Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, FEB. 17, 1898. Expenses of Witnesses.

Manawatu Herald, 17 February 1898, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, FEB. 17, 1898. Expenses of Witnesses.

*. " There is one way to get him — pay bis expenses." Thi? was a pipee of information tendered by th' prosecuting Counsel for the Crown to iho Counsel for tho accused .J who had been telling the Judge tha* certain persons ordered by the Chief Justice to attend the Court "all excuses being laid aside " were nopresent. Pay their expenses 1 this is tbe difficulty we are endeavouring fo show that arises in the dtf nee of a man without means. P**rson« who love mon^y more than justice can apparently stay away from a court unless they have previousy had enough money to pay their -ravelling first tendered to them. If so it makes tho subpoenas issued by the S.jprpme C'uirt of little value ti the accused. Wo do not desire to a a any person placed on bii trial debarred from having the fullest -neans of dif-nce, nor do we desire 1 *» inflict any ha* d hip on tho.~e whom it may be of conarquence to the accused to call, by their bsing compelled to attend at their own ex pe.nse. Put 'he matter bow you wil. tbe public, even if the Crown and he accused are opposed, are on an qtial footing, aud becausa one is •alltd by the Crown and another by tbe accused, there seems no equity in one being paid and the other nnbeing paid, but this is as far as the wisdom of the Justice D?paitment has g it, vide the letter we published in our last issue which said " no provision has been made for tbe navm'-nt of witnes'-c* for the defence in Criminal cases." We look upon I ibis question of expanses for the witnesses of an accused per con being assured as one of the most important p ints in securing a person a fair tra', and our legislator* ought to be a >>o to arrive at some plan by which ju'tice can be steu'ed to both thw r'ch and the poor. There wa« a talk in the cane we have had under ■eview of an attachment for the p-nalty mentioned in the subpotua >* gainst those who failed ti attend. This would be simply an upholding of the diguity of the C>urt, hut from i he word- - ! uttered by the pre^idine t Judgp, will not possibly be acted upon as he was of the opinion tb^ir evidence would not have been material ; o tbe i**Bua- but surely this can be no fcxeu? e for the witneser* a*i it wt* n»*ver contemplated that they should : weigh the supposed value of their i evidence and act according to their views ? I** i* laid down in R. v. o*>ok. 1 C. & P. 321 ; 2 Hawk c. 4G. 173, that "if the witness be, so poor us not to be able tc go to tbe as»iz< s or sessions at his own « *st, the f tcr, of bis expenses not having ba**n tendered would probably be deemed by*ibe Court a sufficient excuse f-r his noil attendance," and that op parently is tbe only jus 1 ifiabfb excuse he can __■'__ for his absence. By the English law it appears that in the Court of first hearing it is the custom for tho accused to c -11 a'l the witnesses he thinks noces- - Btry for his defence, when, shotld the cape be committed for trial, they a*o bound over by rfccguizmca to appear and g ye evidence at the trial in exactly a similar manner that tht witnesses for the prosecution art*, nnd the Court is empowered, in its discretion, to order payment of the expenses of the witnesses for tbe accused, and such expenses arp allowed as part of the expanses of the prosecution. But the New Zea land procedure is very different, as though at the first hearing the accused may call witnesses they aie not bound over to appear at tho trial neither, as will be seen from what we have previously said, are tl) y entitled to their expensed. W« chu do no more than call attention to what appears to us a very gr-at defect in securing a pure admini*-, tration of justice, as it t-hould he thought of more moment than an j affair of money that evory person should hay* nn equal opportunity f>r his def.-ncj to that given fur his prosecution.