MOCK TRIAL

Southland Times, Issue 21192, 19 September 1930, Page 4

MOCK TRIAL

INVERCARGILL DEBATING SOCIETY. A CLEVER PERFORMANCE. In order to mark the close of the season, the Invercargill Debating Society staged a I mock trial in St. John’s Hall last evening, when an excellent entertainment delighted a large crowd in the body of the “court." Although the primary object of the trial was to introduce humorous situations bristling with clever and witty dialogue, the dignified court procedure met with in the Courts of Justice was so sufficiently adhered to that the lay mind was enabled to glean an illuminative insight into the principles of law, the procedure and the rules of evidence in issue in criminal trials of accused persons. Throughout the “trial,” the officials had frequently to call for “silence,” the persons in the body of the “court” finding them- I selves unable to restrain their merriment, | the spontaneous mannerisms of the parties | and the many hilarious situations disturbing i the otherwise even tenor of the prosecution I of the accused. ; A “grand jury,” in which the fair sex | were well represented, was duly empanelled ' and, without the slightest hesitation, found a “true bill” against the accused. Twelve intelligent “common jurors” were then balloted for in a wig tin and, after “his Honour” had imposed fines in the case of two absentees, the “trial” then proceeded. “Crown Prosecutor” called his witnesses who were subjected to a searching crossexamination at the hands of “defending counsel,” who, in turn, brought forward evidence to support an alibi. “His Hon- ■ our” summed up in humorous, yet a mast- ; erly manner, the facts and law in issue being lucidly’ stated to the “jury” who, after a short retirement, returned with a verdict of guilty on all counts. I The “prisoner” was sentenced to serve, . for a period of four years on the unemploy- ' inent board, and if that punishment did not prove sufficient he was ordered to be ! detained for seven years on the Invercargill City Council. The “Court’s” indulgence was sought ; and conceded in several directions not ‘ usually granted by the Supreme Court I judiciary, as for example, when the prisoner was allowed to smoke asthmatical cigarettes; when a barrel of whisky was requisitioned for his consumption; when acrimonious re-i marks were bandied between “witness” and 1 “counsel,” or “counsel” and “crier,” as the case might be, and comment on matters of notoriously public interest were admitted , in evidence. !

The following principals, all of whom ' thoroughly’ entered into their respective parts, in the “trial,” arc. deserving of a warm measure of praise for their excellent work which made the function 'such an enjoyable one: —Judge, Mr S. M. Macalister; Crown Prosecutor, Mr Hugh Carswell; coun- , sei for the defence, Mr Hugh Russell; registrar, Mr J. C. Prain; crier, Mr M. M. Macdonald; accused, Mr E. H. J. Preston; witnesses for the Crown, Messrs I. Manson, C. Cassels, R. J. Wilkes, K. Recd; Witnesses for the defence Messrs C. Scott, W. Watson and O. C. Joyce.