The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5159, 4 October 1877, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1877.

Mr. Justice Richmond is evidently desirous to relieve witnesses of the legal bullying which they are so frequently subjected to when they enter the witnessbox to give evidence, presumably for the benefit of their country and the interests of justice. Perhaps the most fertile sources for this exercise of legal talent are the discrepancies which constantly occur between the depositions taken at the Resident Magistrates’ Courts and the evidence of witnesses in the higher Courts. It is quite within the knowledge of any one of ordinary observation and accustomed to legal proceedings that the depositions are not the words at all of a witness. He in nine cases out of ten simply says yes or no to a question put to him; but the clerk, in taking down the depositions, puts the words of the question in the mouth of the witness. This is the usual custom, and conveys in a more intelligible and connected form the main facts than would be the case if the witness had to find his own words. Rut lawyers appear to utterly ignore this knowledge, which they must undoubtedly be aware of. “Remember, you are on your solemn oath. Did you not state at the Police Court that the prisoner at the bar winked with his right eye ; and now you deliberately tell us he winked with his left ? How can you, sir, account for this wonderful and material difference between the evidence you then gave and that which you now give 1” And so in endless chapter continues this display of legal acumen, but which the ordinary observer regards as utter balderdash calculated to hide the truth. The witness loses his head, gets confused, and remembers nothing till a few pertinent words from the Judge puts him upon the right track. Yesterday in the Supreme Court a witness was subjected to a severe cross-examination about certain discrepancies in his evidence when compared with that given in the same Court on Monday. The witness did not recollect stating what was imputed to him, and Mr. Justice Richmond had no recollection of the statement either. However, his Honor in looking over his notes found the statement therein, and quietly observed, “You have convicted me also of forgetfulness, Mr. Izard.” His Honor then spoke disapprovingly of the Old Bailey style of examination of witnesses. Slight discrepancies in evidence would arise from a defective memory; they never had any weight in his mind, and he felt sure would have as little effect on the jury. Witnesses were not like counsel ; they had not the words in black and white before them, and could not be expected to remember every little particular. It is to be hoped gentlemen of the long robe will ponder over these words of Mr. Justice Richmond. Mr. Travers further on in the case made some remarks which were confirmatory of what fell from his Honor. The learned counsel, in speaking of the differences which occur in the testimony of various witnesses about any particular circumstance of which they were all cognisant, said that such divergence was not to be taken as detracting from the veracity of the witnesses. In fact, whilst practising in England, he had heard a Judge state that where several witnesses agreed in minute details, it was a prima facie evidence of conspiracy, and that there were just grounds for the supposition that they nad put their heads together to concoct a story. This was often resorted to to prove an alibi, and at one time was very frequent in cases of horse stealing. Now, if a divergence of testimony in a small matter, amongst a number of witnesses who agree in substance, strengthens the evidence of the whole, surely the same allowance might be made for a witness recounting details of a circumstance at different times. At any rate it would be a proof that he had not learnt a story off by heart. Of course counsel have a perfect right to take advantage of all circumstances which may be favorable to a client, whether they represent the Crown or the prisoner at the bar, but there can be little hesitation in stating that the system of hectoring witnesses in the main defeats the ends of justice. It is just as bad to be blackguarded in the witness-box as anywhere else, and it is no small matter to most men to be virtually branded as a •liar before a Judge, jury, and perhaps a hundred spectators. Wig and gown takes nought from the affront. A great many people feel a natural reluctance to give evidence in our Courts of Justice, and nearly all intelligent men would make considerable sacrifice to prevent any female belonging to them entering the witness-box. This is not as it should be, and the consequence is that Justice is too often allowed to take care of herself.