The Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY DECEMBER 2, 1875.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume X, Issue 321, 2 December 1875, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY DECEMBER 2, 1875.

In the larceny cAse tried in the Supreme Court yesterday, the counsel for the prisoner made a capital speech in her defence. In due courae-of time was followed by Mr Justice GKUies ,0a the sameXside, whose address to Ihe jury was much more pointed, and, from' the position he occupied on the Bench, far more .effective . than that of the gentleman specially retained to plead the cause of the accused. After having regularly attended the sittings of the Supreme Court for some years past, we have no hesitation" in saying that we never before heard a Judge make so excellent ah advrepte. The manner in which he tore ..to shreds the evidence adduced by the Crown .was in its way masterly, and had Judge* Gillies been at'the -ba-rristers* table instead of on the judicial Bench he would have made a name for himself such as has not yet been achieved by any ofou local lawyers. At the same time we ! are compelled to admit that he completely upset all our old-fashioned notions regarding the supposed impartiality of a Judge's summing up. All: the weight of his positioii was thrown into one of the scales, while the other, under such powerful inauence, kicked the beam with a discordant jangle that grated harshly on the ears of those who b^d been accustomed '» hear previous judicial addresses to the juries in the Nelson Court. Hitherto we have been under the impression that the duties of a Judge consist in ruling upon points of law, deciding what is admissable evidence, and then impartially summing up that evidence so as to give the jury a fair idea of what is before them, leaving them to say whether or not they consider it sufficient to justify a conviction. Instead of that we yesterday heard from the Judge's hps a sweeping condemnation ot the whole of the evidence for the Crown. That his Honor's charge was flot generally regarded by those who heard it aa ft judicial one therein no

room whatever to doubt, but we would go even further, and assert that m addition to being unjudicial it was also injudicious. Henceforth/ we shall find jurors asking themselves what possible use there* can be in their attending the criminal courts. Nothing, whatever is left for them to do^ The Judge not only rules upon points of law, as it clearly is his duty to do, but he also gives a decided opinion, and almost directs the jury at what conclusion they should arrive, upon matters of fact, which, as clearly, 1 he; should not do. As to the merits of the case we have no desire to say a siugle word. It has been surrounded by so many painful circumstances that we would gladly have abstained from any further reference to it, but in the interests of the public we feel compelled to enter a strong protest against the usurpation by the Judge of functions that belong solely and entirely to the j,wy» : - --- ' ; i