Manawatu Herald. FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1889. WEDNESDAY'S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 279, 12 July 1889, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1889. WEDNESDAY'S COURT.

Iv our report or! the proceedings of the B M. Court appearing elsewhere, it is impossible to depict the cuse as it was conducted. Any one •who had eve seen or heard a case in a court before, must have been both surprised and grieved at what lie witnessed that day. ihe whole is a standing reproach to the Department of Justice whose niggardly way of supplying officers for the due carrying out of the duties of the Court, is mainly responsible for the scenes that occurred The Justices summoned by a hap hazard fashion, chanced to be two very estimable gentlemen, but vthooe acquaintance with the rules of court at.d laws of j evidence were none of the soundest. ! The case being an indictable offence, j the Justices were placed in the awk- • ward position of having no clerk lo take the deposition?, and one of them too good haturedly undertook to do his best, with the result that the cross examination of thu first witness was not recorded. \V o ti\ ueh regret to say that these slips on the

>art of the Bench seemed to have } ed tile Solicitor appearing for the ■ hlsdrie* id believe he could act much I is he p eased, and A fery large i mount of time was wasted by the Bench, endeavouring civilly, but IWtHollt tne femnesa so necessary, ;o keep to the usual prWy!? 8 acfced m Hur after hour went efi, til© Bench struggling: to act fight I*,1 *, but worried beyond douH Until the Justice acting as Ohdirntan arose ijrad iasertwt that uutil iUe $dlicifeo 1 r •vould yield to .their atitndrity they «rou!d adjourn the cdurt, as they had ao desire to be treated as two fools, riie Solicitor Unfairly \adk advantage )f the remark by sayiilg 1 , He" wdufd aot deny they were, what they nad stated themselves to he. The Hench retired and on resuming very properly called upon the Solicitor to apologise, which he very half heartedly did. We instance this for two reasons, the first being, that the Government have no right to call upon untrained men to hear such cases, as most of the J. P.'s hare only accepted the appointment to execute what may be called the trivial duties of the office, such as iigzung documents, punishing a Irunkard aud s> on. The Justices in this district nevei attend Court when the E.M. is present, so that they do not get some insight into BOurt work, nor do they, apparently jpend much time in reading up the law they may at any time be called upon to execute. The public, prosecutor, prisoner, witnesses and conn sel are all placed at a disadvantage. Secondly we hold that no such case should be heard without the presence of the clerk, as in him the Justices have an officer who is supposed to be ab e to assist them, both in the usual routine, and also upon the points of law. He being unconnected with either the prosecntion or the defence can at any time be appealed to, whereas in the case under review, ag< eat deal of the warm feeling evinced, arose from the desire of the Bench, to obtain the assistance of the Serjeant of police, who was also prosecutor and to which the prisoner's Solicitor, perhaps naturally, objected. We say that we are sure rhe gentlemen who sat on the case did their level be%t, and re tamed the command over themselves, in trying circumstances, but still the exhibition took place, for which, w«j hold, they were very little to b* blamed for. It is most earnestly to be hoped it may never occur again.