UNWRITTEN LAW.

Hokitika Guardian, 2 April 1929, Page 7

UNWRITTEN LAW.

A LOVER’S DEATH. JUDGE’S COMMENT. SYDNEY, March 21. Considerable comment has beer aroused throughout Australia on tin .sentence of three months’ imprison mnet imposed by Mr Justice Burnside, at Perth, on Walter Jcrmyn id: having killed Patrick O’Brien, love: of Jermyu’s wife. The Judge’s e ailments when imposing the sentence ai< said to ho among the most remarkahh ever uttered by a .Judge in such circumstances.

“I don’t like to say what I wool have done in similar circumstances,” said the Judge. “I hope Ibis will h, a le-'-ou to others to respect tie sanctity of other men’s wives. The country is overrun with loose husbands and loose wives, hurrying about lil-o this man said his wife was. Mrs Jerinyii used to lie about on beds in a. hold embrace with O’Brien, win would get up and punch Jennyn Id having the audacity to come and loot on. Again, I don’t like to say what 1 would have done in similar circumstances.”

The jury, too, was sympathetic, for it had brought in a verdict of manslaughter “under greatest provoca tion,” and recommended Jermyn to the strongest possible mercy. Thif gave the Judge the opportunity In evidently sought for dealing lenienth with the offender, and he said that he thought .three months’ hard labour fitted the case.

It has been contended that tin doctrine of the unwritten law is be coming more common within the British Dominions, and many lawyer: regret this, and say that there h nothing in the criminal code to justify it. They say that it will be a sorn day for Australia if the impression grows that a man may successfully appeal to the “unwritten law” ir eases of passionate crimes, or crime. l involving the fidelity of a lover. A Judge, it is held, is sworn to administer the law as he finds it, and lias no right to he carried away 'by bis own sentiments. As there is no such law as the unwritten law a Judge is not fulfilling his judicial duties in sub scribnig to such a doctrine. On the other hand, other lawyers have emjihasised that a man had justification in the eyes of the law for slaying another man who invaded his homo and outraged his wife and family—provided he “did it on tin spur of the moment.” But should he carefully seek out the man and then kill him, lie would, in law, have engendered malice, and would be guilty of murder. In such a case, nil written law could not apply, and rc Judge would be justified in giving leniency, notwithstanding, even, that the jury took upon itself to reduce the charge to one of manslaughter.