(From Our Own Correspondent.)

Otago Witness, Issue 2436, 21 November 1900, Page 38

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

' ■ .-• WELLINGTON, November 19. A point of very considerable importance was raised -to-day by Mr Skerrett, who is leading ! counsel for the defence in the Stoke Orphanage cases. The. case* against ~Bio. Kilian was the first -one taken, and Mr Skerrett, .at 'the commencement of the proceedings; pointed o\it that 'there were six charges of assault 1 each against separate individuals, and alleged +o ,haye been committed at .different times. „ He submitted that the six charges should be -^riecl separately, andtliat a fair trial could iiot be' ihad if ' the cases ' were taken together. He Quoted a number cf English .cases m which, -where prisoners were charged' with .several cases dl felony, tke'proBecutioii had 'been'feqnired 'to elect which case it would ifirst proceed with. "This .case was a .misdemeanor, ,and -he urged that -the -intention >of the ' Criminal Oode, under\w.hieh these pharges-were made', was .to place felonies and misdemeanors on' the same lines for the purpose oh such' -an •application as this -is'. "Mr -Bell, in l-eply, -said the m-ineiple ~,f or jwhieh^ Mr 'Skerrett contended; was - one in which the-discre'tdon of "the judge could not be exercised. He urged that in cases of misde imeanor^'it 'was not the practice in England to call ',upbn the -prosecution ,to elect, which ■case-, should be proceeded'" Avith .when -ther-e-were several charges of a similar character ' against the same' rjerson. It ,was the constant jpradfcice'to'make several' separate and 'distinct dhar'ges 'against a 'prisoner 'in the »same indict : iment, 'and»tlie'only ground on which such .an -application* -should -be granted was that it was conducive 'to the ends of justice that the Dro-

I secution should be called on to elect Avhieh ! case should be gone on with. /If Mr Skerrett' s contention was correct it -toust apply in every case, and the inconvenience which would be caused by such a practice was obvious. Mr Skerrett submitted thai his Honor could exercise his discretion in every case in which it could be shown that the prisoner would be prejudiced by the hearing of the indictments together. These cases were wholly distinct and separate one from another, and the hearing of them all together would result in considerable embarrassment. Mr Justice Edwards, who is hearing the cases, said he would give a decision without much hesitation if his decision could be reviewed. But as his decision coiild not be reviewed, he naturally desired to consult the other judges, and he would accordingly telegraph to them for their opinion on the point. This is, I believe, the only occasion on ;whicb the point has been raised in r the colony ; since the passing' of the CriminaX 'Code Act in 1894. It will easily be seen thairiife'iri'such. cases- each case had to be tried sepECra'feelir the \ 'offence in the minds of a jury might not' be thoug'lii/"so serious nor so easily'proved)"- To ' begin with, ,the Crown Prosecutor could not open on the whole of the eases,' but would have to confine his remarks to the single individual case under review. Similarly there would not be any possibility of getting in general evidence regarding a number of similar cases, but the evidence would have to be confined to the one case dealt with. Altogether the point 'is an interesting and important one.