THE Manawatu Times. WEDNESDAY, JAN. 21, 1880. A CASE FOR THE DISTRICT COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 109, 21 January 1880, Page 2

THE Manawatu Times.

WEDNESDAY, JAN. 21, 1880. A CASE FOR THE DISTRICT COURT.

',< Words uro things, and a rirop of ink falling liko dew upon a thought, produces tbut which makes thousands, perhaps millions think."

\ Those whose business calls them to attend tho Courts. of Justice cannot fail to bo struck with the amount of hard swearing which is indulged m day after day. Indeed to such an extent has the evil gone, that them is scarcely a cause-list cleared with, out a uuniber of lifcigauts swearing upou absolute matter* of fact statements diametrically opposite to, and contradictory of, one another. The [ frequency of the occurrence, if not reconciling the Bench and Bap to such a stato of things, lias had the. effect of doadeniug the feeling which should exist at the enormity of the crime, and consequently such cases evoke, nothing more thau a passing comment that perjury had been committed. Perhaps, however, one of the strongest reasons for the apathy exhibited may be attributed to the fact that the presiding Justice, or the officers of the law, find them-perfec-tly helpless iv. tho matter, and consequently m easea where tho, evidence is oath against oatli, no matter how contradictory it may bo, no criminal prosecution can be instituted. Iv order to constitute the crime of perjury, and to make the giving of the false evidence liable to criminal punishment, it must be proved to, be- not only false to the knowledge of the witness, but the matter muet be material to the issue raised. In. order, moreover, to make assunvivoo doubly sure, aud to. ■pra.vide against an injustice being done, the law de.inan,ds that to prove the crime, and sheet home the cnarge to the transgressor, at least two persons should be able to testify to the falsehood of the matter, so that tho Court would be armed with a majority of oat ha. In civil cases where the plaintiff swears most positively to a fact, that is just as positively denied on oath by the defendant, the magistrate is vested with discretionary power to use his own judgment, aud either from the manner m which the evidence )8 given, or the Burjroaudiag cixcumstiuicos $£ the casp ;

elect the party upon \yhqse testimony he will bestow prpdence-; but there his powers uervso, and though 110 l>e morally oertaiu thai; falpe wearing has been indulged m, m tho absence of q, third party to canfirnj one statement or deny, the. o{;hep, he is precluded from ordering the institution of further proceedings. The cqql. nouchaUince •.. vyjth wliichtwo witnesseH will step into the box, mid flatly contradict each other on oath upon matters about which it was morally impossible their memories could play them false, 13 simply appalling, and would lead to the impression that not one m every 1 three who kisa the Testament have the slightest idea of the moral or legal responsibility which the action entails ; and providing they cau win their case, and escape scatheless, they pare not one jot. As a case m point, a charge was heard at the local Court yesterday, m which the informant swore m the most positive and solemn manner, th^t th,e defeudant, m the presence of four others, presented a gun at h,iin,> and threatenee to shoot him. In flat contradiction to this, witness after Witness was produced; who not ouly denied the threatening eqnduct, but swore most distiuctly that the accused person had never had, even for a moment, the gun \n his hand, much less to point it at aud threaten to shoot the complainant. The dispute only took place three days previously, and it is entirely beyond $he bounds of all reason that the informant sh.au, ld have thought defendant deliberately raised the gun, and while it was being pointed at him, threatened his life; while on the other hand, had he done so, it is highly impossible that five porspns could bo concerned m the fraca.s and never witness s,uch an out of the usual proceeding. That wilful aud corrupt perjury wa.s committed by either un,o side or the Qther there cannot be the least shadow of a donbt, and certainly feo fail to follow up tho mutter would be nothing more than offering a premium to crime. A few wholesome examples to. those brazen delinquents who o,vershoot the mark, would work wonders, and serve to teach ignorant or idipuJent witnesses the s;iactitj r of an oath.