THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1879.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1814, 13 December 1879, Page 2

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1879.

What will henceforth ho found on our judicial records as a most singular cause celeire has just passed through one of its final phases. We refer to what is generally spoken of as the Timaru conveyance forgery case, wherein three persons became involved in the meshes of criminal law, one as a principal, the others as accessories to the crime. James, the actual forger, was convicted two days ago without any difficulty, as ho admitted the offence. On the following day Manning was" put on his trial, and through a miraculous “ find ” secured by the counsel defending him in some musty old law book—which point, it seems, had on a former occasion been before the Court of Appeal —tlio prosecution was ordered by the Judge to be stopped, and Manning and Saunders wore discharged. The convict James was furthermore brought up again and told by his Honor that he would be set at liberty as soon as the necessary legal steps could ho taken in the matter. “It has turned out now”—the Judge said—“ that in tho Court of Appeal a decision was made that the falsifying of such a document, to which you placed your name with a perfect consciousness of guilt, at the time, as you admitted by your plea, does not amount in sight of the law to forgery; that being tho case, had you had advantage of counsel, who had discovered the decision in law, you would have been advised to plead Not Guilty, and if tho point had been raised in your favour I should have had to direct your acquittal.” Prosecutors, witnesses, lawyers, and tho remainder of the judicial paraphernalia needed to ensure the due administration of British justice then packed up their books and documents, and all wo suppose, some especially so, went forth rejoicing. Tho country had been placed to heavy expense in order to vindicate tho majesty of tho law and the maintenance of honesty and good order, but tho characteristic eccentricities of that very law defeated its own object. It was found that tho indictment against any of tho prisoners, whether principal or accessories, could not bo sustained, as its ingredients, based upon a pure conception of the criminal law bearing upon tho case, possessed neither flavor nor virtue, through some ancient legal precept passed by the English Parliament under the reign of one of tho ancient kings. Tho English Act in question, we aro now told, makes it law that no one can bo convicted of legally forging a deed for tho transfer of land, if this land be not in possession of its owner whoso name is forged for the purpose of robbing him of it. And as applicable to the Timaru conveyance forgery case, through the effect of tho old statute in question, it was ruled yesterday, that as the forged deed from James to Manning and Saunders was void and no one could bo defrauded, there wore no criminals in tho case, so far as the keen eye of the law was concerned. To the uninitiated in tho wondrously constructed mysteries of tho legal machinery which governs us, and perhaps also to not a few of thoso professionally versed in legal loro, the results of this Timaru case will seem curious. Hard-headed plain com-mon-sense men will wonder, and ask what kind of material tho scales of Justice aro made of in thoso highly-civilised days. Forgery, in its calm acceptation of tho term, is a felonious crime, consisting of an attempt to rob by the means of fraudulent substitution, addition, or erasure. Tho tenets of criminal law have it that it shall be sufficient iu any indictment for forgery to allege that tho party accused did tho act “ with, intent to defraud.” In discharging tho prisoners, the Judge remarked that had tho persons charged as accessories to James’ offence boon convicted their sentences would have been a great deal heavier than his, and ho added that James had been led into one of the most gross and nefarious transactions that had come before his judicial notice for a long time. Tho outcome of this Timaru forgery case cannot but leave tho impression upon people’s minds that it is high time that something bo done to remedy tho state of things existing in our legal organisation. All English statutes passed previous to 1810 —tho year Now Zealand received the privilege of legislating for itself—are iu force in tho colony, unless any has boon specially repealed by our colonial Legislature. Tho statute-book contains a

number ami variety of old English enactments of quite an antiquated and antediluvian character. From time to time (ho ends of justice aro sot at defiance and defeated through somo keen scented lawyer diving info mouldy old volumes and extricating from them legal pressure to assist in defeating modern legislation. We believe that the old English statute, which enacts that men convicted of certain offences are to bn kept in stocks and exhibited in a public place is still in force, and quite as good and sound a law as the statute of Henry VIII., the application of which yesterday has caused such a sensation. And the latter, it seems, was not unearthed for (ho first time in (ho Timaru case. It had previously boon dissected, and not very long ago, by the highest tribunal in the land—the Court of Appeal. If, instead of wrangling for power, wasting the lime of Parliament, and frittering away the moneys'of the colonial taxpayer, in their efforts to vindicate personal feelings, and so forth, obstructive members of the House would apply thcmsolvo to the practical work of the country, wo should not see such lamentable failures of our legal machinery disfigure the body social, for the good government of which wo protend to have done so much. As it would seem that the law affecting felonious attempts of unprincipled people to i - ob their fellows by means of forged documents stands, it offers a premium to dishonesty, besides trampling upon all recognised rights which civilised communities possossof having their properties protected and of miscreants disturbing tbo purity of the social atmosphere punished, as an example to others as well as for retributive purposes. It is obvious, on the surface of things at all events, that before making applicable to tko bearings of a criminal prosecution tbo dry technicalities of this Statute of Henry YIIL, Judge Johnston had well weighed in his judicial mind its criminal jurisdiction, together with tho arguments which wore urged when it was previously discussed iu tho Court of Appeal. Legal quidnuncs, wo boliovo, will, however, have it—even against so high an authority as Hia Honor—that tho old enactment should not bo construed literally, as its meaning in reality only affects civil questions arising from claims mado upon property not possessed by the real owner, and from whoso absence parties interested might try to take advantage. Should this view of this extraordinary case hold water, it is not improbable that further disclosures of a highly interesting nature—from a legal point of view at least—may bo made. This will probably take place when the Executive Council is asked to grant tho convict James a free pardon.