HAUGHTON’S CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 4235, 22 September 1876, Page 2

HAUGHTON’S CASE.

From a lengthy report in the • Post’ of the Magisterial inquiry into the above we extract the following;—

:On the case being called, on, Inspector Atcheson made application that it should be °^ e •doors, whereupon : / Mr Buckley, prisoner’s counsel, pirotested against any step which would prejudice his case. Rumors had got abroad, anl if doors were closed, those would be, strengthened, and increase any impression which,, by their , circulation, had been formed against the prisoner. His Worship (Mr Crawford) said he had received a letter from a number of persons, who made a request to the " Inspector’s. - jr Mr Buckley, as his objections would be recorded, would not press his opposition to the suggestion of the police. f . Mr Allan said that to the prosecution it wU qU rf i how the.case was heard. If the request were complied with, 40 118 «* His Worship repeated that he thought it the-.interests of public rnidrality:* that the application should be complied.'with, but not if it was held that it iight prejudice the prisoner s case. 6 » • Mr Buckley : I offer no further obuictiok ti o^ r : The Crown makes no applies-

onte?^^® 8 — \ “f*® application on behalf of the principal witness. Jartou said, before the pmsoher. • pleaded to the charge he wished to inquire who was the prosecutor. , * ' .. Inspector Atcheson; I laid the information. 1 received instructions from the SoliCl^°^ en ® ra i to take proceedings. L.asked 1 was proceedings on behalf of the Government, and was distinctly told that I was.

Mr Barton: lam to understand that the prosecution has been instituted by tht vTOVn, .

Mr Allan: Of course the Crown is the prosecutor. Mr Barton said he had been instructed K?* 0 watch the proceedings on behalf of the nearest relatives of the principal witness, and to protest, against those proceedings going on by the prosecution. Mr Bell objected altogether to Mi Barton’s appearance. Mr Barton submitted that the police never commenced proceedings. They, always moved on information' received from a mi* vate mdividual. In this matter, the family' were exceedingly displeased at this matter * bemg brought forward, and would do all they could to stop it—not from any sympa* thy with the accused, but from a . the mattershonld not be dragged before the pubhc. The Government had no right to interfere or to proceed in such a cane as efriq, Mr Allan had never before heard of such interference in a case when counsel was already instructed. The police in 1 England often initiated casest ‘ and the AttorneyGeneral himself came forward and pro. secutod. He had never heard of such an application as this. His Worship said if the Government had done anything wrong they would have to answer for it. •• / * Mr Bell thought it necessary to explain,.; SSSknowledge of as indiriduals. * not at all as a Government. These members ■>. were not going to fctep the matter looked /an ® they informed- the police. The police, thus interned,'laid an' formation. The matter was placed in ther*?® 8 of - their. 'solicitor, himself/ and dbL. being asked whether the facts were to warrant an information, there wap no other course but to say that an information ahould be hud and a warrant issued. The

matter was now in luihands, and howas responaihle. Sis Worship cud the Government, either as a Government or otherwise, were responsible, and the Court could not attempt to iurnißa the charge. Mr Barton Said the question was whether the Goverment could force on a prosecution in which the parties concerned were opposed to the prosecution. Mr Allan considered there could be no doubt about the matter. ■ ' , Mr barton was quite sure the Crown had no wish to be vindictive. He suggested that it would be better, in the interests of morality, that time; should be ]allpwed for the Crown to consider whether the prosecution should, gp on. Mr Allan said he was instructed to ask for no time at all. The Crown Prosecutor was carrying out the case, and had instructed him (Mr Allan) to appear.