The Chief Justice and Mr Jellicoe.

Manawatu Herald, 15 August 1896, Page 3

The Chief Justice and Mr Jellicoe.

At the conclusion of the examination of witnesses in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the Chief Justice said he wished to refer to an inoident which bad occurred on the previous day between Mr Jellicoe and himself. He said that in investigations in the Magistrate's Court the depositions were never taken so fully as the evidence in the Supreme Court. As the evidence taken in the Supreme Court appeared very much fuller than that given before the Magistrate, there was no doubt that juries were sometimes led and asked to believe that a witness was giving more evidence, or not exactly according to the depositions. This frequently happened, but it did not warrant a Jury in ooming to the conclusion that the witness should be discredited. What occurred in the Court was this: Sergeant Cullen had said in his examination-in-chief that the roll of notes consisted of a sum of £850 or £880. Now in the depositions it appeared* to him substantially the same, but it was put in a different way. In reply to a remark by Mr i Jellicoe, Sergeant Cullen improperly said that Mr Jellicoe was there, meaning in the Magistrate's Court, when the depositions were taken. This was an invitation to Mr Jellicoe to state what he knew of the matter, and he responded by denying that Sergeant Cullen bad in substance stated in the Lower Court what be was then eaying. This irritated him (the Chief Justice) very much. It was entirely unjustifiable for counsel to make statements of faots themselves to the jury. That irritated him (the Chief Justice), and he was induced perhaps to speak strongly to Mr Jellicoe at the commencement. It would have been better if he had expressed an opinion in a different way. He had been certain that Mr Jellicoe waß wrong in what he had been acci> dentally induced to say by an unfortunate expression of Sergeant Cullen. No one had a better opportunity of seeing Mr Jellieoe in the transaction of his business than he had, and he did not require any testimonial from him (the Chief Justice) for his ability, energy, or desire that his client should succeed. What he had desired to express was his disbelief in the statement, for which he had explained the reasons. This was attributable to the unfortunate remark of Sergeant Cullen. If it should appear to anyone that be was not willing to accept Mr Jellico&'a statement of fact, it was an erroneous view. — N.Z. Times.