The Evening Star. TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1870.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 146, 28 June 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star. TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1870.

ANOTHER-(base of inconvenience has arisen from contiuued miainterpretation of the "'Dangerous G-oods Act," or from neglect of taking timely care to provide against its action. The Bteamer Auckland yesterday arrived from Sydney having a quantity of ke rosene on board, and could not come alongside the Queen-street wharf until this so called " dangerous goods " had been dif charged. Now we most emphatically assert that the Dangerous

Goods Act does not require amendment, and that there is nothing in it or in the Superintendent's proclamation based on it that in any way affects " kerosene" as we ordinarily understand the term. The Act provides against an impure article having dangerous and highly inflammable substances in admixture, and if those shipping kerosene from Sydney, or elsewhere, or those receiving it on board will only go to the trouble of obtaining at the port of export certificates that the oil will not give off an inflammable gas until heated to a temperature of 110 degrees Fahrenheit, they can land the kerosene where they like, in defiance of Act and proclamation, and Superintendent and Harbourmaster, and all the powers in New Zealand. We should regret to see any tampering with the Act. It is a protection against explosive substances being admitted into our homes; and the small inconveniences it produces are being easily obviated.

There is a custom in our Courts during the hearing of cases on trial, which, from failure in the intended purpose, is deserving of notice. In certain cases when it is considered advisable that one witness should be 'gnorant of the kiud ol evidence given by another, it is usual to " order wit- " nesses out of Court." Some purpose must he proposed in this, and some evil must be intended to be guarded against, or such a course U not likely to be taken. The charge may be imagined to be a trumped-up one, or the advocate may believe that the admissions likely to be made by a witness on ihe rack are such as might arm succeeding witnesses ;or from whatever cause, it is believed that more independent testimony i 3 received, and the ends of justice are often better attained, by the removal of witnesses from Court. But such removal is a delusion. The witness may not indeed care for knowing what a previous witness has said ; but if he does, there is every facility for his being thoroughly posted up. There is no restraint on the egress and ingress to the Court of the general public, and nothing even to prevent a verbatim report of evidence being forwarded to those that have been ordered out oi Court. We find that a recent charge laid in Melbourne fell through mainly from the fact that communications had so passed, and such an embarrassment may at any time occur in any of our Courts. If the process of removing witnesses is worth doing at all, it is worth doing well; and if good is to result, all witnesses should be called by name at the commencement of a case, and made to remain during its progress till called, in some apartment under the charge of one of the officers of the Court.