The Star. TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1879.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 3519, 22 July 1879, Page 2

The Star. TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1879.

To fulfil our pledge, we must turn aside from the important political affairs which claim our attention at this time, to deal with the administration of justice in our Magistrates' Courts as it stands disclosed to us. It is scarcely necessary to occupy public attention by offering any lengthened observations as to the purposes for which these petty Courts were instituted. The general public no doubt are well avrare of them. Yet simple aa these purposes are, clear and definite as tho duties and responsibilities cast upon Magistrates are, it is truly lamentable to see how little even stipendiary Magistrates understand of their position. Magistrates sit as a kind of jury holding in their hands judicial and executive powers. Magistrates, stipendiary or otherwise, are not supposed to be deeply learned in the law, but a general knowledge of ?t3 leading principles is expected from them. There are " Handbooks to the Court of Petty Sessions " which contain brief but clear directions for grasping the salient pointß of cases, and mastering, generally, legal positions, together with all the legal maxims and precepts necessary to guide the intelligence of the Magistrate, and such books can be purchased for about half a guinea. Very little more than average intelligence, and a stroDg clear sense of equity is what is required in the Magistrate. The frequency with which public feeliDg is called forth over extraordinary decisions in our Magistrates' Courts, affords to our mind, however, clear proof that a little more than average intelligence does not obtain on Magisterial Benches in this Colony. Whilst it is the obvious duty of Magistrates to protect society by bringing criminals to justice, it is equally their duty to extend protection to the innocent. It is no doubt a serious thing for society to suffer by the escape of a criminal, bub it is not only a serious, it is a deplorable thing for the innocent to be cruelly wronged by an abuse of the law. Magistrates sit as a jury to try whether the offence charged against a (inspected person, as set forth in the information, is prima, facie made out. If it, is — then the juryman position ceases and the judicial faculty is assumed, and the prisoner is punished or committed for trial ; if a prima facie case of the charge as contained in the information is not made out — then it is the duty of Magistrates to protect the character of the suspected person and save unnecessary expense and trouble to the country. Theße observations are trite and common place. Everybody recognises their truth ; yet how often do we find them disregarded and violated P Cases will at once occur to the mind of every reader in which a prima facie case was clearly made out, yet the prisoner was either discharged or let off with a singularly insufficient punishment. Whilst other cades will be fresh in the memory in which the offence charged in the information was clearly unsubstantiated, yet the prisoner notwithstanding, has been committed to stand bis trial, his character for ever blasted, to be for ever distrusted by his fellowmen, thrown out of employment, and called upon besides to expend the hardly won savings of years in defending himself from the danger of still greater evils. One case occurs to ub in which, from the published proceedings, it waß shown that the person charged did not commit the crime alleged againßt him in the informations, yet the man was committed to Btand his trial for a totally different offence, and an offence, too, unknown to our law. These are abuses of the worst description, and such as would rightly call forth a great deal of feeling in any in any intelligent community.

At the last session of the Supreme Court, His Honor, Mr Justice Johnston, very properly drew attention to several important particulars in which, ib was shown how badly tho business of Magistrates' Courts was conducted in this Colony. His Honor, as reported, seems to have referred to the matter no fewer than ten times, and we gather from that circumstance that the facts to which we are about to refer occasioned him considerable annoyance. First of all, His Honor drew attention to tbe fact that in two cases against one James Daly, " there was no recognisance from any one to prosecute." His Honor said that "the machinery of the law must not be set in motion wantonly," and from the general tenor of his observations it is to be gathered that it is his opinion that it very frequently is. He said : —

" Well, I don't know what we are coming to ; I must have some enquiry made into this. It would appear, Mr Duncan, that the Magistrates are not in the habit of, binding parties over to prosecute."

In the case of James Daly then Magistrates had carefully held the prisoner to bail ; bound over the witnesses to appear; but did not bind over anyone to prosecute. The reaalb being that witnesses . were brought to Obriat-

church at great inconvenience and ex« pense; His Honor required to wade through "61 pages of stuff to establish three facts," and others put to trouble— all for nothing. His Honor tells the pnblic that such blunders as these are by no means of uncommon occurrence. His Honor remarked thaw he had been engaged poring over theßfl 61 pages of " stuff " from an early houf that morning, and that be really " didnx know what the Magistrates had been about." Subsequently — | •' His Honor went into the details of th\/ case, in tho course of his remarks suggesting the propriety of somebody seeing to the manner in which the business is conducted in some outside Magistrate's Court, where the despositions were made to contain a maximum quantity of words with a minimum quantity of ovidence." Having thus expressed himself regarding the absence of recognisances, His Honor went on to refer more clearly and fully to the manner which the depositions were prepared in several instances. In Daly's 61 pages of "stuff" there was only a plethora of words accompanied with a paucity of evidence, but yet harder trials were in store for the unfortunate Judge, whose duty required him to seek for judicial needles amongst legal stacks of hay. We clip from the published report his Honor'B observations in the order in which they fell from him : — " The second case of arson to which I will call your attention is that of Geobge HAMILTON. And here again I must presently call attention to the manner in wbich the depositions are prepared. In shape and manner they are exceedingly slovenly." The next is Greenwood's, a Christohurch case : — "Then there is a case of embezzlement ■which does require something to be said about it. I cannot quite make it out from the depositions, and can only give you general instructions in the matter." From the depositions, His Honor cannot understand what the case is all about. This is a sweeping condemnation Burely. Finally in the case of Thomas Maddop his Honor said : — " The depositions are bcooming quito a nuisance. There are 32 pages here, with 138 errata certified by the Magistrate, besides most absurd spoiling. There is another case — of arson — in which the depositions contain an enormous mas 3 of stuff, but are without any caption at the top or verification at the bottom. They are what I may call higgledypiggledy and disgraceful." Now, these are cases in which Magistrates have acted carelessly in the discharge of what may almost be called their executive functions ; the entering into the requisite recognisances, and the failure to supervise with proper authority and fair acumen the evidence taken down by their clerks. They have no reference to the more serious blunders of Magistrates to which we have already referred. Nevertheless the observations of his Honor seem to call for more extended notice than we can give them to-day.