A Court of Appeal Case.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2564, 26 March 1877, Page 3

A Court of Appeal Case.

(JBOM THE OTAGO StTABDIAtf.)

We are fully conscious of the peril of commenting on the conduct of Judges of the Supreme Court. .'Those gentlemen have, whether wisely or unwisely, powers Tested in them of dealing summarily and sererely with any. person so offending, under the guise of such comment being "contempt of Court." Some of them, we are aware, are not loth to put that power in force, and the consciousness of the possession of that power not infrequently■ ' gives to them a haughty and autocratic tone and demeanour towards suitors, witnesses, Bar, and Jury that have often struck us as being exceedingly inconsistent with the spirit of our free institutions. Far be it from us ' .to be supposed to advocate one iota of diminution of the.dignity of the Supreme Court, or that that,high and honorable Court and its Judges should not be carefully guarded from anything savouring of impertinence or intrusion.- But most persons are aware how sometimes the possession of great powers guarding great dignity turns the head, and leads to the assumption of airs that are only tolerated because of the powers and dignities with which a man may have been clothed by law. We do not intend these preliminary remarks as having reference to the circumstance to which we are about to allude, but only as showing what an act of temerity it may be to review proceeding of a Supreme^Court .Judge. At the same time,'we. do not shrink jrom. saying that because of this, peril it is the duty of the public journalist, as guardian of the general interest, to keenly watch, and, if need be, keenly scrutinise the proceedings of the Judges if at any; time they appear to be at variance with the general;welfare, f Most persons are acquainted with, the circumstances of the Queen Charlotte Sound case of alleged murder, for which Woodgate was hanged. There is prob- . ftblyhoddubt in anyone's mind that he iieserved Ms, fate:,'whether or not his act

%aa one of murder in the ieye of the law

So.far. as the peculiar circumstances of -his gujlfc are concerned, his guilt or innocence is immaterial; nor is it our intention.to. comment on the ; legal questions raised ,'. as to whether the act ofr killing

occurred before, or during, or afterbirth ;

nor yet on the questions whether the mother of the child and her sister were accessories to the crime or not, and whether their evidence required corroboration. -Suffice to say, that these and other aiie*stioris \rere raised and submitted to ie Court yof Appeal sitting in special session at Ohristchurch, whereof the Judges present werd- Mr Prendergast, Chief Justice, who had tried Woodgate; |nd Sir Justice Johnston. : It is not our prpvince to comment on these points as matters- of,fact, or fiction, nor on their ralidity as points of law. It is enough to aay that on their consideration hung the life of a human being, and that they were urged; upon their Honor 3in the Court of Appeal by Dr Foster, the counsel for the prisoner, with as much eloquence and force as was allowed by the very persistent and impatient interruptions of the Bench. But it is to the extraordinary conduct of - Mr Justice Johnston with reference to the consideration of the pleadings of coun■el, and in his judgment on the case, that! we desire to draw special attention; and we cannot do better than reproduce from the New Zealand Jurist of last month

the paragraph, being the closing

r words "of an article on the subject. The writer says: ". We have said enough to show that the judgment in this case was Unsatisfactory. Many small questions in •criminal law have-been 'reserved during the last 10 or 12) years for the Court of Appeal; and there is no reason to>suppose that they have not met with due consideration. In this case—the most important .of the whole —- it wiil be seen .that the judgment was not reserved. The facts are singular. Immediately after the conclusion of the argument, Mr Justice Johnson read the judgment—which appears in our report— from;.;a,^manuscript lying before him. ;With the exception of the two paragraphs referring ,to;the;argument^ just concluded this judgment tods evidently prepared before'-. (he Court sat. We make no comment on • the fact, which we believe is without a ■ parallel j^l^gal history." ; . .-'... W-e^<^^.'Yam^hope^'for'th'iEiiViionor of* {tne higheslTCourt ot the :l^nd, that this I -sWem'eM^ report ;qf, r :the. trial, ,we^. find,,. indeed, \ tha^itfie^pleading of'counsel before the; Judges/and the deliverance of the judg-J ment pr'tie Court" 'by Mr Johnston,!

occurred on January 12th;! and it is that r bis Honor . could not Have written out his lengthy! judgmenl-^ex^SPdjng^ over; .ibetweeri;; ~si* \ and seven columns of the Jurist—while- . jletting" p»f the j. bench,, *fpr : "during all ■\fbal^ ti^'e-^Hei 6 Appears v-to f have been fi in^"*a^ warm "altercation with "tli© counsel- for'tne°pnsorier. The 1 aspect .of ithat-altercation certainly as if the-. Judge , felt;, anxious, that ...nothing should judgment, already de- > tailed iii the manuscript before him. But: 'even' presenting this appearance, as -the affair certainly does, we can hardly bring ourselves to the belief that the charge, so formally made of a foregone judgment before trial on the part of a Judge sitting in a final Court of Appeal, and touching the life of one of God's creatures, ;• can be founded on fact. Are we to supEpsej; that; a v Judge who J had; never card the,; trial ■in ;the Court..below—^a Judge to whom; a. wretched being sentenced^ ,tp : death had l appealed^should have come'into Court not only .with.his mind made .up before," argument was heard, but with the sentence coldly and .deliberately written out;;which was to confirm the death penalty on an unhappy being? We are unwilling-io believe/that this is possible, r We are unwilling to believe that anyi:Judge would \ turn the proceedings .ofrthe. Court of Appeal into a farce,.or dp."anything, -that: would tend to shatter the confidence of the people in ■ the fairness and impartiality of judgments in thelCourt of. Appeal.- But the slated ment thus made.in New Zealand; Jurist is on record; and: : .whether.-it is true or

false it demands attention. If the charge is false (hat Judge Johnston had a written -' judgment.,with him when he entered Court, and before argument was heard, then he should be purged from every trace of such a. grave judicial scandal. If the charge is true, we do not shrink from saying that Judge Johnston should be impeached.

To the WpBLDLY WiSE.—Kevenge is chiefly* a!. function of memory, and with;; ' the majority of mankind forgiveness is but ?'- a form of forgetfulness. ; Be very chary, s therefore, of offending those who possess, .; :i good memories.