Isaac Newton Watt's name first appears in the New Zealand public record in 1850, on a list of trustees for the New Plymouth Saving Bank. He joined the town's Provincial Council, being elected Speaker in 1853. His profession was described at the time as "merchant," also "auctioneer."
PUBLIC NOTICE.
A NOTICE appears in the Taranaki News of the 21st instant purporting to be given by the instructions of the Crown Grantee of Rural Sections numbers ten and eleven (10 and 11) in the Hua District. The Sections above named were purchased from the Attorney of Augustus B. Abraham. The whole of the purchase money and interest thereon have been duly paid by us : we therefore caution all persons against treating with Mr Isaac Newton Watt for the purchase of our property.
Richard Putt. Henry Putt.
Taranaki, 27 July 1859. -Taranaki Herald, 30/7/1859.
MAGISTERIAL INFUENCE AT ELECTIONS.
(From the Southland Times')
The purity of its judicial bench has been for centuries the pride and boast of Great Britain — the honor and integrity of Judges and Magistrates has been maintained with the most determined and persistent endeavor to keep the bench free from spot or blemish. The colonies have striven with honorable energy to maintain the position and keep the pride and boast of their forefathers untarnished.
It is not sufficient that the individual occupying a judicial position should be satisfied of his own integrity — he must so conduct himself that even Mrs Grundy cannot with any degree of credibility impugn his character.
The most vulnerable point in the present century is political bias. It is seldom, indeed, that bribery and corruption can be recorded against any Minister of Justice. Political partisanship is the rock to be avoided — it is the most seductive of all temptations to a magistrate. Many a man who would scorn to listen to the faintest insinuation of a douceur, will think nothing of entering, heart and soul, into a political contest, bringing the weight of his official position to bear on it, and by it influence some, not perhaps directly, to take the side he advocates, the voter not unfrequently being coerced by fear of consequences rather than led by conviction. This may be more clearly seen and convincingly felt in small communities. The elector whose vote has been solicited and secured by a Magistrate not unnaturally conceives that he has established an obligation: — when he appears in Court as plaintiff or defendant he expects that obligation to be discharged. The Magistrate may think otherwise, but nevertheless he cannot eradicate the impression his own conduct has created. If he decides in favor of his quondam associate at the hustings, the adjudication is attributed, not to an impartial exercise of justice, but to the cancelling of a debt; if adversely, it is received as a breach of faith, and openly commented upon accordingly. In either case, justice is brought into contempt.
We must confess that we have for some time been at a loss to understand the exact nature of Mr Isaac Newton Watt's duties at Campbelltown. (Bluff) Ostensibly he is a Resident Magistrate, though it would appear that he considers other functions are combined with his gazetted office. Either the work of his judicial department is not sufficient to occupy his time, or his energies are so superabundant that he overleaps it. We are not aware that Mr Watt has ever distinguished himself on the Bench; but as an electioneering partizan he deserves commendation. In the last two elections for seats in the Provincial Council for the district of Campbelltown, Mr Watt showed a degree of tact, a readiness to grapple with circumstances, and a fertility of resource which marked him as one who was "by nature born" for an electioneering celebrity — cannot but lead to the conviction that, like many another genius, he has mistaken his vocation, and that to devote any portion of his time to the administration of justice is an injustice to that other field which circumstances have proved to be so peculiarly his own. -Lake Wakatip Mail, 27/1/1866.
Alfred William Smith, Esq., has resigned his appointment as Sheriff of Otago, and Isaac Newton Watt, Esq., appointed thereto. -Evening Post, 23/8/1868.
MR WATT AND THE CITY BYE-LAWS.
To the Editor
Sir, — I deem it right to offer more explanation of the case against me in the City Police Court, because, if rightly understood, it is of some interest to the public of Dunedin, and the reports of yourself and that of your contemporary arc insufficient, principally, perhaps, from the fact that the Bench, being satisfied that Inspector Nimon had proceeded under a wrong bye-law, saw fit to interrupt my cross-examination of him, and to dismiss the charge, without calling upon me to make any defence. No doubt the Magistrates were, upon the evidence of the prosecutor himself, quite justified in so doing; but it deprived me of the opportunity of there bringing under the notice of the public an error of the Inspector, under which I believe many of the inhabitants of Dunedin have suffered, and many others might have suffered had he not summoned some one who thought it worth his while to look the matter up.
It is true that I occupy, or rather my son does, a shed in Cargill street, the rainwater from a part of the roof of which finds its way over a stone crossing which I put down into the channel, but the road is not reduced to its proper level, and L do not think 1 should be called upon to put down an underground pipe until this is done, and moreover, the footway is neither kerbed nor asphalted. Besides this, if I had done it under the pressure of the late proceedings, I should, before I could open the footpath for the purpose, have had to procure a license or permit (for which I believe a fee of five shillings is exacted), and run the risk of the City Surveyor's approval of the work afterwards — whereas, under the bye-law, which properly applies, the Council would have to give seven days’ notice, requiring me to lay down a pipe under the footpath, before legal proceedings could be taken; and the regulations of the Council made under such byelaw, prescribe that it shall be done under the inspection of the Surveyor in a manner that is impossible, until the footway shall have been kerbed — so that had action against me been taken, even under the proper bye-law, it would have been premature and harsh.
Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that I should have taken exceptions to the irregularities in the summons and information, which the reporters seem to have somewhat misunderstood, as I did not dispute the jurisdiction of the Court, but I objected to validity of the summons, as I was summoned to appear at the Mayor’s Court, which had no existence as a place, because I saw that on the door post, the room in which we were was called the “City Police Court,” and there was no court of law of that name; that the Mayor has no jurisdiction as Mayor, and therefore cannot hold a “Mayor’s Court.”
Mr Nimon declared in Court that he acted under instructions; if such be the case, I have no complaint to make against him but that of ignorance, of what it was his duty as Inspector to know; and I should not perhaps have written this letter, had I not wished to inform the inhabitants of Dunedin that they are not liable to be so summarily dealt with, as they have hitherto been, for a little clean rain water running over a foot way.
— I am, etc. I. Newton Watt. Dunedin, March 15,
To the Editor.
SIR, — We ought to be very grateful for the blessed liberty of a free press, wherein is circulated our joys and sorrows, happiness and hardships, ventilating, as it does, existing abuses; thus I venture to impose on your columns a few remarks anent late reported proceedings at the Mayor’s Court (it’s worth something to know there’s no sich a place), whence was issued a summons against Isaac Newton Watt, our worthy sheriff, for ‘‘unlawfully, &c.” This mode of procedure leads us to believe that there is no respect for persons; and, after this, nobody’s safe, as the “City Police Court” still exists. To resume; the defendant, with all the forensic ability of an old Bailey barrister, and with a whole quiver of quips and quillets, completely upset the indictment, and two of our ablest J.P.’s that grace the Bench were nolens volens compelled to dismiss the information, and, with the hard-heartedness peculiar to the case-hardened atmosphere of a Court of Justice, refused to allow defendant expenses, when solicited, after taking the poor man from his daily work, mark you. To express my sense of indignation at the entire proceedings, I enclose a penny stamp, venturing to hope that the example may be followed by \our many subscribers, and many who are not, to recoup such a champion for his loss of time, thereby acknowledging “how poor an instrument may do a noble deed.”
— I am, &c., Taxis. -Evening Star, 15/3/1873.
SKETCHES OF PRISON LIFE.
[From the Otago Guardian].
DUNEDIN GAOL. No. XII.
The quality of mercy is not strained; It droppeth as the gentle rain from Heaven: Upon the place beneath: it is twice blessed; It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes; 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown. SHAKESPEARE.
LEWIS TOBIAS STEAD, THE DEBTOR.
In my last sketch. I referred to the unfortunate man Lewis Stead, who had been an inmate of the debtors' portion of the Dunedin Gaol for nearly a year. I then stated that I had met with some difficulty in my efforts to see him, but that I would take very good care, before publishing my next sketch, to interview him as well as others connected with the case, and obtain full possession of the facts, in order to lay them before the readers of this journal. If, before they have finished reading this present sketch, they do not come to the conclusion that Stead is a very ill-used and indeed an oppressed individual, I am very much mistaken.
The first person I saw in connection with the case was Mr. Watt himself. I told him what I wanted, and asked him if he would give me any information on the subject — if he would give me the entire facts of the case, as, from what I knew, I considered the case to be a very hard one, and meant to publish the whole thing. Mr. Watt replied, "Well, the facts of the case are very simple: he sued me, lost the case, and is now in prison for the costs." "Can he pay them?" "I really can't say." "But does it not appear to you that your conduct in keeping him in gaol so long has a very harsh appearance?" "No, it is his own fault; he could come out to-morrow, if he chose." "How?" "By going through the Bankruptcy Court." "Perhaps he has some conscientious scruples against doing so." "Perhaps he has." "Is this the only way he could come out ?" "No: if he sign a release upon me, and agree not to commence an action against me again, he can likewise come out." Mr. Watt, in answer to another question, said he would give me certain information, but not for publication. I replied that I had gone to him on public grounds, and that whatever took place between us would be printed. "I believe, Mr. Watt, you are paying 12s. a week to keep him in gaol?" "Yes, I am, but it's his own fault. He is a most obstinate fellow." "Well, suppose, Mr. Watt, he maintains this obstinacy for the next four or five years. What then? Will you continue to pay the 12s. a week to keep him in?" "Most undoubtedly." "Surely the law would not allow this," I remarked. "The law could not prevent my keeping him there till he gets grey if I chose." Mr. Watt then informed me that the Judge had asked Stead to go out through the Bankruptcy Court, and that Mr. Strode, the Resident Magistrate, and one of the visiting Justices had repeatedly argued with him, and tried to persuade him to go through the Court, but that he always positively refused to do so. "He must be a man of immense determination," said I. "Well, the fact is, he cannot be right in his head," said Mr. Watt. "Then, if that's the case" said I, "the greater the shame that in a free and Christian country he should so long have suffered imprisonment. And you are determined to keep him in?" "Most certainly." "Did he sue you in your capacity of Sheriff?" "No, as a private individual." "Then, of course, as a private individual you keep him in gaol?" "Yes." After a few more remarks, our interview terminated. I might say that I had previously seen one of the officers of the Supreme Court who knew all about the case, but refused to give me any information, on the ground that Mr. Watt was a Government officer. So I went to the Government officer direct as above.
I next went to Mr. Strode, one of the visiting Justices, and applied for an order to visit Stead. He told me he was not aware that an order was necessary, but as I informed him that Mr. Caldwell would not admit me without one, Mr. Strode at once made it out. We then had some conversation about Stead. "Foolish fellow," said the visiting Justice; "I have tried my best to persuade him to come out of gaol. I have argued with him time after time, and even entreated him not to spend the best part of his life in prison, when he could come out if he desired. He has even been urged by the Judge to go out through the Bankruptcy Court, but he is so obstinate that he will not do it." We had some further conversation on the subject, but the above is the pith of it. I next proceeded to the gaol. I saw Mr. Caldwell and requested to see Stead. Mr. Caldwell at once sent a warder to fetch him, and the interview took place in the governor's room and in the presence of the governor himself. Stead entered in a somewhat nervous state, and, on being requested by Mr Caldwell to be seated, did so. I guessed his age to be about 34 or 35. An intelligent-looking man, with a somewhat haggard face and bright, restless, and even occasionally wild eyes. I could see the man was aglow with excitement. He was dressed in a shabby suit of clothes — the cuffs of his coat and. the bottoms of his trousers were frayed out to the extent of several inches. I need scarcely say that little white linen was to be seen about him; in fact, the appearance presented was that of a debtor in the last stage of poverty, but apparently anxious to present as good an appearance as possible, though evidently ashamed of the unfortunate figure he cut. I explained to Stead as quietly as I could the object of my visit, and told him that I had come to him to get the truth and nothing but the truth, and I hoped he would confine himself to that. He expressed himself as very grateful at the idea of any one being interested in his wretched case, and then in answer to questions which I put to him he narrated his story to me as follows: — "It is now about four or five years ago since I was trading in a small vessel between Dunedin, Port Chalmers, and the Heads. I made an arrangement with some Maoris to purchase a piece of land at Port Chalmers. This piece of land was facing the main road near the Graving-dock. At this time I saw that it would be very valuable some day. I then went to Mr. McLeod, the Native Agent on behalf of the Government at Port Chalmers, and he negotiated the matter between me and the natives. A lease was drawn up (McLeod represented to me by himself, but I afterwards learned it was drawn by Messrs. Macassey and Holmes), and ultimately it was signed by me, by three natives in the presence of witnesses, and was in every respect duly executed at the office of the Native Agent." "And what was the length of the lease, and what rent were you to pay?" I asked. "The lease was for 21 years, and the rental £20 per year; and when the lease was signed, I paid some money on account of the first year's rent, £5 or £6, I think. Anyhow, the deed was duly signed by all parties, and I paid Mr. McLeod, the Native Agent for the Government, six guineas for it. Well, I was going away, when McLeod said that the deed wanted stamping, or had to go through some other form. I left it with him, promising to call for it in a day or two. Well, I called, but I didn't get it, for, in the meantime, McLeod went away." "But how does Mr. Watt come on the scene?" I asked. "Mr. Watt took Mr. McLeod's place, and, of course, I looked to him for it. I heard there was some dispute with the Maoris about it. Well, I called and called, and got very impatient, because I was putting up some houses in George street at that time, and was owing about £200. I depended upon the deed to pay this money; for if I had got the deed hack I could have raised more than enough money to have paid that money — without the deed, however, I was powerless to meet these engagements. I considered that the deed was mine, and that the land was mine, all the forms having been gone through, and I having paid my money. I applied to Macassey and Holmes and to Mr. Watt for the document. At last Mr. Watt told me that it had got burnt by mistake, with some other papers. I considered that if I lost the land I lost as good as £2.000, and I accordingly sued Mr. Watt as a private individual to recover the sum of £800 damages for the loss of the deed. Mr. Stamper was my solicitor. Mr. Watt was represented by Messrs. Macassey and Holmes. The case got into banco for argument on a demurrer, and we failed on some technical point. Well, I was adjudged to pay £36 costs before the case could be started afresh. I hadn't got the money, having been deprived of my rights. The £36 included all back costs, which I had no right to have to pay at all. The judgment for the amount bears date the 17th April, 1873; the warrant for my arrest was made out on the 7th of May, and I was apprehended and placed in prison on the 13th of May, now 12 months ago. I was taken before no magistrate, but was suddenly apprehended and thrown into gaol, where I have remained ever since." This was Stead's simple statement. I don't mean to say that he spoke it exactly as it appears, but so much I elicited by means of questions. He got very excited at times, and appeared to be suffering under a sense of very great wrong. He applied epithets to Mr. Watt which I should scarcely care to repeat. "But, Stead, remember you might go out of this to-morrow if you chose. You might go through the Bankruptcy Court." "I will never do so. I will stay here for ever first!" "What is your objection?" "My objection is, that I am in here wrongly; that I have been shamefully used, and I will never give up my rights. If I were to go through the Court, what becomes of my lease and my claim upon Mr. Watt?" "But there is another way in which you could leave the prison. Sign a release upon Mr. Watt, and he will at once cease to pay the 12s. a week, and you will walk out a free man." "Never!" "And how, then, do you over expect to get out? Mr. Watt says you shan't go out unless you do one or the other." "We shall see. I will never give up my rights." "But suppose Mr. Watt does not relent, and the law does not step in, are you prepared to remain here for ever — to die here?" "There is no fear of that, sir — but I'll never give in; never! never!" Here he became highly excited, and I did not ask him any further question for a minute or two. " I can see I am right, and see my way clearly before me. I have a good case, and will never give it up." "So you may have," I replied; "the object you have in view may be plain enough to you, but you have the prison bars between you and it. You may never attain it if you are too obstinate, have you any family ?" "No; I am a single man." "Have you any friends?" "I had, sir; but, alas, they have fallen off now, and I seldom see them." "Poor fellow! tell me how are you off for wardrobe — have you many clothes?" Poor Stead looked at me, but made no answer. "Come, tell me the truth; you need not be ashamed." "Well, sir, as God is my judge, I only possess the clothes you see me in." "How do you manage when your under-clothes are washed?" "The warders lend me some of theirs." "How do the prison authorities treat you?" "Oh, I can't complain." "Plenty to eat and drink?" "Yes; I don't grumble at the food; but lately, I am sorry to say, they have taken away my pens and ink." "Since when?" "Since I wrote a letter to the Evening Star a few weeks ago." "And do you miss pen and ink much?" "Indeed, I do very much, but I suppose it can't be helped," he added in a resigned tone of voice. I asked Stead several questions on other subjects, but I have given the gist of what he said relative to his case. When he left the room, the poor fellow shook hands and went back to his prison, apparently quite resigned to his fate, but determined never to give in by going through the Court, or signing a release upon Mr. Watt. He said that his whole prospects had been ruined by the destruction of the deed in question. He, however, only gave me the facts of his unfortunate case, but I was determined to sift the whole thing to the bottom, facts and law together, so I resolved next to visit Mr. Stamper, Stead's solicitor, and hear what he had to say upon the subject. Immediately upon my explaining my business to that gentleman, he expressed himself quite willing to give me every information on the subject, for he said he pitied Stead from the bottom of his heart, as he considered he was the victim of a foul wrong. Mr. Stamper then asked me if I would wait upon him the next morning, in order to give him time to work up some facts, and to make a written statement. To this I of course consented, and the next morning I returned, when Mr. Stamper handed me his version of the affair, which appears to contain every particular of the case, both as to its facts and its law: —
Lewis Tobias Stead's Imprisonment.
— In re "Stead v. Watt." Although Mr. Watt has declined to give certain information for publication, yet the facts are otherwise obtained on reliable authority. That Stead is a double sufferer is beyond question; that he is a wronged man, and vindictively, cruelly, and even unlawfully oppressed, has many appearances. The facts are these: It appears the natives at Port Chalmers had, by a writing, agreed to lease to Stead for a term of years a (now) very valuable piece of land there. The contract was prepared by some official of Government at Stead's expense of a few pounds, and duly signed by several of the parties. This document was by Mr. James Macassey, on behalf of Steady delivered to Mr. Watt for his approval as Government official on behalf of the natives. When Stead afterwards called on Watt for it, he alleged he could not find it, and ultimately said it was burned or destroyed. Of course Stead became enraged at its destruction, and threatened Watt, who, being Sheriff, became indignant — they were wrathful against each other. Under such circumstances Watt (not Stead) is to blame for Stead's having sued Watt for the destruction; Watt was in fault. Stead brought his action for the wilful destruction of the document by the defendant Watt himself — meaning that he individually did so, and intentionally. To this a demurrer was made, for that the intentional act was not alleged to have been done negligently. Thereupon Mr. Watt's solicitors (Messrs. Macassey, Holmes, and Chapman) asked Stead's solicitor that they, instead of him, might deliver the copy pleadings (the record) to the Judge for his decision on the argument in demurrer. They delivered an imperfect copy; and succeeded in the demurrer, for Stead's points were never properly on record before the Judge. It may be remarked that, immediately after Stead's action was brought, Mr. Watt was written to suggesting that if he had not already incurred expense in appearing to the writ, not to do so until he should again hear from the writer; the writer (Stead's solicitor) would do nothing further in the matter unless he again wrote to Mr. Watt, and he never did write; then, even if the costs of demand — £36 (for which Stead is now in gaol) — had been properly and fairly incurred, pray who was to blame for their having been incurred? But they were incurred under these circumstances, and Watt's solicitors then served an order of Court, drawn up by them, whereby Stead was, "seven days from the service thereof [which service was on the 4th of January] to pay Watt's taxed costs; otherwise that judgment might be entered against him;" and, although the costs were not taxed until April following, being several months after service of the order, insomuch that by their own default Stead could not possibly pay the costs, yet they signed judgment on this state of things, without rule, order, or authority. Can such things be? And thus it is that Stead has now suffered a year's imprisonment. He has had his document destroyed, which he considers would have been of very great value to him, and for which he sued; and see how he becomes not in "indebtedness" of money (morally), but in (by what has every appearance of) intricacy of law. Watt would have been justified if the costs of demurrer had been fairly incurred, and if Mr. Watt had not been desired not to incur them — not to appear to the writ — for that, Stead being a poor man, he might not be able to pay them." The contrary being the case, Stead is thus undoubtedly a double sufferer, and, again, even had the action been improper and the costs fairly incurred, yet what cause is there for upwards of a year's apparent vindictive cruelty at Mr. Watt's 12s.-a-week expense? Mr. Watt knows that Stead has not a shilling to help himself to obtain his discharge, and thus Watt chooses to incur a weekly outlay of 12s. for continuing Stead's incarceration rather than spend very much less than that money in making Stead a bankrupt, which Watt had a right to do, and which would entitle him (Watt) to Stead's estate, if any, both now and for time to come, but which would have given Stead his liberty. Poor Stead says he could not refrain from the thought of Watt, on hearing read the portion of Scripture for last Sunday — namely, "I deal with the thing that is lawful and right. Oh! give me not over to mine oppressor." But not only is Stead unfairly confined for an unfairly-incurred demand of costs, but he has every appearance of being illegally so; for, pray, what authority had the Coroner to issue his warrant to cause Stead, or any other person, to be delivered in gaol? The Coroner, as such, has no such power, unless it be given him. On the contrary, his powers are limited to an inquiry into death and fire only, his power as an English coroner to execute cases having been repealed by the Coroners Act. But poor as unfortunate Stead is, he is not without friends who would have assisted him — several have offered each a pound, and one even £20 — to pay a legitimate debt or demand; but under this state of things they pause: they will not assist to pay anything so unfair. And neither he nor they will consent to his becoming a bankrupt, he hitherto having paid his just debts; and more especially he will not, as a bankrupt, acknowledge being "indebted" to Mr. Watt, to whom he does not, and never did, owe one farthing. Mr. Watt has been repeatedly written to for Stead's release; but he threatens he will keep Stead in gaol, if he can, as long as he lives. The Minister of Justice was long ago petitioned, likewise the Governor; but of course, the matter being Watt's private affair, they could not interfere. The only course left for him now to pursue will be, and it is intended, as soon as the Colonial Parliament meets, to have his case there made known, so that, with leave of the House, a private Bill may be introduced, or, when the Imprisonment for Debt Bill is again before the House that a clause be therein inserted, to meet his liberty from custody. Poor Stead! instead of their commiserating, they are now even depriving him of the materials — pen and ink — wherewith to make his hardship known to those outside of his domicile: an unkind, if not an unhuman, act. May God deliver the poor from such acts, and from the power of such people. Now there are the following points I wish to mention:— 1. There is Stead's document, which cost him several pounds, destroyed by an officer of Government, whose wife, it is said, is of the native tribe for whom he is Commissioner. 2. Stead threatens Watt; Watt is offended. 3. Stead sues, he preparing his own declaration; but before Watt has appeared to the writ, Stead's solicitor gives him notice not to do so — that he will abandon it; Watt, having become annoyed, says he will appear, and intimates what he will do with Stead if ever he has the opportunity. 4. Thus Watt appeared to the writ, wilfully incurring expense; the law came to a demurrer then see how they get judgment! — (and the costs!) 5. By the order of Court Stead was to be at liberty to pay the taxed costs within seven days after service of the order. The order was served on January 4; the costs taxed, and judgment signed in April. How could Stead have complied with the order? Whose was the fault? Did their default entitle them to sign judgment? Clearly such a course was not only irregular, but the judgment is thus a nullity. 6. Then as to the case being directed to the Coroner, whose power to execute the writ, as in former days, is repealed. It will thus be seen there is reason for Watt being afraid of Stead's taking fresh action whenever he is out of prison.
Some months ago Stead was brought before the Judge for his discharge on the following affidavit; but the point was not for the Judge to decide, but for the Appeal Court, which Stead could not bear the expense of: — "In the Supreme Court of Ne\r Zealand (Otago and Southland district), No. 4,105, between Louis Tobias Stead, plaintiff, and Isaac Newton Watt, defendant. I, Louis Tobias Stead, of Dunedin, in the province of Otago, in the colony of New Zealand, labourer, the abovenamed plaintiff, make oath and say as follows, that is to say: — 1. During upwards of the last six months I have been, and I still am, a prisoner in her Majesty's gaol at Dunedin, under (amongst other) circumstances which so far as they relate to my present application are shortly as follows: — 2. Upon a demurrer in this case, having been heard, it was ordered by (a rule of) this honourable Court, and a rule was accordingly thereon drawn up on the part of the defendant and served upon my solicitor, to the following effect, namely, that, in the first place, the defendant's costs should be taxed, by the Registrar in the usual way, so that I might thereupon know what amount of costs I should have to pay; secondly, that the said costs being taxed, a copy of the rule should then be served on me or my solicitor; thirdly, that within seven days after service of the rule, and having the means of knowing the costs, which were to have been previously taxed, I should then be at liberty to pay the said taxed costs, and either reply or amend; fourthly, but that, if I did not pay the previously taxed costs within the period of seven days from and after the service of the rule, which I thus had not the liberty given me of doing, then, but not otherwise, judgment might be entered up for the defendant, with costs. 8. That the said rule was served on the 4th of January last, and the costs taxed in April last; and opportunity was never afforded me of complying with the said rule, namely, of paying the said taxed costs, and either replying or amending within the seven days from and after the date of the service of a copy of the said rule, so as to justify the defendant in afterwards signing judgment as the alternative thereof for that I had not the means of ascertaining the said costs, and replying or amending within the said seven days, for that the said costs were not taxed when the said rule was served, nor until several months after the service of the said rule, and without any cause on my part. 4. That the defendant was in fault in not complying with the said rule on his part, and therefore, of his own wrong, he was not entitled to sign judgment for the said costs under the said rule, nor was he so entitled, contrary to, or independent of, the said rule, nor without his first having obtained the order or authority of this Court. 5. That my imprisonment is for £36, costs under an alleged (but I respectfully submit illegal) judgement thus obtained, signed on the 19th day of April last, not agreeably to the said rule, and without the order or authority of the Court, or otherwise, having been first obtained for that purpose. 6. That I am detained as aforesaid under an alleged warrant of commitment by one Thomas Morland Hocken, Esquire, as a coroner of the province of Otago, grounded upon a ca. sa. directed to the Coroner of the district of Dunedin since the Coroners Act of 1867, whereby the powers and duties which coroners in New Zealand by law had, as in England, were repealed, and it expressed to be only relative to deaths and fires."
The following is a copy of the commitment: —
"District of Otago, colony of New Zealand. Thomas Moorland Hocken, Esq., Coroner for the said district, to John Frazer and John Hughes, my bailiffs, greeting: By virtue of her Majesty's writ of capias ad satisfaciendum, to me directed and delivered, dated the 19th. April, 1873, I command you and each of you, jointly and severally, that you or one of you take Lewis Tobias Stead, of Port Chalmers, in the province of Otago and colony of New Zealand, sailor, if he be found in my district, and him deliver into the hands of the keeper of her Majesty's Gaol at Dunedin; and I grant warrant to the keeper of the said gaol to receive delivery of the person of the said Lewis Tobias Stead, and him safely keep until he shall have satisfied the sum of £36 75., which Isaac Newton Watt, of Dunedin aforesaid, Sheriff, has recovered against him in her Majesty's Supreme Court of New Zealand by virtue of a judgment bearing date the 19th day of April, 1873, together with interest on the said sum at the rate of £8 per centum per annum from the 19th day of April, 1873, on which day the judgment aforesaid was entered up, besides £2 12s. 6d., costs of the said writ, together with sheriff's poundage, officers' fees, and all other incidental expenses, as in the aforesaid writ lam commanded; and in what manner you shall have executed this warrant certify to me immediately after the execution thereof.
Given under my hand, and the seal of my office, the 7th day of May, 1873. By the Coroner, Thomas Moorland Hocken. Then levy £36 75., and interest at £8 per centum per annum, from the 19th April, 1873, besides £2 12s. 6d., costs of the said writ, with sheriff's poundage, officers' fees, and all other incidental expenses. The said writ was issued by Allan Holmes, of Princes street, solicitor for the defendant. Take no bail whatever."
These are the whole of the facts relating to Stead's case, and I need scarcely say that it has taken me considerable trouble to get at them. However, having once made up my mind I was determined to lay the whole thing before the public. I shall say no more, express no opinion, nor comment upon what I have already written. I write the facts, I believe, on the best authority: the public can read them and draw their own conclusions. -Tuapeka Times, 27/5/1874.
STEAD v. WATT.
In the Supreme Court of New Zea1and, Otago and Southland, No. 415. District.
Between Lewis Tobias Stead, plaintiff; and Isaac Newton Watt, defendant.
Declaration, the fourteenth day of August, 1872.
The plaintiff, by John Stamper, his solicitor in this suit, sues the defendant, and saith —
That he, the defendant, converted to his own use, and wrongfully deprived the plaintiff of the possession and use of a certain paper-writing or document, bearing date on or about the 24th day of April, 1869, purporting to be an agreement I made between (sic) Honi Keroi Taiaroa, Hoani Wetere Korako, (sic) Teone Topi Paterki, and Horomona Pohis, of the one part, and the plaintiff, of the other part, for a lease of a certain piece or parcel of land situate in the town of Port Chalmers, being part of section No. 401 on the record map of the said town, continuing 9 perches, more or less, having building frontage of 40 feet towards the sea and a depth of 60 feet — as the same is delineated on the plan drawn on the said paper-writing or document. Wherefore the plaintiff claims the delivery and return to him of the said paper-writing or document, or the value thereof, and eight hundred pounds damages for the detention thereof.
Pleas, dated 23rd September, 1872, state: —
The defendant, by Allan Holmes, his solicitor, saith — I. That he denies all the material allegations in the declaration contained.
II. And for a further plea, the defendant saith: That the agreement in the declaration mentioned was deposited with the said defendant by both parties to the said agreement, for safe keeping, without reward on their joint behalf; and the said agreement was before the commencement of this suit lost, mislaid, or destroyed without any culpable neglect or default on the part of the defendant, which is the conversion, detention, and grievance of which the plaintiff complains.
III. And for a further plea, the defendant saith: That the persons, parties to the said agreement, of the one part, were and are aboriginal Natives of the Colony of New Zealand, and hold the lands affected thereby, which were Native lauds within the meaning of the laws in force in the Colony of New Zealand relating thereto, for themselves and other persons belonging to the Native race of the said Colony, and then resident in the Province of Otago. That the said agreement was written in the English language alone, and no translation thereof in the language of the said Natives accompanied the same. That the said agreement was not signed by the plaintiff at all, and was signed only by some of the persons parties thereto, of the one part, and the nature and purport thereof was not understood by them. That the said persons, partial to the said agreement, of the one part, had no power or Authority to enter into the said agreement. That the consideration of the said agreement on the part of the plaintiff was wholly inadequate. That the said agreement was, for the reasons aforesaid, void and illegal under and by virtue of the laws in force in the said Colony relative to Native Lands. -Otago Daily Times, 30/5/1874.
There is much more to the above and all in the same legalese. For all that Watt may have been within his legal rights, his actions did not make him popular.
The Chancery Prisoner. — We learn from our Dunedin files that Lewis Tobias Stead, the unfortunate victim of justice at Dunedin, was released from gaol on Monday last, through the liberality of the public. The committee to whom the funds raised on his behalf were entrusted paid the amount for which he was imprisoned, furnished him with clothes and provided him with board and lodging at a restaurant for a fortnight in advance. There is a striking resemblance in these proceedings to the acts of him who showed kindness to another poor fellow who had fallen among thieves. -Timaru Herald, 3/6/1874.
Some of the decisions given by Mr Isaac Newton Watt, the Police Magistrate, have been rather warmly criticised of late. Isaac Newton and Watt are generally believed to have been pretty clearheaded and clever, and possibly his fond parents imagined the present holder of these famous names would combine in his own person the whole of their varied excellences. But he does not appear to hold them in solution even. The cases in his Court which come most prominently under the public gaze are assault cases, and it is his decisions therein which are criticised. A man who waylaid another in a dark street and beat him with a stick without giving him any warning was fined only 20s; a solicitor was held to be justified, and to be acting the gentleman, when he called a man an insolent scoundrel and a thorough blackguard, and followed it up by striving to “punch the head” of the person so denominated, all in the public street; and a man who was threatened that if he did not give up certain information his eyes would be blackened, &c., and who therefore decided upon saving his eyes (and saving his threatener), was told that as the threat was conditional and the condition was complied with, the charge of abusive language would be dismissed. The latter ruling on the part of the sapient Mr Watt is a particularly brilliant one, for, if it were followed out, it simply means that the man who is bailed up with “Your money or your life,” if he wishes to have any redress at law, would have to part with his life. Bushrangers under this rule would hardly be reached by justice in this world. Smarting under one of the criticisms upon him, poor Mr Watt made a grievous error the other day. He attacked the reporter of the paper criticising him over the correctness, as he alleged, of the report of one of his remarks. The words he said he used were, “I think it was a slip," the words the reporter gave him were, “It was only a slip.” Most people will fail to see much difference, and as the matter arose in the course of an utterly unimportant case, Mr Watt suffered only a lowering of his dignity by taking the slightest notice of it. He should have known better than to raise so flimsy a quarrel on the heels of a leading article upon his unfitness for the Bench. It was only another nail in his coffin. -Cromwell Argus, 11/6/1878.
To lay a charge of incompetency against any public officer is a task that few journalists care to undertake, unless there are good and important grounds upon which to base the charge. Delicate as the operation may be in ordinary cases, it is rendered even more so when the officer in question is one entrusted with the administration of law. It is always a dangerous proceeding to create a doubt in the minds of the public as to the ability of those sitting in judicial positions to perform wisely their important duties, and we therefore approach our present subject with a feeling that we have undertaken more than ordinary responsibility. We would fain let it pass unnoticed were it not that we feel that by adopting such a course we should be guilty of a dereliction of duty. In the interests of justice, we must draw attention to the very patent incapacity shown by the junior Resident Magistrate of Dunedin. Within the past few days Mr. Isaac Newton Watt, who presides over the Metropolitan City Police Court, has given fresh evidence of a fact that has been painfully apparent ever since his appointment — that he is woefully ignorant of the law that he professes to administer. To commence with, Captain Drew, of the schooner Awarua, was charged with a breach of the law by catching seals out of season. He was convicted upon the charge, and Mr. Watt, apparently through his ignorance of the law, committed him to take his trial. A day or two afterwards it was discovered that Mr. Watt, in doing so, had overstepped his power — that he should, instead, have enforced the penalties under the Act; and the case fell through. Again, in the Police Court yesterday, another offender managed to get off scot-free in consequence of what we will term Mr. Watt's judicial eccentricities. A man named Henry Epps was charged with a breach of the Fisheries Act, in that he had been guilty of fishing in a creek for trout with a net. Mr. Watt could not permit himself to look beyond the second section of the Act, and as this did not apply to the case, he discharged the accused, totally ignoring the fact — upon which he seems to have been culpably ignorant — that provision is made in the seventh section that entirely meets such a case as Epps'. Thus two offenders have within a few days escaped the vengeance of the law; not because they were proved to be innocent, but because the magistrate entreated with the hearing of the informations was oblivious of his duty, and, some people think, too opinionated to seek advice or take time to look sufficiently fully into the matter. Were these the first occasions upon which Mr. Watt had been at fault, they might have been passed over, with an expression of hope that in future he would exercise a little more care. But they are not isolated instances of the magisterial of which Mr. Watt has been guilty. His whole career upon the Bench has been marked by what has too closely resembled overbearing officiousness, incapacity, lack of a proper amount of dignity, and ignorance of the law he is paid to administer in the interests of the public. We are not concerned only for the escape of two offenders; the matter has a wider bearing than that. May we not fairly assume that a want of legal knowledge in a magistrate that leads to the escape of transgressors against the law may also lead to the punishment of innocent persons or the too severe punishment of the guilty! A magistrate who, through ignorance or other causes, is prone to commit more than a reasonable amount of errors, cannot be expected always to do so on the side of mercy. We do not say that innocent persons have suffered at the hands of Mr. Watt, but there is, we maintain, a possibility of their doing so. As this is a contingency that should by any and every means be guarded against, we have a right to protest against the honor and liberty of the people being placed at the mercy of men whose liability to err, from whatever cause, stamps them as pre-eminently human. Were the Dunedin City Police Court one of equity Mr. Watt might pass muster, though we should like to have some proof that he is endowed with ordinary common sense before offering an opinion on that point. It is, however, a court of law and justice, and Mr. Watt, though he may strive to be just, has proved himself to be incapable of reading aright and properly administering the law. When Mr. Watt confessed in court, at the conclusion of one of the cases we have alluded to, that he had made a mistake in giving his decision, he involuntarily confirmed the opinions which have often been expressed regarding his intermittent if not chronic incompetence. -Oamaru Mail, 19/2/1880.
Mr Isaac Newton Watt, the Dunedin Resident Magistrate, has again been distinguishing himself. At one o’clock on Monday morning within a stone’s throw of the Dunedin Police Station, a policeman named Sullivan discovered another constable named Stewart on the broad of his back on the footpath in the midst of a group of hobble-de-hoys, and Jim Conway, the cricketer, punishing him. Conway was arrested, and was halfdragged, half-carried, kicking vigorously all the way to the lock-up. A squatter named Roberts interfered on Conway’s behalf, and he was also arrested. Constable Stewart had his face cut and bleeding from the blows he received from Conway, and he stated that he was half strangled besides. Several of Conway’s companions gave evidence to the effect that the constable was the aggressor, but their statements were lame and unlikely, the prosecution showing clearly enough that the constable was badly maltreated in endeavoring to stop a most unseemly midnight brawl. Despite this, Magistrate Watt, after weighing the evidence of the “civilians” against that of the police, gave Conway the benefit of the doubt and dismissed him, while Roberts, who had injured nobody, was fined £5. The Dunedin “Herald” is astonished at the magisterial decision, and suggests that had such a case been heard in London, Conway would have received the benefit of a term of imprisonment without the option of fine. We are also astonished at the action of the Bench, but our astonishment is that the eccentric Resident Magistrate did not order the thrashed constable to be flogged over again. -South Canterbury Times, 12/5/1880.
The Police Court has had its time occupied with a couple of cases in which disgrace more or less attaches to the parties concerned. John Conway, the well-known Victorian cricketer, had to answer to a charge of assaulting the police; and along with him his friend, Fitzclarence Roberts, an elderly individual who attempts to come the “young man about town,” was also charged with attempting to rescue Conway from the hands of the police as they were taking him to the lock-up. The police version of the affair, if it were true, was highly discreditable to Conway, He was stated, upon the provocation of a constable having civilly spoken to him on a Sunday morning about halfpast one o’clock, to have knocked the constable down, jumped upon his chest with his knees, and otherwise knocked him about. Happily a second constable came to the rescue of the first — a man of a different stamp, who was, as it happened, able to give Conway the rough handling necessary to successfully get him as far as the lock-up. Roberts, who was with Conway, attempted on the way to the watch-house to get him from the police, but, in addition to being arrested, received from Conway, who was struggling violently, a kick on the shin that caused him to nurse his leg in the watchhouse in the most comical way. Paramor, also a cricketer, was with the other two, but on the approach of the constable he made a convenient disappearance up a right-of-way. Conway and Roberts denied in toto what was imputed to them by the police, and declared the constable was entirely the aggressor. The Bench, of whom Mr Isaac Newton Watt was the brighter and more shining light, disbelieved Roberts’ oath about not attempting to rescue Conway, but in the most illogical way gave his testimony weight as to which of the two — Conway or the constable — was the aggressor. The upshot was that Roberts was fined L5, and Conway got off scot free. The Bench said that they the more readily let Conway off because if they had found him guilty they should have had to sentence him to a couple of months with hard labor. Such a sentence would have been ridiculous. It means far more to a man in Conway’s grade of life than to a rough-and-ready navvy sort of man. What would have been a sufficient punishment would have been a heavy fine, and, more than all, some severe remarks from the Bench that would go forth to the public broadcast. A very good way is thus afforded of punishing a man like Conway, and if the facts stated by the police were true it is a pity some such course was not taken. Another case was that of “Howlett v. Herbert,” for assault. Howlett is almost as well known through writing ridiculous, conceited letters to the papers as J. G. S. Grant; Herbert is better known as “Kosmos.” Both are of the “haw-haw” order, with great pretensions to excessive aristocracy and breeding. The two had a row — over what does not now matter; and as an outcome Herbert, catching Howlett one morning in Watson’s, the eternal resort of Dunedin’s young bloods, took him by the collar, lifted him out of his chair, and — aw — caned him —aw. Hewlett took it in a lamblike fashion, though scarcely in an aristocratic or even manly way, for he admitted he had had enough when the caning was finished, and resorted to a summons — the resort of the base-born — for satisfaction. “Kosmos” had to pay L3 and 30s expenses, and probably enough would be glad to give Hewlett another “caning” to-morrow on the same terms. Poor Hewlett has decidedly had the worst of it. He is the sort of fellow who boasts a great deal about being a public school boy from England, but has not sustained the reputation. -Cromwell Argus, 18/5/1880.
PAINFUL SCENE IN THE DUNEDIN POLICE COURT.
(From the Otago Daily Times.)
The trial before Mr. Watt, R.M., at the Police Court yesterday, of five small boys charged with fruit-stealing led to a most distressing scene, and one that must have shocked not a few of the spectators. The facts will indicate to some extent what transpired, though the anguish caused to the parents can be known only to those who saw the pained expression of their countenances, and heard their truly piteous pleas for leniency. The facts of the case were as follow; Robert Stewart (aged 9), Moses Sennard (10), Thomas Ryan (13), Thomas Duhig (9), J. Kennedy (12) were charged with stealing apples to the value of 5s, the property of John Bardsley.
Moses Sennard, Thomas Ryan, and J. Kennedy pleaded guilty, and R. Stewart and Thomas Duhig pleaded not guilty.
The parents of the boys were in Court, but the boys were not defended. John Bardsley, a gardener deposed that his servant had called his attention to the fact that some boys were stealing apples from his garden, and that when he went to the garden he saw them run away into the scrub. He then went the back way, and found the boys who were now charged walking together on the Queen's Drive. He caught one of them, and from him he learnt the names and addresses of the other boys. He could not say that he had lost a shilling's worth of fruit.
The prosecutor's servant was called, and said that she saw the three boys who had pleaded guilty in the garden when she called Mr Bardsley.
Sergeant O'Shea was sworn, and deposed that he had met the boys on the Queen's Drive, and that they all admitted stealing apples, and to having stolen a large quantify on the previous evening. The boy Kennedy had been already in the industrial School. His Worship called upon the parents of the children for what they had to say.
The mother of the boy who had pleaded not guilty said she would look after her boy better in future, but that he had not been inside the garden at all — that the boy said so, and he said so himself.
His Worship: Who says so?
Ryan: I do, your Worship. He was on the fence, but he never put a foot in the garden.
The mother of the boy Kennedy said that her boy went to school every day, but boys would get together, and she could not look after him always, because she was out nursing every day, her husband not being able to work.
His Worship: Kennedy, this being your second offence, you are sentenced to six hours' imprisonment in goal, to receive 12 stripes, and to be returned to the Industrial School at the end of that term for a period of three years.
The boy's mother stood up and cried for mercy.
His Worship: Hear me out. I tell you now I do not know whether you can have him licensed out, but if he behaves himself well the master may license him out again in the course of a few months; but he will be liable to be taken to the School again if ho misbehaves himself.
The boy's mother: Oh, dear oh dear!; it will break his father's heart.
His Worship: Thomas Ryan, you will receive a similar sentence, except that you will be sent to the Industrial School for three years.
Ryan's mother (an elderly woman, evidently in bad health) cried out in bitter anguish that in God's name the Bench would have mercy. Her husband was away, and the boy, who worked at the Port, cleaning boilers, was her only support. The boy had never before taken an apple or been before the Court in his life.
His Worship: I think two or three months in the Industrial School will do him good, by that time you will be able to license him out.
The Mother: He will never be guilty of the like again. He is the only support I have. Have you not a heart, my dear gentleman? In God's name let me have the boy; he will behave himself.
His Worship: You said you had a husband.
The Mother: Yes; but he is away, and I never hear from him. The boy is my support.
His Worship: I cannot help it. If they will misbehave themselves, they must suffer. What religion is he?
The Mother: Roman Catholic.
His Worship: What religion is Kennedy? I forgot to ask. — Roman Catholic.
Ryan's mother again essayed to address the Court.
His Worship: That will do. If he behaves himself you can apply to have him released.
His Worship: Robert Stewart, you are younger considerably than the others, and your punishment will be six stripes with the birch rod, six hours' imprisonment, and then to be sent to the Industrial School for six years on the same terms.
Stewart's father: Your Worship, the child never has been neglected, and I do not think it is fair to punish a boy who was not in the garden.
His Worship: The evidence is that he was.
The Father: There was no one to cross-examine the witnesses. My children are not neglected, and ought not to be sent to the school.
His Worship: What religion is he?
The Father: I am a Church of England man. I do not think the sentence is right or just.
His Worship: I tell you the sentence is only apparently severe.
The Father: The children should be dealt with the same as men, and I say —
His Worship: They are dealt with under a special law. I cannot listen to argument — remove him; I cannot listen to all this argument.
The boy's father was then removed from the Court by the constable.
His Worship: Moses Sennard (who had pleaded guilty), I think there is some doubt whether you are guilty, and I give you the benefit of the doubt. If it had not been that you receive the benefit of the doubt I should have given you the same punishment.
His Worship, (to Duhig): There is no doubt about your being in the garden along with the others, and you will receive the same sentence — six stripes.
The boy's father here called out: Your Worship, he is under the care of the doctor, suffering from abscess in the groin, and has been in the Hospital.
His Worship: You had better get medical evidence of that. I will remand him till to-morrow.
The boy's father: He was not inside the orchard at all. Will you let him come home with his parents?
His Worship: Yes, if you will engage to bring him here to-morrow.
The Father: We will do that.
His Worship: If he is not brought here he will be arrested. -Oamaru Mail, 12/2/1881.
RAYS OF LIGHT.
By the Man in the Moon.
Did you ever steal apples? Nay, do not deny the soft impeachment, for who amongst us has not, when a boy, crept stealthily into an orchard and purloined the luscious fruit, the eating of which — vide gospel according to St. Barstow — first brought sin into this wicked world. Never, I verily believe, since Madame Eve, the first transgressor, set the awful example, has there been a boy who has not at some time stolen, not only apples, but every other kind of fruit that was temptingly within his reach. All that is required is the opportunity, and the only difference in the magnitude of the crime committed by orchard-robbing juveniles is that some have been found out and others have not. As Shakespeare pithily puts it, our "best conscience is not to leave undone, but keep unknown." Who amongst us can lay his hand upon his heart and say that he has not stolen fruit at some period of his life. Will Mr. Isaac Newton Watt do so? Will he say that he has never stolen an apple? And if he does, will anybody believe him? I trow not. And yet the brilliant legal luminary who presides in the Dunedin Police Court declares apple-stealing to be an offence of so terrible a nature that it must be put down by an iron hand. It mattered not to him that the offenders arraigned in his awful presence were mere children, that the eldest was only thirteen years of age, that mothers pleaded in piteous tones that mercy might be extended to their offspring, that one of them weepingly declared that her boy was her only means of support. All pleas, all promises, and all beseechings were alike in vain. "Away with the criminals to the dungeon, whip them, and then cast them into a penitentiary for many years," in effect said the hard-hearted, imperious Magistrate. The quality of mercy is unknown to him. These eloquent words, put into the mouth of Portia by the Immortal Bard, fall flat upon his ears — The quality of mercy is not strained; It droppeth as the gentle dew from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
* * *
And earthly power doth then show likest God's When mercy seasons justice.
I very much fear that Shylock, not Portia, is Mr. Watt's model.
It may be that Mr. Isaac Newton Watt has made a discovery. A wicked wag has suggested to me that such is the case. He reminds me that Isaac Newton the first, by the falling of an apple, discovered the law of gravitation, and, I ask, "Can it be that Isaac Newton the second has, by apple eating, discovered that unripe fruit leads to dysentery, and that, after all, his apparent harshness was in reality prompted by kindly consideration for the little children whom he sent to the Industrial School? Was he solicitous for the health of the rising generation, and anxious to prevent decimation of the population? It may be so and perhaps Mr. Watt will confirm my suspicion when he next essays to make an explanation of his conduct, a proceeding he frequently indulges in, for the poor old man is very tender-hearted, and can plead hard enough when he himself is brought under the lash of public opinion. This fact leads me to the reflection, Is it dignified in a Magistrate to stoop to bandy words with the Press when it comments upon any of his abundant shortcomings? I do not think such conduct is calculated to either beget respect or inspire confidence. One cannot help thinking that such harangues as Mr. Watt indulges in are degrading to a magistrate, and goodness knows that the status of his Court requires raising, not lowering; for never, surely, was there a magistrate whose decisions and general conduct on the Bench called forth such frequent. He has, I see, attempted to explain his latest action, and has thereby displayed his want of wisdom. Magistrates, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion, and when they are not so, they should cease to be magistrates. That is the conclusion of most men, and the general verdict is against Mr. Watt.
Talking of police magistrates brings to my recollection an amusing incident that occurred in Victoria in the good old days of the goldfields. In a certain township that shall be nameless. there was a police magistrate, who, for convenience sake, I will call John Brown. He was a good magistrate and a popular man, but somewhat given to the sin of occasionally overindulging in the seductive cup. One evening he had been passing a pleasant time with some friends, the result being that many of them on their way home found themselves rather heavily laden, and staggered terribly under their loads. Brown got home all right but some of his friends fell into the hands of the Philistines, and on going to the Court next day the P. M. found on the charge-sheet the names of several members of the previous evening's party. Not a word did he utter until the Court was opened, and then, before the motley assemblage therein gathered, he bade the sergeant of police put the name of John Brown on the sheet, and charge him with having been drunk and disorderly in the public streets. After some hesitation on the part of the sergeant this was done and the case called on. "John Brown," said his Worship, "you are charged with having been drunk and disorderly last night in the public street. I am aware that you intend to plead guilty. The gravity of the offence in your case is largely increased by a knowledge of the fact that one in your position should a better example to the rest of the community — you are fined L5." Putting his hand into his pocket he drew forth the money, paid it over, and calmly said "Call the next case." How different was the conduct of this magistrate from that of one who not long since presided in a New Zealand Court, when placed in the same position. A boon companion of the previous evening was brought before him charged with drunkenness and appealed to the Bench to prove, that he was not intoxicated. "Was I not in your company last night, and was I not sober?" queried the unfortunate. But the magistrate was like unto adamant, and could not be moved. He declined to recognise the prisoner, and fined him heavily for his offence. It is not even recorded that he paid half the fine. -Oamaru Mail, 14/2/1881.
THE DEFENCE OF. MR WATT.
TO THE EDITOR.
Sir, — I cannot but think that you and your contributors —" Humanity" and others — have been not only unnecessarily harsh, but even unjust in censuring that worthy judge, Mr Isaac Newton Watt. Apple-stealing, Sir, is a crime of the greatest magnitude; and as it was, without doubt, the original sin, so it yet remains the outward token of inward depravity. Therefore it should be sternly repressed, and "the "offending Adam" birched and beaten out of the transgression. Mr Watt was only too weakly merciful in limiting the punishment of little lads to so short a period as six years. They should have been branded for life as "suspects," and made to bear the jeers and scorn of their associates so long as they cumber the earth. What matters the agonised cries of a wretched mother, robbed of her only child — who is also her only support? What is it that a father should vainly implore mercy, and pray that his child may be spared shame and degradation attendant on the sentence? Individual sufferings such as these are only as feather-weights in the estimation of large-minded men like Mr Watt, whose capacity for meting out law and justice has been so grandly displayed in the cases referred to. Indeed, Sir, he is fitted for a loftier sphere than he now holds on the Judicial Bench, and if Ministers are wise they will advise his Excellency to remit Isaac Newton Watt to the British Government, with a recommendation that he should be appointed to carry out and enforce the Irish Coercion Act, for which position he is admirably fitted, and in the performance of the duties of which he would find a suitable outlet for his proclivities.
— I am, &c.,
Lex Talionis. Dunedin, February 14th. -Otago Daily Times, 15/2/1881.
A most ridiculous fuss has been made in Dunedin because Mr. I. N. Watt, the Resident Magistrate at that place, has given a very wholesome and much needed lesson to some incipient criminals of the so-called "larrikin" class, which is growing into such a curse in colonial communities. Several young rascals were convicted on the dearest evidence of having stolen apples. The value of the fruit in that particular case was very trifling, but the culprits admitted having stolen a large quantity of apples on the previous evening, and in fact confessed to being in the habit of committing this particular description of petty larceny. Mr. Watt — very properly, in our opinion, sentenced the young thieves to be imprisoned for six hours, to be birched during their imprisonment, and afterwards sent to the Industrial School until they attained the age of 15 years. On this, we are told, there was a most heart-rending scene, the parents praying in bitter anguish for mercy, and imploring the Magistrate in God's name not to take their children from them. The mother of one of the boys, however, who had been particularly demonstrative in her shrieks for mercy, admitted that she was living on the earnings of this poor little sinner, who, although only 13 years old, was a boiler-cleaner at Port Chalmers. What she dreaded, therefore, was the loss not of the child but of his earnings. Another boy was shown to have been grossly neglected by his parents, and in short the whole evidence went to prove that these juvenile applestealers were on the high road to become permanent additions to the criminal class. It was therefore assuredly the truest kindness to administer a sharp immediate chastisement for the actual offence, and to guard them from future temptation by placing them within the Industrial School. Such was the view taken by Mr. Watt, and very justly. Not so thought some of the Dunedin papers, which denounced Mr. Watt as a perfect monster of cruelty, whose inhumanity was only equalled by his eccentricity, and wound up by remarking that "the sooner Mr Watt retires upon his superannuation allowance to which his many years of service entitle him the better it will be for the ends of justice and for his own reputation." This is indeed "tall talk," and the puzzle is to understand "what it is all about." Surely our Dunedin contemporaries will not seriously contend that it is right to steal apples, or flowers, or poultry, or Bank notes, or horses. If it is wrong to steal at all the value of the articles stolen does net affect the degree of moral turpitude. The boy who will steal one apple will steal a hundred if he gets the chance. If he will steal apples or flowers he will also steal money if he has a chance of doing so with probable impunity. For his own sake, as well as for that of the community it is necessary that he should be sternly taught that stealing will not be permitted and that if he commits a theft he incurs a sharp penalty. One paper actually urges that there is "a spice of adventure" about apple-stealing, which has caused that offence always to be leniently looked upon and dealt with. If the "spice of adventure" which may attach to any particular crime forms any plea in extenuation of punishment, then most certainly burglars and highway robbers ought to go scot free, and Ned Kelly ought not to have been hanged. That in fact was the view taken by his disreputable sympathisers, who brought such grave discredit on themselves and their colony by their preposterous proceedings. Such an argument will not hold water for a moment. All crime is despicable and unheroic, but the imaginative faculties which attach any spice of heroism to applestealing must be very highly developed. Stealing apples or flowers is essentially a mean, contemptible, cowardly sort of crime, just the sort of sneaking action which has a tendency to debase a boy's mind, and form it in the direction of permanent criminality. We are heartily glad to find one New Zealand magistrate, at any rate, disregarding all this morbid and mawkish gush of sickly sentimentalism, and reading these rascally young thieves the wholesome lesson that crime involves punishment, instead of weakly letting them go unchastised with some wretched little bit of namby-pamby, goody-goody caution "never to do so no more." It is this deplorable prevalence of wishywashy maudlin sentimentality that leads to half the crime in the country by encouraging the belief that it can be perpetrated with immunity. The juvenile criminals who are "let off easily" never feel the slightest gratitude to their too lenient judge, but invariably sneer at him as "an old soft head," and join their companions in ridiculing his mildness and gullibility. We warmly commend Mr. Watt's action, not only in regard to the punishment to which he sentenced the apple stealers, viz., six hours' imprisonment and a birching, but also for the wise and thoughtful precaution which he took — the law enabling him to do so — to save these young criminals from the life of crime into which they were drifting, to protect them from the evil influences to which they had become subject, and to compensate them for the neglect of their parents by sending them to the Industrial School until they reached the age of 15 years. This does not necessarily involve total separation from their parents, unless the latter prove themselves unfit to have the custody and training of their children, but it enables the law, which they have infringed, to keep its hold on them, and to see that they are saved from the peril in which they stand. Mr. Watt's remarks on this head are so just and forcible that they deserve quoting. He said: — "The committal to the Industrial School is really no punishment," as the boys upon good behaviour are almost immediately let out to their own parents, but fortifies the control of the parents by letting the boys know that if their parents are unable to keep them under proper control, there is a power behind that can do so; for they can at any time be remitted back to the school during the currency of their respective sentences. This has been the practice of Mr. Titchener for some time past, and appears to have been very beneficial. I think by this means we can to a great extent prevent larrikinism. We hope that those magistrates who, from mistaken ideas of kindness, treat "first offences" with sadly misplaced leniency will not be above taking a lesson from the very sensible and judicious action of Mr. Watt. We believe that those boys will live to feel deeply grateful to him for thus timely rescuing them from an impending career of crime. Let it be remembered that boys who will steal fruit from orchards or flowers from gardens will learn to commit larger thefts by degrees as their moral instincts become blunted and the predatory inclination developed; and in the name of common sense and honesty let us have no more of such idle prating as that which has been launched at Mr. Watt for his well-timed and humane interposition between several juvenile thieves and a career of crime. We say to all New Zealand Magistrates, "Go and do likewise." -Evening Post, 17/2/1881.
Mr Isaac Newton Watt, the Resident Magistrate at Dunedin, appears to have incurred the serious displeasure of the Press and public of that part bf the colony by his efforts to put down rampant larrikinism. Several boys were caught red-handed stealing fruit from a nurseryman's garden, and Mr Watt ordered them to be imprisoned for six hours, to be birched once during that time, and then to be sent to the Industrial School for a lengthened term. One of these youthful thieves had been sent to the Industrial School previously for some other offence, but had got out again either through good behaviour or on account of the time named for his detention having expired. It should also be mentioned that these boys, or at least some of them, admitted to having robbed the same garden of a large quantity of fruit on the previous evening. In passing sentence Mr Watt explained that the substantial part of the punishment was the thrashing, that to give him power to order its infliction it was necessary formally to send the boys to prison, and that with regard to the detention in the Industrial School, although the term named was long, it could at any time be cut short on the master reporting favourably on the conduct of his unwilling pupils. We think Mr Watt is deserving of the hearty thanks of the community for making such good use of the power entrusted to him, but, instead of that, he had in the first place to put up with a good deal of impudence from the lads' parents, and was then subjected to a running fire of abuse from a portion of the Press, supplemented by letters from all sorts of people which were published in the papers. It was one of these which first attracted our attention to the subject, and judging from the contents we were almost brought to believe that Mr Watt had ordered these larrikins to be skinned alive and their carcasses hung up for the birds of the air to feed on in the trees which had been the subject of the robbery. However, having known this gentleman for very many years, during which time we had discovered no trace of cruelty and blood-thirstiness in his character, but rather a mildness of disposition and excessive humanity which seemed to render him unfit to cope with the colonial larrikin, we prosecuted our search further, and quickly found that though almost every man's hand was against him he had done nothing whatever to deserve any one of the hard things which were being said of him. And some of these things were very hard indeed, one man suggesting that a Magistrate who had so grossly abused his trust ought to be at once dismissed the service. The fact is that Mr Watt has set an example which we hope to see followed up by his brother Magistrates throughout the colony. The larrikin element from one end of the country to the other is becoming an intolerable nuisance, and the Bench generally shows a disposition to trifle with the evil instead of endeavouring to repress it with a stern hand whenever the opportunity for interference presents itself. There is only one part of the sentence spoken of above which we do not like, and for that part the law is to blame and not Mr Isaac Newton Watt. He intended these boys to be flogged, and he would not allow himself to be baulked because before that could be done the culprits had to see, probably for the first time, the inside of a gaol. Not that they would in any way mix with the other inmates. They would see none but the officials, and would be sent on to the Industrial School as soon as the punishment had been administered. But, for all that we dislike the idea of sending juvenile offenders to prison at all, and in after years some ill-conditioned wretch might brand them with the name of "gaol-bird." Still, the punishment was well-deserved, and notwithstanding all the fuss which has been made about it, the effect will be salutary in repressing the larrikin element of Dunedin. The offence for which these lads were sentenced has been rife in Wanganui during the summer months. In one case a boy was caught, but let go at the solicitation of his parents. In another a gang of these young ruffians invaded a garden in a most open way and did a good deal of miscellaneous damage, and were heard boasting of having robbed another garden the night before. Perhaps it may do something to check depredations of this sort to know that on conviction the Magistrate can first order the offenders to be soundly flogged, and then pack them off to an Industrial School in another part of the colony. -Wanganui Chronicle, 22/2/1881.
Isaac Newton Watt arrived in Oamaru to-day with the object, it is said, of taking the place of Mr. Parker as R.M. We wish Mr. Watt a pleasant career. -Oamaru Mail, 9/5/1881.
Wo are glad to be able to assuage, public anxiety as to the probability of the ladies and gentlemen who lately performed "Trial by Jury" and "Old Gooseberry" at the Volunteer Hall being called up to appear before the "Beak." Twenty-four hours ago, it seemed really inevitable that they would have no other alternative than to attend Mr. Isaac Newton Watt's leve at the Hall of Justice. We felt slightly interested in the issue of the misunderstanding, for it is, we believe, nothing more than a misunderstanding that has occasioned public excitement that has never been exceeded in intensity since the foundation of the Colony. To tell the truth, we feared that the unfortunate affair might interfere with the publication of our contemporary. It is true that we played the fiddle and "Old Gooseberry," but our contemporary played the Judge and Counsel for the Plaintiff, and we were fearful that, whilst the fiddle might get us off, aping a judge and a lawyer might be the very death of our contemporary — that, in fact, the "Bench" might play "Old Gooseberry" with them. We breathe more freely now that the Dramatic authors' Society's agent has agreed to settle the matter. How positively awkward it would have been to make our bow before Mr. Watt; but how much more painful to see the mock judge and counsel for the plaintiff quartered in "the castle" whilst we were only privileged to pass them an occasional "quid" through the bars. -Oamaru Mail, 28/5/1881.
FISH OF ONE, AND FLESH OF ANOTHER.
which rendered, into, the vernacular, means, "one law for the rich and another for the poor." It will be remembered that an information was laid against Sir William Fitzherbert for a breach of the Gaming and Lotteries Act by joining in sweeps on the racecourse. What was the result — The Magistrate declined to act, and the matter was referred to the Crown Law Officer for his opinion, and I was consequently surprised to find that a man named Thomas Wires had been fined five shillings for a similar offence, — and entre nous the presiding magistrate on the occasion was my old friend Isaac Newton Watt. Now I have not the felicity of knowing Mr. Thomas Wires, but I do know Sir William Fitzherbert. I know that he is a Knight, and a member of the upper House, in fact he belongs to the upper crust altogether. If the opinion of the Law Officer has been obtained and it is to the effect that the Act is in force, then how is it we do not hear of the Knightly offender being proceeded against, and I ask in the words of Artemus Ward — Why is this thus? The Gaming and Licensing Acts and half a dozen more — the work of last session — are perfect burlesques in the name of legislation, and their only good is that/their very absurdity may be the means of having them struck off the Statute Book forever. [l have heard since the above was in type that the police have at last decided to proceed against the aristocratic offenders. I hope the decision will be given before our races come off, or there is likely to be more fishes in the judicial net.]. -Manawatu Times, 24/12/1881.
The inquest on the boy Russell, who died under chloroform, has concluded; and the jury found a verdict that no blame attached to anyone. Dr Hocken, the coroner, is now in England, and Mr Isaac Newton Watt is acting coroner. Mr Watt established a reputation for eccentricity as a magistrate, and he will not lose it as a coroner. His conduct of the inquest was unique. He began proceedings by swearing in a jury of 24. The possibility of one set of 12 finding one verdict and the other set another does not seem to have suggested itself to Mr Watt; but as the verdict of any 12 good men and true must be taken as a legal verdict, the coroner would have found himself in a delightful quandary in such a case. However, there was always one way out of the difficulty. Mr Watt could have settled the point by his own casting vote — a proceeding which would doubtless have commended itself to his mind. Having secured his jury, Mr Watt judged it wise to make an "opening remark” to them by way of explaining to them what they were there for. He told them that Dr Burns, who administered the chloroform, was a personal friend of his own and that it was due to Dr Burns’ character and to his own that everything should be cleared up. How his own character could suffer Mr Watt did not explain, but he set about clearing everything up, in his own behalf as well as other people’s, in quite a characteristic fashion. There could be no “criminality or suspicion, or anything of that sort;" if there was any blame anywhere “it is for Dr Burns for negligence.” To what extent a doctor may be negligent in such a case without being criminal, however, the jury were left to determine for themselves. Then he informed the jury that he himself had been a “great medicine man,” as the Red Indians have it, but it was a-many years ago; and in order to prove that he knew something about administering chloroform, he afforded them this interesting remnant of his professional lore: — “My knowledge of the quantity is this. Different constitutions will take five or six times as much as others will, I don’t think I ought to go further in the matter.” It had suddenly dawned upon the Coroner, I suppose, that he was giving evidence. Having now concluded his “opening remark,” Mr Watt seems to have got the notion that nothing more remained but for the jury to return their verdict. Having put it now clearly before them that Dr Burns and the Coroner were personal friends; that for both their sakes everything should be cleared up; that it was possible there was negligence, but impossible there was criminality or suspicion; that the Coroner had himself been a doctor; and that some constitutions could take five or six times as much chloroform as others, — Mr Watt told the jury, “I can take your verdict now.” In his own words, the facts were in a nutshell. The jury, however, did not see the matter quite as clearly as the Coroner; indeed, they seem to have been, to use another expression of his, “befogged,” for they required quarter of an hour’s adjournment ere they discovered that so far as they had gone they had actually nothing before them except the dead body of the unfortunate lad on which to found a verdict. Then, having recovered from the state of confusion into which Mr Watt had thrown them, they suggested the advisability of their being furnished with some evidence as to how the corpse came by its death. The inquiry then proceeded; but it was conducted in a most irregular manner throughout — the Coroner at one time begging “the gentlemen of the Press” not to take down some remark that he did not consider material, and at another querulously inquiring, in view of what he considered an interruption, “What I want to know is, am I holding a Court or a public meeting, where every man can speak when he likes and jump up and down as it pleases him?” It is only a wonder that the jury came to the sensible verdict they did, for Mr Watt had certainly done his best —with his hints about negligence and excusable homicide, his proposal for the calling of experts (who always differ), and his extraordinary suggestion of a parallel between the case before them and that of a father who killed his child whilst correcting him (what experts would he have called in the latter instance, may well be wondered) — to addle the brains of any twelve sensible men, let alone twenty four. All’s well that end’s well, certainly; but Dr Burns had good reason to grumble at the treatment he received in the inquest being adjourned for a week whilst he was compelled to pose before the public as unacquitted of negligence. It will be a great pity if any important case should arise during Dr Hocken’s absence calling for the services of the Coroner, for Mr Watt will assuredly make a mess of it. -Cromwell Argus, 23/5/1882.
OBITUARY.
We regret to have to announce the death of Mr Isaac Newton Watt, which took place at his residence, North-East Valley, yesterday afternoon. As a young man the deceased was a student at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London. He, however, never took a medical degree, although in after years when he emigrated to New Zealand he used to give many the benefit of his medical skill, the services of a "duly qualified medical practitioner" then not being so readily obtainable as at present. Both in Taranaki and at the Bluff he was known as "doctor," and his services proved invaluable in many a time of sickness both to the Maori population and to settlers; also occasionally to sailors who by chance visited these shores. He first came to this colony in 1842, landing at Taranaki. Not very long after his arrival he obtained a commission in the militia, and served through the first Maori war as captain. In 1862 he obtained the position of resident magistrate at the Bluff, where he remained until 1868, when he received the appointment of sheriff to the Supreme Court, Dunedin. After coming here, until about five or six years ago he held the offices of sheriff, resident magistrate, and coroner. In the year 1880 he retired from active service on a pension. He, however, still retained the offices of sheriff and coroner up to the time of his death. For a year or so Mr Watt has been in a very poor state of health, and succumbed yesterday to some brain affection. He was over 70 years of age when he died, and leaves two sons and two married daughters. Both of the sons are in employment, one being in Mr Duncan's office in Melbourne, and the other at the Hillside Workshops. -Otago Daily Times, 11/9/1886.
No comments:
Post a Comment