The Globe. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1876.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 715, 4 October 1876, Page 2

The Globe. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1876.

It is indeed liigli time that, as proposed by the Hon. 0. C. Bowen, the law affecting Coroners should be amended. Instances continually occur demonstrating the many absurdities following in the train of the administration of justice as connected with that venerable institution, the coroner’s inquest. Scarcely a session of the Supreme Court passes without some case in point cropping out, by which it is rendered self evident that something must be done to place on a more modern footing those obsolete proceedings which emanate from Coroners’ Courts, and which frequently puzzle Judges and Juries, while setting common-sense at defiance. Disclosures were made yesterday during the hearing of a Crown ease of murder which goes far towards swelling the already long list of grievances which both the public and the profession have on record, against the highly unsatisfactory state of things to which we allude. While in the witness box, the local coroner stated that he possessed only rough minutes of the evidence taken before him when the prisoner was committed for trial on the capital charge; and, in answer to the Judge as to whether he had forwarded the depositions of the Coroner’s Court to the Resident Magistrate, as directed by the statute, he naively replied that in the present case “ the impression left on his mind was “ that he had forwarded them.” Of course the implication remained that he might have omitted to follow the usual course. The Judge said that the Resident Magistrate had not returned the depositions, meaning, we presume, that, as provided by the Statute, an examination of the accused similar to those conducted *iu cases of indictable offences should have been gone through in the Magistrate’s Court. As Mr, Joynt put it, the mode in which those preliminary proceedings had been carried out, acted very unfairly as regarded the defence, and his Honor at once admitted the hardship to which the accused was consequently submitted. The “ Coro- “ ner’s Act” is certainly a, measure fearfully and wonderfully put together, and one which has very often led to complications of an unpleasant character. Professional opinions differ as to the correct reading of some of its contents. Yet, we quite agree with Mr. Justice Johnston that the case then under trial was one in which the machinery of a Court i.e. t the Magistrate’s Court, should have been put in motion, subsequent to the proceedings in the Coroner’s Court—which |is a tribunal of preliminary inquiry simply—having been completed. The Judge expressed his opinion very strongly, that it was in important cases such as the one in question, when grave suspicions of murder existed, that a more formal investigation than the mere coroner’s inquiry should have taken place, and that it was much to be' regretted it had not been done. We are aware that this is not the first time here that indictments for murder have been brought before the Supreme Court, framed only upon coroners’ depositions, instead of upon those taken at the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Now the laws of evidence, which alone are admissible in the latter as well as in the Supreme Court, are set aside before Coroner’s juries, where statements of facts, as well as expressions of belief of all kinds, are admitted, which cannot be taken cognizance of in the superior Court. There is not, besides, any nuch person as an accused or a prisoner before a Coroner’s Court; any one, without any exception, being allowed to have bis say—on oath of course And, as far as ignorance of the provisions of the law in the matter of persons charged with murder is concerned, or even of differences of opinion which might arise regarding its interpretation, neither Coroners nor Magistrates can have any possible reason for pleading such an excuse. A text-book, well known as “ Johnston’s, New Zea- “ land Justice of the Peace,” contains a full explanation of what must be done by all officials connected with cases of the kind, and is surely much easier and more satisfactory for those gentlemen, not legally bred as they generally are, to follow the dicta of such an authority as the writer of that book, than to fly off at a tangent, with any fanciful conceptions of their own as to wbat course should best be followed in questions of so much importance to the public as well as to private individuals. The debate in the House of Representatives on the new Coroners’ Bill, introduced by the Minister of Justice, has exhumed some carious monstrosities in connection with the present state of this ancient system of coroners’ law. We sincerely hope that the Bill I pay pass, or that, at all event®, it majp

be remitted to a Select Committee, for the purpose of the advice, of some practical men versed in the law being (akeu previous to its being re-intro-duced next year. Mr Bowen’s Bill does away with coroners altogether, and places all duties connected with preliminary criminal investigations within the walls of the Resident Magistrate’s Court; and, should that transposition be secured, it alone will prove of immense benefit, by abolishing those conflicting and ill-defined judicial elements which render the operations of the lower courts so unworkable in certain high class criminal cases.