The Case of the Second Judge

1. On August 31, 1837, the Second Judge, Western Division, Mangalore, petitioned the governor to review his severe reprimand of 24th July, and his warning that a repetition would “be visited by a more decided mark of the displeasure of Government.” The issues for which he was reprimanded were:

·       the governor viewed his conduct very unfavourably

·       the judge had “given way to private feelings and idle notions of dignity”

·       that he had acted in a "highly discreditable" manner calculated to "prove injurious to the public interest"

·       that his actions were inexcusable in view of his experience and knowledge of what was expected of him

·       that his interference was vexatious

·      that he had previously rendered himself obnoxious to the censures of the government for precisely similar conduct

Observing that he had expressly declared that in his letter of June 20th and 24th that it was not his wish to embarrass the magistrate, or to interfere unnecessarily with the execution of his duty, and that he was only acting as “duty prompts,” he requested he be told the grounds on which the decision was made. Referring to his correspondence with the magistrate, he had requested him, “not only to state whether he was of opinion that private feelings influenced me, and, if so, the grounds thereof, but also to declare whether I had not, upon all occasions, cooperated with him in the most cordial manner.”

Drawing from his earlier experience of 15 years in Kanara, he had freely passed on information he believed useful to the magistrate, and offered suggestions with the intention of aiding him carry out his duty. He stated he was prepared to provide extensive correspondence (chiefly private), and the testimony of my colleague, showing the care he took “to avoid irritating the Magistrate's (to me well known) susceptible temper.”

As for accusing him of “idle notions of dignity'', the judge said he considered it a duty to insist on respect for the position he was appointed to. In regard to being “vexatious”, his first request for prisoner details was made as there had been no progress in cases for some months. Therefore, when an appeal was made to him, he had redirected it to the magistrate.  

That he was correct in concluding that the innocent were suffering, was proved by the release of the 10 year old boy, son of a prisoner under trial, who had been jailed for nearly four months. Pudmaya Shetty, whom the magistrate had said he would not release, was discharged on July 15. Subsequent to the magistrate’s complaint to the government against him, a number of other prisoners had been released, including the four Madras coolies. The reason for the magistrate’s non-compliance appeared to me to be wanting in method despite his having so many European assistants. Meanwhile, Captain Le Hardy, the sole European civil officer in Coorg, had sent details of 189 prisoners for investigation. Additionally, the magistrate had a large body of men under a military guard, independent of the 237 found in the regular jail. He concluded that even judges in England frequently differed, and such differences were found in every sphere of life.

2. The governor replied on September 28, 1837, that he saw no reason to alter his opinion, and that the censure passed upon the magistrate’s conduct was more severe.

3. On November 30, the Second Judge made another appeal in which he reiterated his request for an explanation on how he could be accused of having “given way to private feelings and idle notions of dignity.” Having served the government for 27 years, eight as a judge of a provincial court, he requested that he be accorded with the same justice due to every party in a suit for a few rupees. In his case, his character, “the highest property of man”, was the matter most affected.

4. The government responded on February 3, 1838, that the governor considered his appeal to have the censure passed upon his conduct removed, was considered “to be most creditable to his feelings and character, both private and official.” He was, therefore, willing to believe, as asserted by him, that his proceedings were influenced by zeal for the public service.”