The Warrington Examiner. — 1871-01-07 (Warrington, Cheshire, England)

THE EDITOR OF THE EXAMINER.  Regina v. Magrath and Halloran. Sir,—Mr. James Nicholson has thought fit, through your columns, to appear at the bar of public opinion in reference to the conduct of Mr.Fierpoint, the presiding magistrate in the above case, and of himself. lie states that my remarks on the occasion were most unbecoming and unfair. Well, I will allow the public to judge for themselves by giving a short and unbiassed recital of the facts as they occurred, leaving it with the public to say whether my remarks were not much milder than the occasion warranted, and whether the conduct of the magistrate did not call for an earnest protest on behalf of my client at my hands. Poor Mr. Forrest was murdered early in November. Two men, McGrath and Halloran, were taken upon suspicion and brought before the magistrates, and after an interval of fire or six weeks, and many adjourned examinations, were in the dock on December 22nd. The police had concluded the ease against the prisoners. Mr. Bretherton and, I had addressed the magistrate on behalf of our' respective clients. The magistrate intimated that he would retire to consider the evidence, and would give his decision at four o'clock. 'When I returned to court I was informed that another witness was to be called for the prosecution' and it was with some difficulty that I extracted from the witness Holcroft that .he had been examined or questioned by the magistrate in a private room. Now, Mr. James Nicholson status that Mr. Pierpoint ordered a police-officer to go for Holcroft on the ground that Holcroft's evidence might be material for the prosecution. Well, now, what I complained of then, and what I complain of still, is not that Holcroft should have been called, but that a magistrate should deliberately set aside his magisterial character and impartiality, and should become actively the prosecutor of these men; that he should ignore all the rules ~,of equity, and instead of judging impartially from the evidence brought before him, should get a witness into a private room, examine that witness in the absence of the accused and their attornies, and then bring him into court, go through the mockery of appearing to raceive evidence which he had privately heard, and deciding on it publicly when he had made up his mind to -commit the prisoners. English law and English justice must cry shame on such proceedings. Magistrates should be like aesar's wife—above suspicion. Justice is pictorially represented as holding the balance even. All the judges of the superior courts tell a jury to banish from their minds all that they may have heard outside, and weigh only the evidence brought before them. Common law as well as common sense says if there is assloubt the prisoner must have the benefit of it; and so long as I have the honour to appear in a court of justice I will denounce all such one-sided proceedings as these with all the earnestness and vigour of which I am master. My duty to my client, Mr. Editor, is paramount to every other consideration; and I repeat now what I repeated then, that the proceedings of which I complain were most unjustifiable and irregular, and I am utterly astonished diet Mr. Nicholson should have advisel the taking of such a course.—Faithfully yours,