JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Evening Star, Issue 21233, 14 October 1932, Page 1

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

j j REMINISCENCES, GRAVE AND GAY MR HANLON AT ASSOCIATION SOCIAL Interspersed with some humorous stories met with in cases of law, an interesting address on the subject of j duties and decisions sometimes asked j of a justice of the peace was given by’ I Air A. G. Hanlon, K.C., at a social gathering of the Otago Justices of the Peace Association in the Y.AI.C.A. last night. Air A. D. Sutherland presided, and said it was very gratifying to see such a good attendance. There was every' indication that the association would grow into a strong organisation. Air Hanlon said that the office of justice of the peace was one of considerable importance. 'Hie duties of a justice were both ministerial and judicial, and the remarks he proposed to make referred principally to the judicial side of the justice’s activities. Nowadays, justices in the cities were not called upon to try cases so frequently as in the past, this work devolving upon the stipendiary magistrates. Still, there were occasions when justices were called upon to sit in the courts to hear and determine cases. It might be that these cases were of minor importance, but, nevertheless, in them, as in all other cases, justice must be done. Now, justices in'the main were appointed from citizens who had considerable worldly experience and knowledge, and if they applied that experience and knowledge to the consideration of the cases brought before them they would, in his opinion, do substantial justice as long as they were guided upon technical matters by the clerk of tho court, who was conversant with the statutes under which proceedings were taken and with the rules of procedure. Of course, in this, as in most other things, practice made perfect, and if justices were afforded more opportunities of dealing with cases than they’ were at present they would become very useful and competent magistrates, particularly in cases of fact. Sound common sense and good judgment based on worldly knowledge were all that were required to decide such cases correctly. 1 There had been a time when nearly all the resident magistrates, as the paid magistrates were then called, were I appointed from outside tho legal profession, and he could remember the leaders of the profession in those days saying what excellent magistrates some of these appointees were. There could bo no better example than tho late Mr E. H. Carew, who, before bis appointment to the magistracy, bad been a clerk of the Warden’s Court in the goldfields. Although a layman, he was an ex "limit. lawyer, ♦••;nd Ids • de-.'isioji-s wore verv rarely reversed. He did not say that" from "the very beginning he was a good lawyer, but by practice lie soon became one. If, therefore, justices had practice in the courts they would soon become quite competent enough to relievo the stipendiax-y magistrates of a lot of work where questions of law were not involved. In bis early career at the Bar, said the lecturer, justices were sitting in the Police Court four or five days a i week, and nearly all the indictable eases, and a variety of other'cases, came before them. In the indictable cases they bad to decide whether or not the evidence was strong enough to justify the accused being sent to the Supx-eme Court for trial by a jury, and, as far as his experience .went, few mistakes were made. In the summary cases it was true that some mistakes were made, but as a rule they were made by the inexperienced justices and not by those who frequently sat in the coux'ts. Among those there wore several whom he could name who were splendid magistrates Now the determination of these cases depended upon a consideration of the evidence adduced, and that might be direct or circumstantial. If it were direct, then the justice had to decide whether the witnesses who spoke to the facts were in a position to know the facts, whether they were speaking the truth, or whether they, through mistake or design, were stating what was incoiTect Sometimes a skilful ci’ossexamiiiation would help materially, but often enough it would fail to expose the fact that the witness ,was cither lying or mistaken. If, on the other hand, the evidence were what was known as circumstantial evidence, the justice had still to decide whether the witnesses wore speaking the truth, and in addition had to decide whether the circumstances deposed to and believed to bo true wore sufficient to justify a finding that thev established beyond a reasonable doubt tho contention in support of I which the evidence was called. Hus was often a matter of considerable dilti--1 oulty. Alany times it bad been said that circumstantial evidence was safer than direct evidence, but bis experience made him doubtful of this assorIliustrating his point bo read a noted ease from 1 Wills on Circumstantial Evidence.’ This ease took place m England in 1871, when a man named Book was tried for murder. The facts i of tlio oci.se wore litornlly fistouiiclinpj, I the evidence for the Crown being, to his mind, absolutely conclusive, , but when the evidence for the defence proi vided a complete answer to the charges I the prisoner was acquitted. A case m i which the lecturer featured in 1906 | was one in which two persons were accused of the murder of a Chinaman. The fads of this case showed the I falbibilitv of circumstantial evidence, j From "these cases it would bo seen ■ that there was grave risk of an mno- : cent man being convicted on oven a (•■npital charge upon circumstantial eviI ilence unless be was fortunate enough to be able to establish an alibi. In the I English case the accused bad been ' able to do so, but in the Otago case j the man would not have been, and yet there was no doubt whatever that be was entirely innocent. When mistakes could occur in serious cases where witnesses were most careful I in giving llioir evidence, how much 1 more likely wore they to occur in I trivial cases where witnesses were more lor less careless? It therefore behoves ; everyone occupying a judicial position | most carefully to scrutinise every par- ; t ieio of the evidence given hi a ease upon which bo bad to adjudicate. If. as he had already said, justices had more opportunities afforded to them tlicv would become expert in the matter j of analysing and weighing evidence.

He had told them that cross-examina-tion often helped in elucidating the truth. It was a wonderful weapon, but it was not always effective. He then gave a few; illustrations. In one the defendant in a maintenance case had denied that a letter to another woman written twenty years before was in his handwriting, but the lecturer stated that he had asked him to write an extract from the letter.' When he wrote “Dunedin” with a small “d” and “petticoat” “ pottycote,” as he had done twenty years before, the defence had broken down, Mr Hanlon remarked that the lady was twenty years older than her husband. This, he humorously remarked,' amidst loud laughter, was a mistake. Mr Hanlon explained that in this case his cross-examination had really proved affective, hut that in the case of the counsel for the defendant—a Dunedin lawyer who now occupied a seat on the Judge’s Bench—it had proved ineffective so far as the cross-examina-tion of the wife was concerned. In the second case Mr Hanlon said he thought he was getting on famously with a Chinaman whom lie was cross-examin-ing, and at last he came to the critical question which was to win him his case.' Tlie answer he got, however, was quite unexpected: “1 know you well, Mr Hanlon! You just try to make the law klookpd.” (Loud laughter.) In another case he was made to _ feel rather “small” when cross-examining an old lady, who bent over the witness stand, patted his head, and said': “ I have known you ever since you were a little boy, and you can’t catcji me now.” These cases showed that the lawyer did not always get the best of it when he stood up to cross-examine. Still it behoves every ,magistrate to give earnest attention to all crossexaminations as they frequently elicited facts of supreme importance. Just one other thing he might say by way of advice. They should never sit in any case where there was the slightest possibility of their being biased in the smallest degree. He remembered two justices overruling a resident magistrate through bias, and having their names removed ' from the commission of the peace as a result. This was a case in which a man was charged with false pretences, when ho had purchased from a chemist’s assistant a bottle of hair restorer which was asked to be charged to Dr Shannon. The hair restorer had afterwards been diluted and placed in smaller bottles and sold as corn cure. When arrested the charge could not be proved—he had said “charge to Dr Shannon,” not “I am Dr Shannon.” The chairman of the justices on that occasion was a chemist, who afterwards said that ■ a chemist who left his premises in charge of a boy deserved to be taken down,' and the case was dismissed. One or two amusing stories from the courts were related in conclusion. Items'were given by-the following :—f Mr Gordon Findlay (piano). Miss IN.i M'Phersou (song), Miss Shiela Neilson (recitation), Mr W. Ruffell (song), M-. • Findlay*:!nd Miss M. Caddie were the accompanists. Votes of thanks to the speaker and to the performers were carried by acclamation.