LAW, AS IT WORKS IN AMERICA.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17881, 24 June 1926, Page 8

LAW, AS IT WORKS IN AMERICA.

IRISH JUDGE DEBATES WITH PRISONERS. CONVENTION NOT KNOWN IN COURT. Nowhere is the distinction between the educated Anglo-Saxon and the uneducated person of foreign stock more marked than in the Law Courts (writes R. R. Scholl, an Australian studfent now' touring the United States). Study any report of a criminal case, and you will immediately remark that the namfts of the prisoners are principally foreign, and those of the Judges, barristers and solicitors predominantly Anglo-Saxon. The solicitous care of professors has familiarised most lawstudents with the dictum .of Professor Dicey, to the effect that federalism requires a spirit, of litigiousness. The American Federal system, judged by this criterion, is entirely successful, for “ every Court is thronged with suitors.” and the legal machine works always at high pressure. A unique opportunity of studying the procedure of an American criminal trial was afforded us in Baltimore Visiting the State Courts there, under the guidance of a leading barrister, another law student and T were invited by a genial Irish Judge to come up and sit with him cn the bench—a mark of judicial informality for which not even the absence of robes, and counsel's habit of sitting down while cross-exam-ining, had entirely prepared us. From an extremely advantageous but somewhat self-conscious position, the ex treme informality and the intense human interest of the proceedings were alike obvious. Preliminaries. A negro was being tried for attempted shooting. In many States a person charged with any criminal offence may. as he may not do under the English system, elect between trial by jury and trial bv a Judge alone. The negro had chosen to be tried by the Judge. Leaning casually, with elbows on the Judge's desk, counsel discussed prelimi naries -with the Judge, all three referring to the accused as “ Spike ” Johnson. Then the Court decided to get on with the case, and a trembling ” da/ key ” described how “ Spike ” had owed him twenty-five cents. On his requesting payment. “ Spike ” had announced his intention of cancelling the debt by the simple expedient of exterminating his creditor; subsequently he had called at the house, expressing complete indifference whether he shot the witness or the witness’s wife. Thereupon he had retired, and unsuccessfully shot through the door. As the witness’s evidence was uncorroborated, and the accused declared with extreme volubility that he was somewhere else at the time, the verdict was not guilty. Leaning over and addressing us in an undertone, the Judge remarked: “ The beggar is probably guilty all the same, but there is not enough evidence.” “Make it Two Years!” Thiff fa-6 convicts remanded for senj tence came before the Court to learn their fate, and a strange debate ensued. On one. an old offender, a sentence of two years’ imprisonment in the State penitentiary was Imposed. “ Please, your Honor, will you make it two years in a house of correction ?” demanded the prisoner. “ Well,” was the unex-

pected reply. "I was sending you to the peniteniary hecause they Say the: food's better and there's more chance of escape there. but I'll make it the house of correction if you like." On the second prisuner sentence of ayear's imprisonment was impossd, whereupon he (not his counsel) promptly asked the Judge. whether he could deduct the six weeks he had already spent in prison. The Judge assenting, the first convict at once sOught the same privilege—a request refused by the judicial pronouncement that, as one man hail had his choice of residence, and the other had been granted his‘request as to time, they should "both be satisfied.‘ _