The Akaroa Mail. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 457, 7 December 1880, Page 2

The Akaroa Mail. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7.

To the late Sydney Smith, the clerical wit, is attributed the statement that the object of the whole elaborate British Constitution, its king, lords and commons, and all its complicated and costly machinery, was to get twelve honest men into the jury-box. The assertion may appear of a somewhat sweeping nature, but it nevertheless contains a great truth. The primary object of a Government is the protection of the persons and property of individual members of society. Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the extent to which Government interference ought . to reach in various matters, the above may be laid,down as axiomatic. It follows, therefore, that anything bearing on the administration of justice is of the moat vital interest to every man, woman, and child in the community. More especially is this the case with regard to the administration of the law which deals with the deprivation of the liberty of any subjrct. Happily, the " unjust judge" of the parable who " fears not God, neither regards man," is extremely rare, if not absolutely extinct, in our time and country. But we must never forget that judges have bee.i allowed to clothe Ihem-•-rlves with S'K'l; fen'ifie j'OV'crs 3S to . t'-uvent auythiu:- !i!a ind.'ii.r.vJ.ent cr.'',:-:

t-isin of their actions, however much they may Jay themselves open to such adverse criticism. If Shakespeare were living now he would slightly alter his well-known line and write—" There's a divinity doth hedge a judge.'' And divinity extends in a greater or less degree to all connected with the administiation of justice or law, which is sometimes a very different thing. And it is quite right that those who fulfil arduous and sometimes painful duties should be protected against thp vulgar mud-throwing of disappointed litigants or their adherents.

Still we must remember that these functionaries, from the Chief Justice down to the Clerk of a Bench, are but men. They are not immaculate, still less are they infallible, and when that priceless blessing, personal liberty, for which Englishmen have squandered blood and treasure like water, when that great principle which from the time of Magna Charta down to our own, has been so jealously guarded, is in danger, it behoves the public, and the Press as their mouth-piece, to sound a warning note.

We are led into making these remarks through certain proceedings which took place in the R.M. Court, Akaroa, last week. Let us state at the outset that into the merits or demerits of the parties to the cause we do not intend to enter. The person accused will have an opportunity of defending herself before a jury, and we have not the remotest intention of doing anything so unseemly as to anticipate their decision.. But during the preliminary investigation certain broad principles were laid down by counsel and apparently accepted and acted on by the Bench, which we consider fraught with the deepest danger to that liberty to which we have already referred as being so prized by the British race over all the world.

Counsel for the prosecution laid down the, to us, astounding doctrine that a summons was designed to secure the attendance of a defendant, not to inform him of the nature of the charge to be laid against him. Having brought him there on a charge which he was prepared to answer, you could then proceed to bring an accusation against him of a totally different nature and refuse to allow him any time whatever to put in a defence to a new charge. A& was very clearly pointed out by Mr G. W. Nal.der in a letter which appeared in our last issue this is actually what was done in the case of Mrs Wright.

She went there, expecting to have to answer a charge involving a pecuniary penalty, and found herself accused of an offence involving a long term of imprisonment. And yet the very modest request for an adjournment to enable her to obtain legal advice was peremptorily refused, During the hearing of the case another extraordinary and dangerous doctrine was laid down by the Bench. In the summons which was served upon the defendant she was charged with committing a certain offence on November 25. The evidence was to the effect that the occurrence took place on the 24th. The Bench held that this discrepancy " didn't matter." Now, let us glance for a moment at the fearful injustice and oppression which an unprincipled prosecutor might inflict on an innocent person if these doctrines are to bo held as correct interpretations of the law. A summons is only to secure the attendance of the accused person. It is not necessary to inform him of the charge which he will be called upon to answer. If you want to trap him or take hini unawares, it is evidently far better that he should not be so informed. Summons him for having a horse wandering at large, and, having thus " secured his attendance," proceed to charge him with stealing the horse. Or, let him understand that the offence with which he is charged was committed on Monday, and when he is prepared to account for every hour of his time on that day, turn round and say— " Oh, the day should have been Tuesday, but it doesn't matter." A little legal ingenuity employed in drawing sufficiently varied and misleading informations—sufficient stern determination in opposing the accused being allowed every opportunity of preparing a defence, and with a complaisant Bench the success of such a proceeding is sure, and spite of Magna Charta and all the defences of liberty that we rhapsodize about, any man maybe unjustly deprived of bis liberty. It is needless to point out how different the procedure is in the higher Courts, where a qualified lawyer presides. There the interests of the prisoner, be ho the, greatest blackguard unhung, are carefully conserved. Anuj why? JV'Oiiiiso th-.: av-cus<:<"i !.; \

personal liberty must in no way be interfered with except in due course of law. If the prosecutor make a blunder in preliminary proceedings he is not allowed to patch up his case and repair it at the last moment. Even when it seems highly probable that a failure of justice will ensue, the wholesome rule is never infringed that a man can only be called upon to answer.'the charge which has been preferred against him. A striking instance occurs to us which took place at the last Christchurch sessions. A man was put on his trial for stealing a watch. There was no evidence of his having stolen it, but it was clearly proved that the watch had been stolen and found in prisoner's possession, who was unable to give a satisfactory account of it. In fact there was strong evidence of the crime of "receiving;" but as prisoner had not been charged with this offence, he was by direction of the judge-arquitted and discharged.

If the doctrine acquiesced in by the Akaroa Bench were correct, that the warrant was only to " secure his attendance," and that having him there on one charge the prosecutor could proceed against him on another, there is little doubt that the man would have been convicted. It is needless to observe that the Crown Prosecutor did not venture for a moment to promulgate such a novel doctrine. He knew of course that the Bench was occupied by a man who knew the law, and knew that it was quite as much his duty to ward off aggression on liberty in the persons of the accused as to protect society ag linst the depredations of the criminal class. We repeat that, on the general merits <v the pai'ticular case to which we have referred, we have no opinion whatever to offer ; neither do we suppose the Justices concerned are aware of the dangerous doctrine which they have allowed themselves to be persuaded into adopting ; but in the interests of the most precious possession which as members of a free community we are all entitled to, we have felt it our duty to protest against a practice which might be used as a most deadly weapon against personal liberty.