The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5161, 6 October 1877, Page 2

The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1877.

Under the British system of trial by Jury it behoves everyone to be acquainted with the machinery for the administration of justice. It is not so much a matter of importance that they should know the niceties of the law as that they should fully understand the conditions under which the facts of a charge may be presented to them if called upon to take part in the administration of justice. That the forma of procedure in our Criminal Courts are undergoing modification is not a matter of surprise in this age of improvement on the customs of our forefathers. This change in law proceedings was forcibly brought out at the present sittings of the Supreme Court, in the trial of a mother and daughter for the alleged murder of a newly-born infant. It is not our intention at present to comment upon that painful case, but to point out a precedent which strikes at the very root of what lias hitherto been recognised as the practice of our Criminal Courts. The two prisoners were charged jointly with the commission of an offence ; and with a a full knowledge of every word in the depositions, we have no hesitation in stating that there was not a single fact which severed the one prisoner from the other in the alleged commission of the crime. Mr. Travises applied that the accused be tried separately, and his application was o-ranted. Of course, to anyone of ordinary capacity counsel’s object was perfectly plain. The daughter was placed on her trial first, and Mr. Travers proposed to call the evidence of the mother for the defence. Mr. Justice Richmond dissented to this, but after recent authorities had been quoted by counsel, his Honor assented to the mother being placed in the witness-box. The Judge in granting the application said that individually he was in favor of such a practice being followed ; in fact, he would go so far as to admit a prisoner being put upon his oath to give testimony in reference to the charge against himself. In mere theory we do not entirely disagree with the opinions of the learned Judge ; but under the system of trial by jury there is little doubt that if his Honor’s views were put in practice a larger percentage of guilty persona would escape than under the previous prevailing custom. We will take an instance. Two prisoners are charged with an offence, and there is only one principal witness ; shake the testimony of that witness and the charge falls to the ground. One of the prisoners is called, and he gives evidence directly contrary to that of the principal witness ; and although the whole chain of circumstances is in favor of the latter's version, there will be sufficient doubt thrown upon it in the minds of the jurymen to make them hesitate to convict where there is such a conflict of testimony. Under the French system of criminal jurisprudence the Court can examine the prisoner; but it is not on the whole found conducive to the interest of the accused. Observers of that system tell us that the prisoner is frequently tortured by the severe examination he is subjected to, and that in cases where other evidence is slight sufficient evidence for a conviction is actually wrung, from the mouth of a prisoner. Of course Mr. Justice Richmond may not intend in expressing his opinion to go so far as compel a prisoner to make a statement on oath, the truth of such statement to be tested by the Court by examination. The most specious tissue of lies would break down before a searching examination of a Judge of the Supremo Court, endowed as he is with such largo powers.

It is doubtless only intended at present that the matter should be optional with the party arraigned. But if such right were placed in the hands of a prisoner, and he did not avail himself of it, his case would in some, degree be prejudiced in the minds of the jury. By altering the law in this direction it seems to ns‘lhat it would have to be altered in others ; in fact, we might go so far as to state that trial by jury would have to be abolished altogether, and leave the full responsibility of the more serious criminal charges with the Judges of the Supreme Courts. That would only be following out the practice of the Resident Magistrate’s Court,*but on a larger scale; where, unaided by juries, the magistrates deal with a great number and variety of criminal cases. However, that seems less objectionable than placing one prisoner in the witness-box to give testimony regarding another in whose innocence or guilt he is most directly interested. On two occasions, in the Law Courts of this city, prisoners have been tried separately who were originally charged with one specific crime ; and few would venture to say thatthe result in either casehas been satisfactory. The first was in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, in a case where the whole charge rested upon the testimony of one witness. In the separation of the accused, the magistrate expressed his regret at the step, and said he had been “ jumped” , into .his decision without proper consideration. The result was that both the prisoners got off soot free, though no one had any doubt that an offence of some kind had been committed, though not perhaps of the magnitude alleged. In the second case, which took place at the Supreme Court the other day, one of the prisoners was found guilty and the other was acquitted. That there was a miscarriage of justice hardly admits of a doubt; and it would be no exaggeration to state that nineteentwentieths of those who are acquainted with the case are of opinion that if there was guilt at all the most criminal party has escaped. If the course is to be adopted of trying principals in a crime separately, similar results may be expected in the future. Juries have different minds. One may convict on certain evidence, while on precisely the same testimony another may refuse to find the prisoner" guilty. This would be an anomaly, which would weaken respect for tho law. A precedent has been established, which no doubt will be greatly taken advantage of. Justice is often represented as blind. Henceforth when statues to grace our Law Courts are raised to represent her it would be appropriate to have the goddess bandaged on one eye. In these remarks we do not wish t) be understood as in the slightest degree casting a reflection on Mr. Justice Richmond. He has simply acted in accordance with recent precedents in the English Law Courts. If it were optional, there are few men who know Mr. Justice Richmond in his judicial capacity, who, if placed on their trial for an offence of which they wereinnocent, would notprefer to be tried by his Honor ratherthan byany chance twelve of their fellow-countrymen. We are perfectly satisfied that his chief object would be to get at the truth of a matter. We also believe that tho most notorious criminal in the land would get fair play from him; but there have been Judges of the Supreme Court little better than Crown Prosecutors, and who did not hold the scales of justice evenly between the prisoner at the bar and mir sovereign lady the Queen.