THE HALL CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 7167, 22 March 1887, Page 4

THE HALL CASE.

[Special to the Star.] CHRISTCHURCH, March 21. The ‘Lyttelton Timed’ says:—“ Should the admitted failure of justice in the Hall case lead to an amendment of the New Zealand law of evidence, a repetition of such unfortunate miscarriages may be prevented, but the case itself will remain an example of the law’s ineircctivencas. There is one way to avoid this, and, so far as we know, only one. That way is for the Crown to appeal to the I’rivy Council. The Crown has been badly treated. After working up a most difficult and important case with great care, and at very considerable cost to the country, it has been baffled by an over-cautious Bench, whose views of the case and on the law of evidence as now made in England is, in our opinion, erroneous. The nicety of the point, and the undoubted conflict of previous decisions on the point, Joes not alter the fact that our Court of Appeal has weighed the matter wrongly in the balance. It is one thing to Soint out the absurdity of blaming the udges indignantly for taking a justifiable view of so fine a point. It is quite another thing to agree with them in the view they took, as their view has led not merely to widespread dissatisfaction, but to what is infinitely more important—a grave mistake in the administration of justice. This is the substantial reason for asking to have the matter remitted to the supreme tribunal of the Empire.” The article goes on to cite two New South Wales cases in which the Appeal Court decisions were upset by the Privy Council.