Embracery.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3596, 6 July 1880, Page 2

Embracery.

His Honor Mr Justice Richmond in bia charge to the Grand Jury in panel at the Supreme Court, Auckland, spoke thus in reference to the charge of embracery against, Mr Samuel Coombes, of Queen street, Auckland :—".The offence in one is that which under the old laws is called embracery, which in substance is an attempt to tamper with jurymen before trial. You can scarcely imagine to yourselves a more serious offence, for it effects moat deeply the character of our criminal law. It effects and disturbs it at the fountain head. You can see that this kind of attempt to interfere with the administration of justice is not one of any narrow scope or definition. For my own part I cannot doubt, although the case is singular if an attempt were made to tamper with a jury, • or even an attempt made to canvass them with the view of ascertaining whether they were favourably or unfavorably inclined that it would be an offence at common law. Merely the canvassing of them for the purpose beforehand of ascertaining whether they were favorable or unfavorable, partial or impartial to the prisoner, would be an offence at common law, punishable by fine or imprisonment. The purpose of seeking an interview with a person on a jury panel, on^ the part of one who is interested in the prisoner, cannot be doubted. There is only one end and purpose, namely, to corrupt the administration of justice. By knowing the minds of the jurymen— whether they inclined favourably or not to the prisoner—the right of challenge may be so-exorcised that a prejudiced witness may be got into the box to try the cause. I cannot doubt the duty of the judge in the matter. It is his duty to declare such an act a misdemeanour, otherwise he would not be acting in the spirit of the law. The authorities have to assert this law, even though such a case could not be shown to have been ever heard before. The chief point which you will have to consider is whether the indictment which has been drawn up is applicable to the case— whether the special form of embracery, stated in it can be urged against the prisoner. I have told you gentlemen that many different things come under the head of " embracery," but it does not matter to the question what the verjdict has been, so long as there was an attempt beforehand to tamper with the jury which gave itit is a misdemeanour, and therefore crim* inal. You have to consider whether tbe particular form of the indictment is made to suit it. Of course, if it does not, you cannot return a true bill."