Untitled

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 197, 7 December 1876, Page 2

I " Too much familiarity breeds'contempt," and the most sacred tilings if too fre- > qtiently brought befmv us, are apt to lose | much of their sanctity thereby. This fact ! h most conspicuously noticeable in our S Police Courts in the different persons who | gut into the witness-box. Tiiose who j take the Bible in their hands for the first r time, do so with fear and trembling, their j uttuiauce3 as ihej- fo'low t!ie gliblyi mut'.cr.jd oath administered by the official | being scarcely audible, while the veteran ; objuraiionist displays no such qualms, i and kiss.s the Sacred Volume in a mo3t ! perfunctorv manner. We do not mean to f f insinuate tiiat because a man goes into | the witness box on three hundred days in ; the year out of the three hundred and ! sixty-five it necessarily must follow that • he does not always tell the truth : but we ' do assert that, like oaths uttered elsel where, though at first used with all sincerity :.s to the truth of t!ie statement ; which they are made to stamp, a too fre- | qnent indulgence is apt to make some

persons careless as to particulars. These remarks are brought about by reading of tha strangely-conflicting evidence given in the Police Court, Dunedin, a day or two since, in which case the testimony of the witnesses was so diametrically opposite and so completely at variance that it would not require a very great stretch of imagination to class it az rank perjury. The facts were that a cabman was summoned by the police for leaving his trap unprotected, and the constable distinctly swore that on the occasion referred to he saw the horse for twp minutes and three seconds without any one to look after it. For the defence a witness named Mills was called, who stated on oath that he was walking round the cab to take his seat therein when the constable walked across the street and initiated a prosecution by taking the cabman's name. The constable was recalled, and swore positively that Mills came down the street, and was not at tne cab when he accosted the cabman : while Mills, again entering the witness-box, reiterated that he was in charge of the horses all along, and actually sitting in front when the constable addressed the defendant. A second witness, who travelled in the cab from the races, corroborated the evidence for the defence, and stated that he laughed at the idea of a prosecution when the cab had been left in charge of Mills. In the face of the conflicting evidence the Bench had no other option than to dismiss the case, but we certainly will be surprised if the matter be allowed to rest here. The whole affair was one which it is impossible to explain away as by a mistake, and the fact cannot be denied that pretty hard swearing was resorted to to gain a point by one side or the other. Certainly the balance of evidence is three to one against the police, and seeing that it is usual with magistrates on all occasions where it is oath against oath, if the police be one of the party, to put credence in their statement as against civilians, the above facts are not calculated to make the public convinced of the justice of the preference hitherto given.