COURT OF APPEAL, CHRISTCHURCH.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1565, 15 March 1887, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL, CHRISTCHURCH.

REQINA V. HALL. Judgment was delivered on Saturday ' morning in the appeal case, Regina v. Hall, their Honors Judges Johnston, Richmond, Williams, and Ward silting. His Honor Mr Justice Ward read thd judgment, but before doing so said—- “ Before proceeding to deliver judgment in this case, 1 desire to state that the f Chief Justice being obliged to depart on \ judicial business before the reasons of the Court for its judgment could be con* veniently reduced to writing, has' r>‘quested me to state that he entirely concurs in the conclusions arrived at pre - viously by the other members of the Court, though he must not be taken

as assenting to every expression of opinion which may occur in the written ‘ judgment.” His Honor then went on ••In this case the question is whether the evidence on which the prisoner was convicted of an attempt to poison his wife was properly admitted as evidence on his trial for the murder, some six months previously, of Captain Cain. It is contended that the evidence was properly admitted: first, as evidence that the administration of poison to Captain Cain was not accidental; secondly, on the ground that the two offences formed p irt of one and the same transaction ; thirdly for the, purpose of showing what are the sytnp tome of slow poisoning by antimony.” These grounds were then dealt with one by one at considerable length, the conclusion in each being favorable to the con- ' tention of the counsel for prisoners that the evidence ought not to have been admitted. The judgment concluded as follows : “If in some rare cases it should b<absolutely necessary for the purpose oi show ing the action of a particular poison to adduce an instance of its use in which the prisoner is supposed to have been t e agent, but viu'ch is unconnected with the charge, t>- videnco ought, we apprehend, to bv, confined to physiological anc pathological facts. We are aware that i : cases like the present ihe application of rigid principle of common law nans' often result in what the public may be disposed to regard as a failure of justice. That is really not our concern. It is our doty to see justice administered according to law. it may well b* that the state of the law is occasionally a hindrance to the administration of justice. If so, it is th. duty of the Legislature to apply a remedy We should be usurping a function not ours if we presumed to do more than interpret and apply the la v as it exists m regard to the particular principle which has been herein in question. It is, however, to be remarked that it is strongly characteristic of English criminal law that it may be capable of advantageous modification in regard to special classes of cases, but its entire reversal would not improbably give rise to evils far greater than the occasional disadvantages to

which the rule now exposes us. In conclusion, it is proper to express the opinion of the Court that the learned Judge who tried the case had practically no alternative but provisionally to admit this evidence. The state of the English authorities is such that no single judge could take upon himself the responsibility of declining to receive the evidence tendered by the Crown. We have been unable, without unduly lengthening this judgment, to discuss in detail these authorities, but there cat be no doubt some of them must be considered apparently favorable to the reception of the evidence. For the above reasons the Court is unanimously of opinion ibat the prisoner ought net to have been convicted.”