Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4985, 15 March 1877, Page 2

Telegrams state that the Dunedin Press is criticising the action of Mr. Justice Johnstbn in the recent Court of Appeal case Kegina v. Woodgate. Without comment in this writing we quote the following, which appears in the "New Zealand: Jurist, under the heading " Another Loose Proceeding " :—" No" Crown qase that has yet been brought before the Court of Appeal presents any features. of interest" or importance that can entitle it to comparison with Woodgate's case, reported in the present issue of the 'Jurist.' . . . . The report of the case; we regret to say, will be read with much disappointment. If the argument fails to meet'its difficulties, the judgment sinks beneath them. The insufficiency of the former is explained by the report, for it will be seen that the Court hardly allowed the prisoner's counsel any opportunity to develope his reasoning. • If the impatience manifested : by the. Bench was owing to a sense of the insufficiency or irregularity of the argument, the reader will not realise his expectations of an exalted style of reasoning in the judgment. The more carefully he may study; it, the more dissatisfied will he feel with it.- If;the learned Judge could not listen patiently to'the contentions of the Bar, it might at least be expected that he would seek, in his own researches, an adequate supply of logic. and authority. The judicial researches, however, did not extend beyond an old edition of a second-rate textbjoek and the quotations contained in it. The 'result is a series of extraordinary propositions, which read like' bad translations from a Dutch' civilian.. . v . We hare said enough to show that the judgment in this case is unsatisfactory. Many small questions in criminal law have be«n reserved during the last ten or twelve years for the Court of Appeal, and there is no reason to suppose that they have notmet withdue consideration. In this" case—the most important of the whole—• iit will be seen that, the.'judgment was not reserved. The facts are singular. ~ Immediately after the cbnelusioh of the' argumenD, Mr. Justice'Johnston read' the judgment—which appears in* our report—from a manuscript lying before him.' With the exception of the two paragraphs referring to the arguriient just concluded, this judgment was evidently prepared before the Court sat.' We make no comment on "the" 'fact,' "which ~we believe* is without a parallel in legal history."