Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 674, 30 January 1885, Page 18

At the conclusion of the Waking Taylor trial on Friday afternoon, counsel for the prosecution asked that the two other indictments against the prisoner might be allowed to stand over until the law points raised in the first case had been decided by the Court of Appeal. The reason for the application was that the same points would arise in those cases, and that the ruling of the Court would be applicable to all. The matter was not finally dealt with on Friday, but on Saturday morning the Chief Justice said that he saw no reason why the trials should not be postponed till the July sittings. He accordingly granted the application. The wisdom of that determination is open to serious question. The cases were ready for trial, and the witnesses were on the ppot. The proceedings might not have occupied more than a few hours. At all events there would have been no necessity to re-argue the points raised at the first trial. They would have had merely to be noted, and, in the event of a conviction, sentence, as in the first case, could have been deferred till the July sittings. The Chief Justice did not forget to suggest that fresh recognizances should be entered into by the witnesses, but that was apparently all the consideration he bestowed on them. It does not seem to have struck him that many of those witnesses might be put to great loss and inconvenience by being compelled to appear again in July. If furtherance of the ends of justice had demanded such a sacrifice on their part no more would have remained to be said ; but, in truth, justice was far more likely to be defeated than assisted by the postponement. There is always a risk that important witnesses, though bound over to appear, may be unable to attend, and that through their absence a case may break down. There must be strong counter-balanc-ing circumstances to justify delay, and in Waring Taylor’s case they were altogether wanting. Let us suppose, however, that the Court of Appeal decides the reserved points in the first case adversely to the prisoner,.

that in July he is placed on his trial on one of the remaining indictments, and that new law points are raised in the course of the proceedings. Following the precedent adopted last week, there might be another reference to the Court of Appeal, another delay of sentence, and another postponement of the indictment which would still remain to be tried. Thus we should have the spectacle of the same set of witnesses appearing at three sittings of the Supreme Court, lamenting their ill-fortune and cursing the law’s delay. These are not at all far-fetched suggestions. On the contrary, we shall be much surprised if the ingenuity ot the counsel for the defence does not in July conjure up fresh points of law quite as worthy of attention as those which have just been relegated to the Court of Appeal. If it be replied to our remarks that, in the event of the points already reserved being overruled, there will be no use in going on with the remaining prosecutions, then it is clear that Ji- he case of the witnesses is even harder than we have yet represented it. They will* have been bound over, on legal false pretences to give evidence on indictments which are not intended to be tried. Of course we do not assert that it is so. If the trials had been had now any new points raised would have been considered at the next sitting of the Appeal Court, and the whole of Waring Taylor’s business would certainly have been settled in July. Jury service, and attendance to give evidence, almost always involve some inconvenience, and perhaps, substantial loss. They are necessary evils which individuals have to endure for the good of the community, and the infliction is borne with very commendable fortitude. But the Courts should make it their constant study to lighten the burden as far as is consistent with the end in view.