Untitled

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XX, Issue 2083, 22 June 1887, Page 3

A little time ago 1 gave an illuatra tiou of the cogency of circumstantial evidence. Here is an example of the efficacy ofhearsay evidence malgre the rule of law on the point. An eminent Lord Chief Justice who was trying a right-of-way case had before him a witness —an old farmer —who was proceeding to tell the jury that he had ‘'known the path for six yeer, and my feyther tould I as he herd my grenfeyther zay .” “ Stop,” said the judge, “ we can’t have hearsay evidence here.” “ No,” exclaimed Father Giles. “ Then how dost thou know who thy feyther was ’cept by hearsay ?” After the laughter had subsided the judge said, 11 In courts of law we can only be guided by what you have seen with your eyes, and nothing more or less.” “ Ob, that be blowed for a tale,” replied the farmer, “ I ha’ got a bile on the back of my neck, and I never seed him, but I bo prepared to swear that he’s thur, dang un !” This second triumph on the part of the witness let in a torrent of hearsay evidence about the footpath, which obtained weight with the jury (albeit the judge told them it was not testimony of any value), and the farmer’s party won. —“ Rapier,” in the Sporting and Dramatic News.

The Temuka (Canterbury) • Maoris gave a grand ball in the Volunteer Hall a few days ago, to the natives attending the sitting of the Land Court.