SHOULD OATHS BE ABOLISHED?

Grey River Argus, Volume XI, Issue 945, 7 August 1871, Page 2

SHOULD OATHS BE ABOLISHED?

SCENE IN THE SUPREME COURT, NELSON.

In the Supreme Court at Nelson the other day, John and William Avery were charged with haying fraudulently converted to their own use five and a half tons of hay, entrusted to them to be cut into chaff by Mr W. Eout. Mr Acton Adams appeared for the prosecution, Mr Fell for John Ayery, and Mr Atkinson for William Avery. Mr Rout was called, and was about to be sworn, when Mr Fell requested that his Honor would direct the witness to reply to any question he might put to him, before the oath was administered. His Honor having complied — Mr Fell : Do you believe in a God ? Mr Rout : I do. Mr Fall : Do you believe in a state of future rewards and punishments ? Mr Rout : It is a question of doubt in my mind. Mr Fell : On that answer I object to Mr Rout's evidence being received. Mr Rout : 1 thought this kind of thing had exploded. His Honor : You are not precluded, Mr Rout, from freely expressing your opinion. Mr Rout : I have not thought the matter of sufficient importance to really study it. Mr Acton Adams : Do you believe in a Creator ? Mr Bout: I believe in one first cause. Mr Acton Adams : Do you believe there will be any difference after death in the state of those who have committed moral wrong or otherwise ? Mr Rout : I believe that a man commits a crime according to his organization, and that he has no power to alter it. Mr Acton Adams : Do you believe that punishment, either in this world or the next, awaits the man who does wrong 1 Mr Rout : In this world certainly, a wrong-doer is always receiving punishment. I don't know what he will receive in the next. I neither know whence I came or whither I am going. His Honor ; Let us in this matter keep as clear as possible from the devil's pandemonium, the question of free will. Mr Fell : I object to Mr Rout's evidence being taken, because he does not believe that perjury is rendered worse than an ordinary lie by the utterer of it having invoked the name of the Almighty. His Honor : I must take notice of this objection, however much I may regret that it is is allowed by law. If it had been the desire of the prisoners to bring about a great scandal on the law, they could not have succeeded better than by raising this question. [To Mr Rout.] You say you believe that punishment follows wrong doing in this world. Do you believe that God is the author of that punishment ? Mr Rout : I have not worked the matter out sufficiently to make a belief of it. If 1 had thought these questions would have come up, I would have thought the matter over, and come into Court better prepared to answer them. When I see so much virtue left unrewarded, I can scarcely bring myself to believe that to God only is to be attributed the punishment of evil doing. I think the man who breaks the natural laws of the universe, that breach carries its own punishment with it. I believe in a God, and in the unity of the Godhead, but 1 am in doubt respecting future rewards or punishments. Mr Fell : Is it a greater sin to perjure yourself than to tell an ordinary lie ? Mr Rout : Certainly not. A lie is a lie, and in a moral sense they are both the SAme. I know in a legal sense they are different. Mr Fell again objected to Mr Rout's evidence being received, and cited several instances in which a similar course had been pursued at home. His Honor : 1 cannot be guided by the opinion of every Nisi Prim J udge. I shall take witness's evidence, and if a conviction is given, shall reserve judgment, if necessary. Thi3 is the first, and I hope it may be the last, time of my being called on to decide a matter of this kind, as such a discussion cannot be carried on except at the expense of that reverence which is due to the subject of it. I sincerely trust tßat the Legislature will feel called upon to interfere in the matter.. Mr Rout was then sworn, and the case proceeded, but the evidence broke down, and the prisoners were acquitted. This closed the criminal sitting.