Untitled

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 709, 4 August 1870, Page 4

The Westport Thnes states that complaints have reached them that the sheriff's officers, or upon whom the duty of serving summonses devolves, both at Nelson and the Ahaura, are strangely neglectful, of their, duty. It appears that so late back as May 12th a summons was issued iv this Court at the suit, of James Johnstone against W. N. Franklyn, the same being forwarded to Nelson, where the defendant was : at the time. On the day of hearing, May 31st, the case was adjourned till June 3rd. On the loth June the case came on again, and the summons was enlarged for service upon the defendant at the Ahaura, since which the case has been adjourned some four or five times, until July 15th, when the summons was returned to Westport, service not haviug been effected. It is a matter of notoriety that the defendant is constantly at the Ahaura, practising even in the Warden's Court, so that there could be no difficulty iv serving "him with a judicial notice. We trust the authorities will direct an enquiry into what appears to be gross negligence or something worse on the part of some person. ; Those who are in the habit of attending police andothercourts in Greymoutb. and elsewhere must have observed the difficulty under which, lawyers and Judges labour, sometimes, in getting witnesses to testify in legal form. This following, which took place in a Cincinnati court, is an amusing and perfect example' A man had been caught in the act of tbeft, and pleaded in extenuation that he was drunk : — Court (to the policeman who was witness— "What did the man say wheu you arrested him ?" Witness—" He said he was drunk. " Court—" I want his precise words, just as he uttered them ; he didn't use the pronoun he, did he ? He did'nt say •he was drunk." Witness— "Oh yes, he did —he said he was drunk ; he acknowledged the com." Court (getting impatient at witness's stupidity ■- " You don't understand me at all ; I want the words just as he .uttered them; didn't he say, • I was drunk ?' " Witness — (deprecatingly) — "0, no, your honor. He didn't say you was drunk ; I wouldn't allow any man to charge that upon you in my presence." Prosecutor— " Pshaw ! you don't comprehend at all. His Honor means, did not the prisoner say to you, ' I was drunk? 1 ". Witness — (reflectively) — "Well, he might have said you was drunk, "but I didn't hear him." Attorney for prisoner (blandly)— " What the Court desires is for you to state the paisonnr's exact words, preserving the precise pronoun that he made made use of in reply. Was it the first person I, the second person tbou, or the third .person he, she, or it ? Now then, sir (with severity), didn't my client say, • I was drunk?'" Witness (getting mad) — "No, he didn't say you was drunk either, but, if lie had, I reckon he wouldn't a lied any. Do you 'sposc the poor fellow charged this whole Court with being drunk ?"