certain issues, with re gard to whioU the Chiel Jusiiee exprensly directed us in law to find (lie plaintitf with 3s. damages. i hat in our opinion fcliu ac>i«u was a most unrighteous and vexatious one, and instead of Mohi being entitled to damages for the pretended wrongs complained oi' by him, we consider Craig to have been in the whole matter tho injured party; and if it had been iv our power in that action, we should cer tainly have awarded substantid damages to Craig aa against Mohi and his aeo unpliee, 0. A. Harris, jun., for the grievous wrongs which he haa sustained at their hands. That in spite of the demands ou oath of Mohi and Harris, we are perfectly satisfied that, to all intents and purposes, these two are one, and havo throughout worked in concert, at least as against Craig. That we give it as our deliberate opinion and conviction that the two thousand legs, more or less, cut down and squared by Craig at Opitonui, and now lying there or ai Harris's mill, are in all honesty aud good conscience the absolute property of l'homas Cmig.and that Mohi and Harris have not the shadow of an equity on which to ground a claim to such logs. That being satisfied, therefore, that the law ha 3in thia caso been made tho iuatruineiifc of spoliation aud oppression which shocks every sentiment of natural justice, we shoul i be highly gratified it' the legislature would devise and carry into effect a measure calcu lated to repair such an intolerable wrong.—

James Fabmeb (foreman), Chakles Stich- Buar, F. R. Claude, Barton Ireland, O'Nkiltj, W. R. Logan, James Wallace, R. J. Taylor, J. 0. Morris, George Bust, A. Barnes, C. 11. Otway.

We should hardly have referred to this matter now—of which the public beard so much while the trial was proceeding— but that a gentleman is, we understand, on liis way to Wellington in the Phoebe, to see what can be done towards bringing it under the notice of Parliament. This may be thought an unusual course, but it is alike unusual for a jury to be unani mous in declaring when a case is over that the decision given " shocks every sentiment of natural justice," and for all who strive to master the case in its various bearings to join with the jury in that declaration. The language the jury employ in describing this case may be thought utinec-essarily strong by those who have not gene into ils merits, but not by any others. It is another "Bleak House" affair, with some modifications, and a few additional enormities. The defendant gets the verdict, and yet has to surrender all to the plaintiff.

We can form no idea of the way in which the c.ise will be brought before the Par'iament, or of what Parliament will do with it. Hut that something is de manded in tlie interests of justice must be abundantly clear to all who take the (rouble to read the pamphlet which has been written on the subject, and which is got up with very great g>\t% Had our space allowed, we shoul 1 have liked to have re-printed it in extensio, and thus have made ils contents generally known. But that is impossible; and the next best thing, perhaps, is to present every member of Parliament with a copy, and contrive in some way to have it made a part of the records of the House. In that case it could not fail to have a very great influence in any new native land law legislation that may bo attempted.

SUPREME COURT.—In Banco.

WEDXiCSDAY, AUGUST 23. [Before His Honor Sir GL A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice.] Macfablane and Another v. Harris — ihis whs an argument upon demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration.—Mr. Mac- Cormick appeared *br the defendant, in support of the demurrer; Mr. Hesketh appeared lor the plaintiffs, in support of the declaration.—This was an action for specific relief, seeking to compel the de fendant to perform an agreement alleged to have been come to ou the 11th of Jan uary, 187'). It was alleged that at the date mentioned the defendant was seized of a piece of land (one of the mill sites in the case of Mohi v. Craig), and that upon the settlement of an action (Burtt and Craig v. Harris), it was agreed that the defendant, Imsfcopher Atwell Harris, jun., was to have possession of the "site" and mill for twelve months, with option at the expiration of that term to purchase at a valuation, or otherwise. Craig was to pay him £'150, and to receive a convey ance of the land, it was stated in the progress of the proceedings that the day after the twelve month j expired the defendant was asked whether ha was prepared to comply with the stipulations or' the agreement. Tlie defendant refused to execute any agree ment whatever. It was also alleged that the other party to the agreement— Thomas Craig—tendered to C. A. Harris, th" defendant, the sura of £150, as pro vided for by the covenants of the agree ment. —Mr. Mnc Joriniek was heard at great length in support of the demurrer.

*I is argument Ijad not concluded when the Court adjourned, at midday.—Upon the reassembling of the Court, the learned counsel proceeded with his argu ment. There were no less than twelve grounds of demurrer, some of which were of a purely technical character, and need not, therefore, be detailed. One was, that tins chose (thing) in action had been assigned to the plaintiff by Craig, and, therefore, such an action could be brought, ihis was a personal contract. There had been no time given to carry out the contract Air. .VlacCormick went through the points seriatim, and said the declaration was and asking that the demurrer should be allowed.—Mr. Hes keth was heard in reply, contending that under the conveyance ordinance they could assign the chose (thing) iv action. He . denied that t!ii« was a personal action, such, as contemplated by the de fendant's counsel. Tile learned counsel spike at great length upon.the several issues. Tlie Court rose at twenty minutes to six o'clock. — Herald.

CORRESPONDENCE.

MOHI V. CRAIG.

To the Editor of the Evening Star

Sir, —I have just seen the bill of MacCornuck and McKechnie, solicitors, Auckland, in the above cause. They claim £553 lls lOd; the Registrar struck off £146 10s 10J, leaving them £407. May 1 ask what should be said of any firm c'aimiug respectability, having about a third of their monstrous claim disallowed, as not due P And what must Hi 3 Honor the Chief Justice think of people who have tried to make such a use of the one shilling damages directed to be given to M'lhi ova point of law. The Chief Justice is allowed on all sides to be most desirous to do justice to all men; therefore his feelings for Craig's wrongs, inflicted through tiie instrumen tality of the Supreme Court, must make him fowl most uncomfortable ; and it ia to be hoped that, like Judge Beckham,

His Honor will soon see a way to put a stop to such vile practices, and prostitu tion of the Court.

Craig has already paid over £4000 legal expenses in trying to keep peaceable pos session of his property, owned and occu pied for about ten years. He has had taken from him by incomprehensible legal plotting more than£4ooo worth of limber, during the last few years, by the same means, and is now virtually kept out of possession of a property worth £10,000 by similar legal process.

It is almost incredible that such a state of things can be found in a British commu nity, yet such is the truth. lam told that the native whose name has been made use of to cover the proceedings is a mere tool in the hands of designiug schemers ; and if only a tenth of what I am assured is true, others than Mohi are speculators in the base transaction.

I have at great trouble and expense laid the facts of the ease before the General tssembly at Wellington, and hope, with the aid of the Press of New Zealand, to make the rascality of the treatment of Craig sufficiently known to secure re dress. I beg to thank you for the able assistance you have hitherto rendered to the good cause, arid ask you to continue to do so. —lam, &c,

J. S. Macfarlane.

To the Editor of the Evening Star.

Sic, —The alarming disclosures of in justice inflicted on an old settler through the medium of the Supreme Court, must surely result in Legislative interference. To my mind, it is really astonishing that some action has not been manifested ere this. The Courts of Great Britain have al ways been considered to be a terror to evil doers, and a protection to honesty, in dustry, and enterprise; why then should so glaring a case of gross imposition be tolerated by the Supreme Court of Auck land, without even a remark from the presiding Judge ? The jury manfully and opeuly avowed their opinions of the detestable schemers, how then can the silence of the Court be accounted for? It is quite possible that the law which has done so great a wrong to Craig may have been misinterpreted ; but even, if not so, and if the law is too clear to be misunderstood, then surely the Chief Justice m'ght at all events while administering a bad law, have uoticed in some way or other, so as toh.'lp to soften the sufferings of Craig, and to give to him hope to expect that the Chief Justice would have the matter laid before the Legislature.

Legislators are only human creatures, liable to err, but no one will suppose that the errors by which Cr.iig has been so grievously injured are wilful errors. In all my experience of more than thirty years in the old couutry, I never heard of such a scandal as that of Molii v. Craig; and I not only hope never to hear of such, another, but L hope soon to know that the Legislature and the Supreme Court will have done justice, tor what has been Craig's case may be anyone's to-morrow. In bringing about such a result the Press can give great assistance.—Yours. &i\, A. Merchant.

MOHI V. ORAIG.

To the Editor of the Herald.

Sir, —I am very glad to see the leading article about Mohi v. Craig, as the latter has suffered great injustice. Craig's transactions about timber commenced when I was Resident Magistrate at Coro mandel in 1860-62 ; and as both parties came to me for advice, &c, I knew all about it, and saw that fair dealing ob tained on both sides. Afterwards, as a land agent, the balance of money due was paid through me, after a full oral and written explanation of the whole of the transactions from beginning to end. Hiria (mother of Mohi), and Paora Matu taere, and others, were the parties con cerned, as owners of the timber—Mohi being only a little boy.—t am, &c, H. li. Tuktoit.

SUPREME COURT.-MORT V. CRAIG, AND BAD LAWS.

To the Editor of the Herald.

Sib, — Kvery honest man in New Zea land must feel indebted to you for your able article in yesterday's issue oa the above subjects. The forcible nrinner ia which you point out the hardships in flicted on Craig in the sacred name of Justine will surely have effect with the Legislature, aucl assist Craig to obtain through its medium that justice which is right. The rulings of the Chief Justice throughout the weary case of Mohi v. Craig may have beea perfectly legal, sterling law ;.but it does appear singular to me that the judicial interpretation of a defective law should become in the Court the means of ruining any one ; —and ia Craig's case it is the more distressing, be cause the modus ojperandl of an uncondi tional injunction to Mohi has vory much contributed to briug-about the deplorable issue recorded in the pamphlet of Craig's

wrongs. I am quite ignorant of legal forms and etiquette, but always believed that the primary functions ot a Judge were to see justice done; and it is a pity that the Chief Justice has not power to interpose his autkovity to stop iitigation based on injustice. After having read your com ments, I must consider that no such power is vested in Judges, and the sooner such power is given the better, as with the power to do justice should be coupled the responsibility for doing wrong, for surely nothing can be more monstrous or outrageous than a Court of Justice actually perpetrating an injustice. —I am, &c, Mbecatoe.