[legal profession, discipline of - costs, legal - law reporting - Montagu J., attacks on - Montagu J., anger of - Supreme Court, disagreement between judges - Banco Court, disagreement between judges]

We have not space this week to insert at full length, the report of a motion Loane v Rowlands, made by the Attorney General on behalf of Mr. Loane. The motion was made by the Attorney General against Mr. Rowlands, and argued before their Honors the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Montagu. The nature of the motion was, that Mr. Rowlands should answer certain affidavits read by the Attorney General, and the affidavit of Mr. R. W. Loane, was received on the occasion. The Attorney General displayed his usual tact and ability, going through the whole in a masterly manner. The Solicitor General was retained by Mr. Rowlands; but after the Attorney General had been two hours on his legs, it appeared from a statement made by him, that Mr. Rowlands had sued Mr. Loane before the motion had been made, and the Court held, that as Mr. Rowlands had brought his action against Mr. Loane for Ł1060, it would not be altogether fair towards the former gentleman, to grant a rule to answer the affidavits, as it would evidently be prejudicing the minds of the Jury which will have to try the case and therefore the Court adjourned, and the motion is not to be decided until that case is disposed of.

The Judges sat in banco in the Quarter Sessions room, the Supreme Court room being undergoing repair. The Court was crowded with persons anxious to hear the proceedings on the motion of the Attorney General at the suit of Mr. Loane for Mr. Rowlands to answer certain complaints against him for misconduct as Mr. Loan’s Attorney.

The Attorney General then made his motion for a rule to shew cause why Mr. Rowlands should not be called upon to answer the complaint of Mr. Loans, charging him first with having betrayed, his (Mr. Loane’s) interest in three instances, to his injury and to the dishonor of his (Rowlands) profession as an attorney. The learned gentleman entered into a long and luminous explanation of the matters set forth in the affidavits, and certainly made out such a prima facie case of dishonesty and villainy as we have seldom seen exposed even in a petty fogging attorney. In the course of his address, the Attorney General clearly shewed that if such conduct were suffered to pay with impunity, there would be an end to all confidence in the court and its officers, and that no reasonable man would ever trust his affairs to an officer of that court. He was commencing to state what he understood would be the defence set up to this charge, and to shew that the anticipated defence could not avail the accused - when having stated that Rowlands would allege that the complaint was not made for a public object but to meet an action which Mr. Rowlands had brought for the recovery of a large sum, due by Mr. Loane for an Attorney’s bill. He said that the object was a public one, although Mr. Loane might be acting from private motives in bringing forward the complaint, and he instanced the case of a private prosecution in a case of felony, when the court would not stop to enquire into the motives of the prosecution, but would proceed to accomplish the public object of doing justice; and if the present charge was made out, justice demanded the punishment of the accused without enquiring into the motives of the accuser. Mr. Justice Montagu stopped him very abruptly, and said in an angry tone, you never told us a word about the action until you had done all the mischief, by stating the whole of your case. His Honor went on to say that he would not entertain the motion, until the action was tried - for if the court decided against Rowlands, that it must prejudice the minds of the jury. We saw the steam getting up and expected a scene - but the Attorney General kept his temper so well and bowed so low before the rising tempest, that meeting with no resistance where on to break its fury the tempest passed over. The Chief Justice said, that he saw the same objection when he heard of the pending action, but on the explanation of the Attorney General, he said that no good could now accrue from delay, as all the charges were now publicly stated, and that there were several reporters in court taking down every word that was said; and he said that they might take the rule, but Mr. Justice Montagu said that he must take time to consider, and that he would give his opinion on Friday. Mr. McDowall for Rowlands, begged that the case might go on - however, Mr. Montague was determined that it should not, although he said that by the delay great hardship would be inflicted on Mr. Rowlands - of course it stood over, and the Attorney General begged that the proceedings might not be published. In compliance with this request we abstain from publishing the speech of the Attorney General, and the portions of the affidavits which he read. But we cannot avoid remarking the very extraordinary aversion which Mr. Montagu has to entertain any complaint against Rowlands.

This is the third, or more properly the fifth attempt that has been made to bring Rowlands to account for his intricacies - but in every instance has justice been most shamefully defeated. In the case of Stynes and Froy, he paid some Ł400 or Ł500 to the complainers for quashing the proceedings. The affidavits were on the file, which must inevitably have struck him off the rolls had the case gone on; but as we said, h4e bought the complainers off, and paid dearly for having his license to offend again in like manner. The affidavits continued on the file for a long time, and when the matter was forgotten, Rowlands moved the court to have them struck off. The judges had read these affidavits, and seldom has a prettier piece of villany been charged against any attorney then was there charged against Rowlands. Did their Honors insist upon Rowlands clearing himself of the charge, and purifying the court and the profession from the implied infamy? No! but Mr. Justice Montagu attempted to turn the public attention away from the infamy charged against Rowlands, by abusing Mr. Gellibrand, not for abandoning the case without removing the blemish, from the profession, but for ever having made the complaint. Mr. Gellibrand has often acknowledged to us, that he had seen much cause to regret that in this case regard to the pecuniary interests of his client, made him to forego the demands of public justice, in bringing Rowlands to punishment. The impunity with which this was passed over, encouraged Rowlands in pursuing his intricate course. Many gross instances of his conduct came under our notice, and thinking it useless to complain to the court, we appealed to the public, through the columns of our journal - Rowlands threatened us with a criminal prosecution; we dared him to bring a civil action; he pretended to doubt our ability to pay the value which a jury would put on his character; and he swore in the witness box, that this was his reason for proceeding criminally against us - although we had offered him the joint bond of two gentlemen of undoubted wealth for a thousand pounds, to meet any sum that he might recover.

The chief justice, who tried the case, expressed his regret that it had come before him, and said we were to blame for having published the charges, when we ought to have complained to the court, which would have visited such conduct with severe punishment; yet we were sentenced to pay a fine of twenty pounds, and be imprisoned for one month. While in prison, we drew up a statement of the case on affidavit, for the injured individual to make his own complaint in person to the judges; being an ignorant man, and totally unacquainted with the necessary forms, and unable to fee a lawyer, we sent our own clerk to direct him how to proceed in court, but in place of meeting there with that protection and encouragement to which his ignorance and his poverty entitled him in seeking for justice, he was brow-beaten, and threatened both by the bench and the bar; and because our clerk was seen near the poor man, we also came in for our share of the abuse - and Justice Montagu threatened us with the severest punishment, for following the course which the chief justice had pointed out and blamed us for not having adopted before. The attorney general volunteered in court to conduct the case, and succeeded in setting aside a warrant of attorney which Rowlands had improperly obtained, and in the face of this Rowlands was discharged, and a great encomium passed on his conduct by his friend Justice Montagu. Of his career since that time, there has been but one opinion, even amongst the members of his own profession; yet every one seems afraid of him - the chief justice tolerates, and Justice Montagu protects him, and judging from the past, we anticipate that means will be found to quash even the present proceedings, without even compelling him to answer the charges, atrocious as they appear. We anticipate that the affidavits which disclosed an unparalleled tissue of villainy will remain dormant on the file of the supreme court, and when the public attention is turned away from the facts, when Rowlands will obtain a rule to take them off the file, as in a former case, and the public will be treated with another scene from Mr. Justice Montagu, pouring forth his vituperation on Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Young. We beg to be clearly understood, not to offer any opinion about Rowlands’ guilt or innocence of the charges imputed to him by Mr. Loane; we are willing to give him every benefit of a doubt, and if he makes a defence, we pledge ourselves to lay it before the public simultaneously with the affidavits of accusation; but if he attempts to evade meeting the charges, there can be but one opinion of this accusation. And as soon as this case is disposed of, we will give Mr. Rowlands an opportunity of clearing himself of the charges in Stynes and Troy’s case, for we will publish the affidavits, and give him security for any amount he may require to pay whatever damages and costs he may get from a jury.

We have another case against him, which would have been brought before the court this term, if the necessary witnesses could have been induced to make voluntary affidavits to the facts, which they must prove on oath; if he would bring an action for publishing what we know, of the disgraceful proceeding of which he is accused in obtaining an affidavit in the case of Arthur v Gregson. We will publish the whole facts, as soon as his present case is disposed of. There is no safety for society, if he is permitted to continue his practice without clearing himself of these charges, and we again repeat that we will be as ready to publish his vindication before the proper authority, as we are to publish accusations against him, upon public grounds alone.

Our readers will pardon this long digression in our notice of the Supreme Court proceedings; for they must all agree with us, that the interests of society require that the judges should be compelled by the force of public opinion to purify the practice of their court by the punishment of professional delinquents. Mr. Rowlands is but one of the number; but he, by the extreme notoriety of his practice, has made himself the scape goat of the profession. But let the others beware, for as soon as we are done with him, which will be the moment the judges have done their duty, there are two or three more of the profession who may expect to be as plainly dealt with by us as Mr. Rowlands has been, if they do not speedily mend their ways.

Just as the court was rising, Justice Montagu fixed his eye on an old man, named Hughes, who he said addressed a letter to him, complaining of a lawyer. His Honor desired him to come and make his complaint in court, when both judges were sitting - being asked to state his complaint, the poor fellow was quite confused, and had not a word to say.

At last, Justice Montagu explained that the letter to which he referred, set forth that Mr. McMinn being attorney for the plaintiff, in the case of Hughes and Savery, and having recovered a verdict, and received the money, would not account for it.

Judge Montagu. - Probably you have had enough of them? The man nodded assent; and every man in the court accorded with the sentiment.

Here Mr. Rowlands came to the rescue, and volunteered to get broth McMinn to account for the money. The fable of the monkey, and the cats and cheese, immediately flashed across our mind, and the court rose.

The present term of the Court is now near a close, and certainly never was such indecent trifling with the administration of justice, tolerated in any country, as has been exhibited on this occasion by Mr. Justice Montagu. But this gentleman appears to have a full license to trample with impunity upon all regulations which control the acts of ordinary men. The Judges have never sat in banco during the whole term , because Judge Montagu would not sit in the Court House for he said it was damp, although the public attended there at night at the lectures of the Mechanics’ Institution, and the Chief Justice sat by himself without any inconvenience to himself, the lawyers or the crowded audience, who attended out of curiosity to see what fresh freak Mr. Montagu would be pleased to shock the serious, or amuse the thoughtless with. Numerous bets were pending every sitting day on the state of his Honor’s mind, and the proceedings which he would next adopt. His words and actions were carried, as if by telegraph over the town, and heavy bets were pending as to the extent to which the government would tolerate his vagaries. The Chief Justice bore it all with the meekest submission. Mr. Montagu refused to sit at the Macquarie hotel, although the Court had sat there on former occasions, and the Chief Justice was willing to sit any where that his colleague pleased. Every one felt for the Chief Justice, and wondered at his patience. On Tuesday, the patience of the lawyers was completely exhausted, and after a large assemblage had been kept waiting for a long time in the Court House, to see with what fresh vagary it would please Mr. Montagu to entertain the public and insult the government and his senior colleague, the lawyers in a body after consulting some time in the counsel room, waited on the Chief Justice in the clerk’s chambers. We could not hear what passed, but the result was, that the lawyers addressed a representation to the Governor praying for an enquiry. We presume they meant into the state of Mr. Montagu’s intellect, but this they had not courage to express, for it appears that every one is afraid of this man. The Governor returned a milk and water reply, informing them that Mr. Montagu had promised to sit on Friday, (this day) we shall see if he keeps his promise. The conduct of the Government in this matter has not at all tended to raise the public respect for it. It appears that while it is obstinate and intractable in adherence to error - it is weak and pusillanimous in asserting the respect which it is bound to maintain. We shall wait the result of this, and append a full and particular account of the affair, to our petition to Parliament on the subject of the letter which we addressed to Sir John Franklin on his arrival - complaining of Mr. Montagu’s conduct, and which his Excellency to this hour has not been permitted to answer or acknowledge. If there is one honest member in the House of Commons, and we trust there are hundreds, besides our respected advocate Mr. Hume - the whole of Mr. Montagu’s conduct shall come before Parliament. We hear that Mr. Montagu threatened to attach all the lawyers who signed the letter to the Governor for contempt of court. It is said that he now threatens to strike them off the Rolls - and the other day he told Mr. Dyne he would challenge them all round.

And this is the Judge that Sir John placed the Queen under obligation to - by soliciting him to retain office ! ! ! !

The above was in type last week. His honor did sit at the Macquarie, and broke out most furiously upon the Chief Justice about some very harmless observations which the Chief Justice made about an envelope. But his honour like every one else, except the Editor of the People’s Journal is afraid of his eccentric colleague. But we must admit that the Chief Justice evidently submits too much, to save the scenes that would otherwise make the court a public spectacle of contempt and derision. Justice is again hung up between the two Judges, like Mahomet’s coffin, as regards some cases where application has been made for new trials, their honors having differed in their judgment thereupon. This might have been avoided had Sir John not put the Queen under obligation to Mr. Montagu.

We cannot consent to publish the several articles which have been sent to us with a view to placing this man in his true colors before the community, on which he is at present exerting such a destructive influence under the patronage and countenance of Captain Forster. There is no man in the colony whose character is better known, or more correctly estimated by the respectable portion of the community, than is that of Captain Forster's friend and police agent. He is perfectly callous to any thing that we can say or the public can think of him, notoriety of any sort being the great object of his ambition; and so long as Captains Forster and Montagu, and Mr. O'Connor, can attain their object of annoying and distressing persons who are politically opposed to them, and creating an excitement in the public mind which diverts the public attention from their own official delinquencies, by directing the indignation of the community against the slanderers, who, without even the poor excuse of being actuated by hatred, or a desire of retaliation of injury on the objects of their detestable slander and vituperation, appear to be influenced by a purse fiend-like spirit of sportive malignity, in the invention and publication of every species of falsehood and calumny by which they can hope to annoy individuals, or distress families. But, Arthur like, so long as the remaining representatives of the Arthur system can effect their purpose, it is impossible to make them feel the disgrace which reflects upon them from the description of agents whom they employ, and the shameful means which they use to effect their malevolent purpose. We agree with some of our correspondents, that the degraded condition of the Arthur party, notwithstanding the power that they possess, might be made fully to appear by displaying the character and history of the persons who are now their only advocates and public supporters. But in this colony, the names of Jorgen Jorgenson and Thomas Wood Rowlands are quite sufficient to stamp the character of any cause which employs their advocacy, and of any party that uses their agency in political matters. As to their tool, the creature's gross ignorance and ridiculous self conceit, with his low, vulgar, senseless, virulence and malignity in the conduct of a press, of which, unfortunately for himself, he is proprietor, is so well known and so justly appreciated in this colony, that any public writer who would enter the lists with such an antagonist would justly expose himself to the ridicule and contempt of society, and forfeit every claim to respectability as a public writer. He, to a certain extent, is only an ignorant, unconscious tool, in the hands of Captain Forster through the agency of Rowlands. We believe that even Captains Montagu and Forster could not stand against the effect of publishing the details with which we are furnished respecting some of their agents, and the connection which subsists between them and those persons; but these details are so loathsome and disgusting, that we are convinced that their publication would be an outrage on the decency of society; that could not be justified even by perfect success in effectually putting down Captain Forster, through, and with, the agents by which he is destroying the fabric of society. It is a most disgraceful fact, and no less disgraceful than it is notorious, that Captain Forster wastes nearly one-half of the time, which he is so extravagantly paid for devoting to the public service, in listening to, and advising upon, if not actually assisting in, the composition of the false, filthy, atrocious slanders and libels with which Rowlands and Jorgenson are polluting the Town through Captain Forster's only paper. The very existence of which, is a libel on the community in which it is allowed to circulate. Captain Montagu is more circumspect than Captain Forster in making an open display of his connection with the Rowland's Gang of libellers.
Nevertheless, we are in possession of facts which we shall in due time bring before the public, that can leave no room to doubt, that the Colonial Secretary has so far forgotten what is due to his own character, to the high office which he holds and the community in which he lives, as to countenance and encourage those men in their atrocious endeavours to destroy the bands by which society exists, and to excite individuals to personal outrage and bloodshed. Which nothing prevents but the self respect of the parties whom they attempt to provoke, and the contempt in which those parties, deservedly hold the incendiaries who are encouraged, and set on by men whose duty it is to maintain the peace and good order of society. It would indeed be degrading to us in our individual capacity, derogatory to the interests which as a public journalist we profess to support, and most insulting to every decent person, who reads our journal, were we to pollute our columns by publishing the papers before us, raking up the personal history of Thomas Wood Rowlands.
But we have to do with Rowlands in another capacity. As a member of the legal profession, we have frequently had occasion to bring his conduct under public notice, and although we have been sentenced to fine and imprisonment for that just exposure, and been in another case severely threatened by the judges for putting his victim in the way of seeking that relief which the judges felt themselves compelled to grant. We have the conscious satisfaction to know, that society derived a listing benefit from our exertions. And we shall never be deterred by any fear of punishment, from exposing every case of extortion and oppression, especially by a lawyer, which comes under our notice.
We submit to our readers in other parts of the world, the following facts as a specimen of what an attorney will venture to do in Van Diemen's Land, and the description of person who is the confidential friend and constant associate of the leading member of our government -- the Chief Police Magistrate and Member of both Councils, Capt. Matthew Forster.
On the 24th June, 1837, Thomas Wood Rowlands, an attorney of the Supreme Court, brought an action against Mr. R. W. Loane, claiming upwards of £1000, in addition to a large sum which he had previously received, for services as a solicitor, (of the moderation of those charges some opinion may be formed by reading Rowland's bill of costs against Allen, published in the last Review, and referred to below.) But Mr. Loane instantly filed a special plea, accusing Rowlands of gross misconduct. In August 1837 Mr. Loane moved the Court for Rowlands to answer certain affidavits imputing to him gross misconduct, as Mr. Loane's solicitor. The Court postponed this case, pending Rowlands' action, which might be prejudiced thereby. The motion has been renewed in every term since that time, and Rowlands has not yet answered Mr. Loane's special plea! He now wishes to escape the discussion, and takes advantage of a criminal charge which he had instituted against one of Mr. Loane's servants, to induce Mr. Loane to compound the matter, and settle privately with him. We believe that Van Diemen's Land is the only place in the British dominions, where an attorney would venture to make such a proposal to any man of Mr. Loane's standing in society, and we do hope, that there is not another attorney, even in Van Diemen's Land, excepting Captain Forster's friend, who would have risked making such a proposal. But Rowlands appears to be particularly privileged and to have a general license. We admire his adroitness in employment his friend Hackett as his cat's paw in this affair, it is rather surprising that he did not think it necessary to shield himself in this matter by getting his emissary to add a note, as he did in his arbitration manoeuvre with Mr. Murray, saying that he, Mr. Hackett, acted without the knowledge or authority of Rowlands.
10th April, 1838
DEAR SIR, -- I saw an affair to-day, which I would wish to meet you upon, affecting a client of your's dearest interest. Please make an appointment and acquaint me thereof to which I will attend. - Your's very truly,
JAMES HACKETT.
Blizard Stanley Esq.
"On the 10th inst, Mr. Stanley sent to Mr. Loane the letter herewith accompanying, which he said was left at his office by some person, and on the day following Mr. Stanley waited on Mr. Loane, and stated that in compliance with the above letter, he met Mr. Hackett, who informed him that if Mr. Loane would submit the accounts then pending between Mr. Rowlands and Mr. Loane to arbitration, he Mr. Rowlands would discontinue the prosecution then in a state of forwardness against Pratt for an alleged prevarication in Neils case, Mr. Stanley said that Mr. Hackett made a similar proposition to him on a former occasion."
The above almost casts into shade Rowlands' bill of costs against Allen for the Jaga Jaga case, amounting to one hundred and eighty-two pounds sixteen shillings and two pence, published in the last Review. Some of the items of that bill are so absurdly extortionate that it is impossible to read it without laughing, at the preposterous impudence of the little scamp that could embolden him to make such charges to any rational being. Our contemporary of the Review very foolishly expresses a hope that the Judges will punish Rowlands, how can the man talk such nonsense, after the conduct of their Honors in Haldane's case? Allen will no doubt escape paying this outrageous demand, if he can find any man who has honesty and courage enough to encounter Judge Montagu with a complaint against Rowlands, or indeed against any attorney for extortion, after the precedent which their Honors have afforded in the threats and abuse to which we were so shamefully subjected in Haldane's case.
When we read these charges, and consider that the description of cases in which Rowlands is generally employed, renders it particularly undesirable for his clients to risk any exposure of their transactions with their worthy attorney. We need not wonder to see the preposterous style of extravagance in which Rowlands exhibits himself, for the amusement of the public in general, and the unspeakable disgust of most respectable persons in particular. Our readers will recollect that this was the case in which Mr. Champ denied justice to Mr. Gregson, and Captain Forster so daringly interfered to stop the course of justice. We are authorised to state that after the case was first dismissed, it was Allen's wish to have given up the horse to Mr. Gregson, and that in retaining possession of him, and in commencing the two actions against Mr. Gregson he was entirely influenced by Rowlands' who no doubt had an eye to his bill of costs, as well as to the annoyance of Mr. Gregson. We extract a few of the most striking items.
Rowlands' charges for two attendances at the Police Office
at Richmond £26 5s. each time………………. ………………£ 52 10s. 0d.
For, instructing himself to draw a brief £2 2s, for drawing
it £18 13 4., for fair copy £9 6 8, making for his brief………. £ 30 2s. 0d.
For ten subpoenas £9 9 8, for the copies to seue £5, and
for a clerk serving some of them £2 making for subpoenas…. £ 16 19s. 8d.
But for the best of the whole is little Rowlands charge for
himself as an ATTORNEY!!! for one day in the Supreme
Court…………………………………………………………..£ 52 10s. 0d.

In all…………………………£151 11s. 8d.
ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTYONE POUNDS, for three days work of Little Rowlands!!!
But there are two other items in this extraordinary bill of costs which has excited more than astonishment in the public mind, and which demand explanation from Her Majesty's Attorney General. The first is on the 21st December, while Mr. Gregson was in communication with the Attorney General, as the public prosecutor, on a complaint, against Mr. Champ for discharging Allen, and as to the steps proper to be adopted for the ends of justice to bring Allen to trial. We fine a charge made for a fee on a retainer to the Attorney General for £2 4s. 6d.
Again, six days afterwards, when Allen was a second time apprehended, and his examination pending, which must come before the Attorney General, and on which he put Allen on his trial, we find a charge of £5 10s. For what? For a fee to the public prosecutor and quassi grand jury. A general retainer on behalf of a prisoner in custody under an examination for felony? If ever there was a case to shew the necessity of having a real grand jury, and the consequences of the Attorney General being also a private practitioner, this is surely one. We do not mean to insinuate any thing against Mr. McDowall. We were present during the whole of Allen's trial, and we conscientiously believe that Mr. McDowall did every thing that a counsel could do to make good his case. We feel bound to make this declaration in justice to Mr. McDowall, for many persons, since the publication of Rowlands' bill of costs, connecting these fees to the grand jury, with the Judges' observations on the mistake of not having put Jarvis (the witness on whose evidence Allen was acquitted) on his trial with Allen, have indulged in hints and insinuations that are very unpleasant to Mr. McDowall and his friends. We are convinced, that as respects Mr. McDowall, these insinuations are most unjust and unfounded. But for his own sake, and for the sake of the public, we hope that this will make him act with extreme caution in any matter where his office brings him in contact with Rowlands or his clients. Mr. McDowall has displayed a degree of independence in the discharge of his duty, and a sense of what is due to the dignity of his office, which the public did not expect from him, and it is known that he does not quite suit the oligarchy. Little Rowlands is the confessed police agent of Captain Forster, Mr. McDowall has heard enough of Captain Forster's secret extra official police system to shew him the necessity of being on his guard.

[1] See also Rose v. Smith, 1837.

[2] This is followed by a critical letter from a client of Rowlands. See also True Colonist, 18 May 1838, for continuation of the newspaper's attack.