Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE COURTS YESTERDAY.

SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Pennefather.) ALIXGF.n ARSON'. The charge of arson brought against Earnest William Robson and Thomas Baldwin was continued yesterday afternoon, the case for the prosecution concluding at 4.30. Mr Solomon, who appeared for Rob.-oti. said he should call no evidence. Mr Bowler said lie intended to call evidence on behalf of Baldwin. Mr Fraser said the question limn arose us to the order in which counsel should address the Conn, and as to who should have the final right of reply. Mr Solomon suggested that the jnrv should be dispensed with while this question was argued. Mr Eraser said he had no objection whatever, and was about to make it himself. ■His Honor, addressing the jury, said that the question had been raised as to the right of reply. The rule was that if counsel for the prisoner did not cal! any evidence the counsel for the prosecution had not then th" right of having the last word, but if counsel for the prisoner did call evidence, after the evidence had been given counsel for the prisoner made a speech, and counsel for the prosecution had the right of the last word. The present case was curiously involved. There were two accused persons—one was going to call witnesses and the other was not. and the question had therefore arisen whether counsel for the Crown should or should not have the right of reply. That was a question of law veryinteresting to him (His Honor), but it had uo bearing upon the facts of the case, and therefore he proposed to discharge them for the test of the day. His Honor then reminded jurors that they were not to talk about the case, and dismissed them from attendance until ten o’clock this (Friday) morning. The point mentioned was argued at some length, and a number of conflicting decisions were cited, counsel submitting that there was no established rule, but that the matter was one entirely within the discretion of the Court. The Court adjourned at 5.40 p.m. until ten o'clock this (Friday) morning.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18981202.2.14

Bibliographic details

Evening Star, Issue 10795, 2 December 1898, Page 1

Word Count
352

THE COURTS YESTERDAY. Evening Star, Issue 10795, 2 December 1898, Page 1

THE COURTS YESTERDAY. Evening Star, Issue 10795, 2 December 1898, Page 1

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert