OATH OR AFFIRMATION?

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13873, 6 October 1908, Page 5

OATH OR AFFIRMATION?

AN INCIDENT AT PATEA. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] 'CHRis.rciiTtttCH. Monday. Before he began a lecture at the Choral Hall, last evening, Mr. W.-W. Collins, a former member for Cliristclmrch, made reference to a recent incident that occurred at the Magistrate's Court, at Patea, a witness who had asked to be allowed to make an affirmation having been committed for contempt of Court, for insisting on his right. The following resolution was carried unanimously by the audience:"That this meeting indignantly protests against the gross abuse of authority on the part of the Patea justices who committed a witness for contempt because he objected to taking the , customary oath, and that in compelling a witness to take the oath in spite of his statement that he had conscientious objections to so doing, and also in forcing him to swear upon a Book in which he did not believe, the Pat«a justices not only treated the oath itself with contempt, but acted contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Oaths Act of 1890." It was further resolved to forward copies of the resolution to the Minister for Justice. ' ■