JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3808, 8 March 1927, Page 7

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

MEETING OF OTAGO ASSOCIATION. ADDRESS BY MR BUNDLE. A meeting of the Otago Justices of th& Peace Association was held in the Y.M.C.A. Assembly Hall on February 28. About 35 members were present, the president, Mr H. C. Campbell, being in the chair. Ihe principal business was an address by Mr 11. W. Bundle, S.M., the subject being “Tho Duties of a Justice of the Peace.” Mr Bundle said that ho would confine himself to one or two points which he trusted would prove of some use. In doing so many of the old and tried justices and others —experienced men of business, might find that the points mentioned were quite, well known to them. A clear knowledge of tho usual everyday work that a justice of the peace was called upon to perform was all that he could attempt to discuss. A justice might be called on to perform many and varied duties —one might almost say innumerable duties. Such duties could be particularly classified into (1) Ministerial : 'That was to say. doing any matter which they were required or authorised by law to do, other than the hearing and determining of criminal or civil cases. (2; Judicial : Hearing and determining civil or criminal eases. The speaker had dealt with these separately. It might be well to note at that stage that in many cases, whether acting ministerially or judicially, two justices were required to act together. It depended on the Statute under which the power was conferred whether one or more justices were required for any particular matter. It was, therefore, obviously advisable that a justice should be extremely careful in any matter in which lie was in doubt, to look up the Act, under which he was asked to act. to make certain that he could act bv himself.

First and foicmost amongst the duties of a justice came that of witnessing signatures, taking declarations, affidavits, and afiirinations. As regards the witnessing of signatures by a justice, the common sense and correct view was that the justice must see the person, whose signature he was witnessing, actually sign. It was not sufficient that the person acknowledged his signature. As regards the taking of declarations, and swearing of affidavits, this was probably the most usual work a justice was called upon to carry out. There was a considerable difference. not always clearly appreciated by justices, between a declaration and an affidavit. The usual form of declaration was the statutory declaration provided by section 288 of the Justice of the Peace | Act. The person making the deelara- i tion (the declarant) declared the contents i of his declaration to be true. The person ; making an , affidavit (the deponent) . swore the contents of his affidavit were I true. Any person wilfully making a I false declaration t.- wilfully making a i false affidavit was guilty of perjury. i An affidavit was a statement made on ! oath. An oath was ;t religious asserva- ; tion by which a person tenounced the I mercy and imprecated the vengeance of | Heaven if he did not speak the truth. : The justice before whom an affidavit was I taken was. as in the case of a declaration, ' not concerned with the contents. He was ] concerned merely that the document put ■ before him was an affidavit, and that the document was swearing the contents true. ■ Of course, if he had any knowledge ur ; reason to believe that the affidavit was i made for an improper purpose he would I refuse to swear same. Similarly, as in a case of declaration, an affidavit need not be signed before the justice, but the depenant signing-it must, of course, appear before the justice. _ Justices were authorised to take affid .vits in very many cases, but the most usual cases were: (1) Affidavits required in proceedings before justices. . (2) Affidavits required in Magistrate's Courts. (3) Affidavits in the Supreme Court provided there was no qualified solicitor or registrar resident within five miles. (4) Affidavits under the Banking Act, the Chattels Transfer Act, the Infants Act, Transfer Act, and several other Acts. Mr Bundle- slated the usual manner of administering the oath, but said there were certain variations. For example, a Jew was entitled to be sworn on the Old Testament with his head covered, the word “Jehovah” being substituted for “Almighty God.’’.The Chinaman might bo sworn by blowing out a match and by a certain form o.f oath. In the ease of oaths administered to foreigners, who did not

speak or write the English language, it was necessary that an interpreter be employed, and the interpreter was sworn to interpret correctly, and the deponent was

also sworn. It was seldom, however, that a justice was called on to administer oaths other than in the usual manner. Formerly it had been necessary for the deponent to kiss the Bible when taking the oath. It was, however, unnecessary, tho deponent merely holding the Bible in his right hand and replying, “I do.” It was important- to remember that by section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1908, c'’ery person was entitled as a right to make a solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath. Members of certain religious persuasion objected to taking an oath, and therefore always affirmed. The form of affirmation was: “I do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm.” The justice, taking the affirmation in lieu of affidavit, should take the affirmation fiy saying to the affirmer after the affirmation was signed, “That is your name and hand writing and you affirm the contents of this your affirmation to be true.’’ The person making the affirmation held the Bible in his right hand, as m the case of the usual oath.

Another important ministerial duty by justices was that of receiving informations and complains and issuing summonses and warrants. An information was the initiatory step tn proceedings of a criminal nature which were to be disposed of summarily, while the term “complaint” designated the initiatory step in summary proceedings of a civil nature, loading to an order for the payment of money or otherwise. An information or a complaint need not be on oath unless the Statute under which it was laid provided that it should be, or unless a warrant of arrest of a person charged, was applied for. If on oath the information must be read over mid explained to the informant who must sign it. Justices had i>owcr in general to issue warrants of arrest and search warrants, but in some cases this power was limited to magistrates. Warrants of arrest for an indictable offence and search warrants might be granted and executed on Sunday. Warrants were not issued as in the ease of summonses, but required extreme care and caution,, and were only granted on certain well defined principles. A warrant of arrest might be granted if an information were sworn, but it would be obviously grossly improper to issue a warrant where a summons would serve the purpose,-as in the case of minor offences. A justice should never grant a warrant of arrest at the instance of a private individual. The matter should bo referred to a magistrate. Where the police applied for a warrant, an explanation should be required as to the reason for the application not being made to a magistrate. It was only in cases of emergency .and if a magistrate was not available, that ihe police should apply to a justice for the issue of warrants. Warrants were properly granted in a ease of serious crimes, and where the accused could not be found or was likely to abscond.

Mr Bundle then touched briefly on those justices acting 'n a judicial canaeity. The jurisdiction of iustices was either criminal or civil. The criminal jurisdiction was contained in the Justices of the Peace Act. the civil jur.sd ction in: the Magistrate’s Court Act. It could not be too strongly urged an justices that in dealing with judicial or any case they should remember the terms of their oath —that they were to give justice between all manner of men without fear or favour, affection or illwiß. Nothing eould do more to degrade justice than the question of partiality. Ignorance to anv degree, whether of law or fact, might be pardoned, but not partiality. It should always be remembered that the provision regarding appeals from decision was proper both in the interests of justices themselves and of tlie litigants. Justices should never, unless it was obviously unfair or unreasonable, hesitate to grant leave to appeal. If their decision were reversed it did not by any means follow that they had been wrong. It was a well-established principle of English law that everyone was presumed to know the law, but the varying fortunes attending hard-fought cases through the various courts showed what a myth that ■was. After Mr Bundle had answered a number of questions Mr T. Somerville proposed a vote of thanks to Mr Bundle for his interesting and informative address. — This was carried by acclamation. Sir J. W. Patton (lion, sec.), in repl" to the chairman, said the membership roll was now 110._ He said the federated associations of justices would meet in the Town Hall on March 24, and he invited the assistance of justices at the conference.