JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5049, 8 November 1926, Page 4

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

magisterial address. COMMONSENSE PARAMOUNT. An interesting and informing address was deliyeiAd to the. Mataniata branch of the Justices of the Peace Association by Mr J. W. Poynton, S.M., a few days ago. EMBARRASSING POSITION. The postiion of a J.P. going on the bench Tor the first time was an. unenviable one, Mr Poynton said, and he was deserving of sympathy. To such an one the law had always seemed .to be an amazingly complicated thing; he had in mind also the abuse heaped upota justices by the newspapers, and he felt the responsibilities and embarrassments of the position keenly. There w,as too much heard about tlie mistakes of justices and too little of their good work. It was a wonder that there were not morje mistakes made. EXPRESSION OF COMMON WILL. The law, after, all, was just .the expression of the common will; if it was not the perfection of reasoning it was very close to that state. The law was a growth mone than a creation; the vast body dl the law was not created by the legal fraternity, but had arisen out of the richness of the material at hand. GENESIS OF THE LAW. In primitive times the people haled by the will of the chief, whose word was law; he punished as he thought fit, and had power, of life and d^atli; his will was absolute. Later, trade began to develop between the tribes of different parts Of the country, and the traders would be .set upon by robbers as, they paddled their canoes on the rivers or transported their wares’ overland. Then, it became necessary for the chiefs to meet and make some combined arrangement to/ deal with the marauders who were attacking the subjects of both. Thus the reign df law commenced. Law, as we understood it to-day, was not Aven yet holding sway over the whole of the earth’s surface. In Abyssinia, for example, people may be seen with their hands cut off, or their Ayes gouged out, probably for offences committed against the chief or his family, bub this was not the oommoji or normal state in the world'. BASED ON COMMONSENSE. The law was rAally very plain and simple; it was permeated and bound by commonsense, and if the justices exercised the ordinary commonsAnse they applied to the everyday affairs of life they would be doing all that was

required. Only a few general rule& were needed for guidance; they had not to bother about the complications and .technicalities of the law. A LAWYER’S BLUFF. The first thipg the justices had to guard against was in being bluffed by a lawyer. It was a lawyer s duty to do the best he could for his client; he wodld ask fori the by-laws to be produced, and use Avery technicality to shield his client. In a charge of theft all that mattered was whether the accused stole or. not. In a prosecution under the traffic regulations, for instance, the charge might be for “speeding and driving to the dangei of the public.” This contained two charges, one- for speeding and the other for driving to the danger of the public. These two really constituted the one offence, and” as. it was an axiom of British law that no man could be convicted twice for the one offence, one of these charges must be struck out. The lawyer would ask that the worst one be struck out. Tlia man might not have been speeding, but he might have been driving his v'Ahicle in such a manner that it wob! bled all over the road, and in that way became a danger to the public. The lawyer would ask that the “danger to the public” charge be withdrawn, and that of “speeding” left. The upshot would be that .the speeding charge would be disproved, and the other, the most important having been withdrawn, the culprit would get off scot free. It w,as Unwise as a rule to amend a charge, although a date might be amended, but in a dual charge one could be struck out. The Supreme Court said that a case could be proceeded with without amendment, and a convictioh made, provided that the accused was present and that the verdict showed clearly upon which charge the conviction was made. THE LAW, OF EVIDENCE. The law of evidence was very simple. Hearsay was not generally .admissible, although, it was admitted under pertain circumstances, such as a mother, repeating the story told her, by her daughter in regard to the committal of certain offences, but these must be told to the court by the person to whom the statements were made in the first place. HAarsay and previous crimes might be quoted to prove that the accused was in the habit of committing the offfence he was charged with, that thAte was system, to rebutt evidence tending to imply that the offence was, an accident, to prove that events werA connected and systematic. In the end it came back to the basis of commonsense; if misfortune had happened, to/ sevAral

persons in association l with a certain

individual, then it was commonsense to assume that there was a system at work. The amendmAnt of the information and the admissibility of the evidence were all that were likely to worry the justices. English law did not at one time admit of amendment of information, but it had been reformed on the New Zealand plan. Also, if technical objections were raised, the evidence could be admitted “without prejudice” to another action, so that another information could be laid. PENALTY AND THE CRIME. •In regard to the penalty, they would need to consider whether the crime was caused by an error Of judgment or through evil intent, and age would also require to be taken into account. With youths they should not exepise undue severity, and yet laxity caused the offenders to regard the offence and the law as jdkes. Probation was usually the best course, as the youth was then kept under supervision, and deprived of some of the things he liked, such as attendance at billiard rooms, racecourses, and pictures. Nine-tenths of the probationers did not appeal’ again. Justices could now both fine and send to prison, though they should never go to the limit of the law unless the offence warranted such a decision. On the motion of Mr Garland a hearty vote of thanks was passed to Mr Poynton for his address. —Matamata Record.