Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LATE LOCALS.

It is a common practice in Supreme Court proceedings for counsel to crossex.amine witnesess on the records ot evidence they gave in the Lower Court and to search for small inconsistencies between thes e records and their evidence in the Supreme Court. This general practice was discredited in tile Supreme Court at Auckland on Friday by Mr Justice Herdman, who said lie did not attach much importance to differences between what a witness said oit trial and what he was reported to have said earlier. His Honor quoted a Chief Justice of England as saying that too much importance ought never to be attached to such discrepancies. Substantial agreement ought to be sufficient.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19310917.2.53

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 17 September 1931, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
115

LATE LOCALS. Hokitika Guardian, 17 September 1931, Page 6

LATE LOCALS. Hokitika Guardian, 17 September 1931, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert