THE Inangahua Times. PUBLISHED TRI-WEEKLY. FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1882.

Inangahua Times, Volume VII, Issue 1062, 17 March 1882, Page 2

THE Inangahua Times. PUBLISHED TRI- WEEKLY. FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1882.

Though in every Court of justice in the Colony "hard swearing" is rather the rule than the exception, and witnesses depose more to what they wish to impress on the Court than the facts to which they are supposed to testify, the hardihood of some of the Eeefton witnesses under examination equals, if it does not excel, that of any hitherto discovered. The Kesident Magistrate and Warden at his last sitting euphuistically termed some flat contradictions in evidence as " discrepancies," whereas, if he had used the proper term, he would have said that direct perjury had been committed by one or other of the deponents- Indeed, it is very clear, . not to put too fine a point on it, that this is the case repeatedly, and the question comes whether it is not time to abolish the farce of present swearing, and at the same time take more atringent measures to compel witnesses to really tell " the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." That the fear of the infernal regions as inculcated by religion has largely abated in the present day is unquestionable, and that a wholesome dread of earthly punishment greatly overshadows that presumed to be in store in |he misty future is undoubted. Therefore, jnstead of appealing to the probabilities to come, it would be far more efficacious in ejiciting the truth to bring I prominently beforl th#>%yes of wit* nesses the immediate and unpleasant consequences of deliberate falsehood uttered in the witness box. There are thousands on thousands, we do not speak of Reefton only or the Colony even, but throughout the British Empire, where the present system of swearing witnesses is in vogue, that would with just as little reverence and with as great an intention to speak truth — excepting where it suited them — take the oath on a pack of cards as on the Bible. This may be sad, but it is nevertheless too true, and as it is the case, it is high time the Legislature amended the law as to secure at least a larger proportion of veracity than is now met with in the witness box. It has been customary to sneer at foreign modes of swearing witnesses. For example, the Chinese form of blowing out a match or cutting a cock's head off, but in a large number of cases these forms are quite as binding on a Chinaman's conscience as our more solemn ceremonial. There are many who, either as plaintiffs or defendants, or as witnesses for plaintiffs or defendants, who are ready to swear to anything to suit their respective causes, who really do not possesses that moral property styled a conscience, and who are only deterred from the most barefaced perjury by fear of prosecution. , This, however, very seldom follows, and the immunity hitherto enjoyed has very largely increased the evil, so much so, indeed, that in numberless cases verdicts are obtained, both criminal and civil, not on the merits, but on the perjuring capacity of witnesses. However unpleasant this state of things may be it is well to look it fairly in ■ the face, and reflect whether or, not , there i# no remedy to be found. It does not seem to be a problem difficult to solve, the only obstacle being the inveterate conservatism that deters our legislators from trespassing on ancient form and usage, or disturbing timeworn custom of any kind. It must be admitted that the present oath is not in the slightest degree binding on a large number of those who give evidence. Why then retain it? If a simple affirmation were substituted it would, on the truthful, be quite as effectual, whilst on those ready and • willing to commit perjury be neither better nor worse. Whilst thus relaxing the presumed tight bonds that the present oath encircles witnesses with, lot the punishment for false testimony not only be made a felony and awarded a far higher penalty than can be accorded at present, but let it be the d uty of the police to watch such cases, aad, if there seems any reasonable ground to believe that perjury lias been committed, prosecute without any direction from the Court that may be sitting. In addition to this, let it be in the power of any one to lay an information against any witness alleged to have given lying evidence, and it be

the duty of the Crown to proceed. At present the police very properly are * not bound to disclose the name of their 1 informant, though before taking any 1 action in the way of prosecution they I [are supposed to satisfy themselves of the truth of any allegations made ; < hence the frequent phrase in the witness < box "from information received." Let ] the same rule run with respect to per- ■ jury after constituting it a felony, and let the police be just as much com- ; pelled to hunt false witnesses down as ; they would a burglar or a pickpocket. Of the two classes, the man who would i prostitute justice, would swear men's lives, liberties, or property away, is fiinnitely the worst and most dangerous to society, and why, therefore, should he be dealt with in the rosewater manner that he now isi If a radical change in binding witnesses to truth were initiated in th« direction suggested, the Courts of law would be purer, justice would be better obtained, and the glaring perjury now staining every Court in the Colony, those of Reefton included, would at least be tempered down, if not got rid of altogether.