85
-presentative. The Chief Justice produced the papers in two
cases, in the first of which certain monies belonging to a
certain fund had been paid by a firm of Solicitors (Messrs. Deacon and Hastings) in the usual manner, that is to say by letter to me enclosing a cheque. Upon examination of the papers, I found this to be a purely ministerial matter and that the
letter which had been written to me had been duly filed, and
the receipt attached to the letter. The Chief Justice on passing
the papers across to me, asked me why I had received these
monies and applied them to the fund. I replied "1 have done
nothing of the kind - this is purely a ministerial matter. The
money was paid in by the Solicitors and I had no option but to
receive it". "But", the Chief Justice said "You have applied the!
money by receiving it" - I repeated "Nothing of the kind
have simply, as was my duty and the correct, legal and only
course to follow, filed the letter". He then replied "But here
is your receipt" - 1 replied "Not my receipt, but the receipt of
the Colonial Treasurer which had to be obtained. "He then pass-
ed over to me another file of papers wherein a stay of proceed-
ings bad been ordered by the Court until security was given, and
asked me how it was that the Solicitors had been allowed to
file proceedings notwithstanding the fact that the Order of
Court had not been complied with. After examining the papers,
although myself taken by surprise for I had had no previous
intimation of the fact that this matter was coming on before the
Judge, I at once took the ground that it must have been a matter
arrived at by the parties by consent and at their own risk, and
that consequently 1 was purely ministerial. The Chief Justice
then said that I was wrong. I replied again that what had been.
done was purely ministerial and that it was for his Lordship to
say whether the parties were right or wrong. The Chief Justice
disagreeing