Wanganui Chronicle, AND PATEA-RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1881.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXIII, Issue 9542, 10 November 1881, Page 2

Wanganui Chronicle, AND PATEA-RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1881.

No one who gives the subject a moment's consideration will deny that any member of the community, from the Governor down, ought to be compellable to attend the sittings of a Court of law whenever the ends of justice require that he shall give evidence. Society would got on very badly without such a provision, and it obviously cannot be left to the man himself to say whether what he knows of the matter in hand be relevant or not. But if the good of the community demands this sacrifice from individuals, they have a right to demand that they shall be put to no more inconvenience than is absolutely necessary, and that they shall receive a moderate money allowance from those in whose interests they are taken from their ordinary avocations. The fairness of this proposition is generally admitted, and in all the Courts some provision is made for the jDayment of Avitn esses, though it frequently falls far short of what ought fairly to be awarded. In New Zealand, in criminal prosecutions undertaken by the police, or other agents of the Crown, the State accepts tho responsibility of paying witnesses who may be summoned in support of the charges. Expenses are allowed in the lower Court on the certificate of the presiding Magistrate, and in the higher, we believe, on the certificate of the Crown Solicitor. But outside the schedule of expenses, which these officials are authorised to take into account, there are others which frequently press very heavily on witnesses, and for which there appears to be no direct legal provision. We have reason to believe that in these cases, of which we shall presently give a notable example, witnesses sometimes suffer what cannot be otherwise described than as grievous wrong. The allowance certified to, either in the higher or lower Court, is supposed to cover the time fairly consumed in the journey to and from the place of trial, and the day or days on which the witness is detained in attendance on the Court whilst it is sitting. At first sight this may appear to be a very fair arrangement, and so it is as far as it goes. But let us suppose the case of a witness summoned to give evidence in tho Resident Magistrate's Court at the preliminary investigation into an information charging an indictable offence ; further, that the prisoner is committed (say to a Supreme Court sitting to take place after the lapse of several months) and that the witness is bound over to appear and give evidence ; and, finally, that said witness is a seaman or other person whose business calls him out of the colony. In short, let us suppose that the witness, in the interval between the investigation before the Resident Magistrate and the trial in the Supreme Court, is detained in the colony against his will, and debarred from the prosecution of his plans or from the pursuit of those avocations by which he earns his bread. He has then to support himself in tho best way he can. Temporary employment is oftentimes quite unattainable, and he may have lost a situation through his detention. Of such a case as that the law takes no direct cognizance in apportioning expenses. The witness, if he be rash enough to attempt to leave the colony, is liable to be detained, providing it can be made reasonably clear that he does not purpose rto return in time for the trial. We do not say that the Government never make any allowance to a witness under such circumstances, but only that he cannot claim it as a matter of right, that he is often put to very great straits to maintain himself, that he is sometimes reduced to his last shilling, and that, after all, his case may not improbably be unfavourably reviewed, and his efforts to get back any portion of what he has been compelled to spend (to say nothing of Ms loss of time), are often altogether fruitless. Such a man, in

our opinion, suffers a gross wrong at the hands of the State, whose duty it is to protect him. We can assure our readers that cases of this kind are of far more frequent occurrence than many people are inclined to think. There is invariably a disposi- ] tion to put off consideration of the matter, and indeed to shelve it altogether. We promised to give a case in point, and we have one of a very flagrant character ready to our hand. The Stonnbird robbery was perpetrated on the night of Sunday, the 3 1st of July. The persons who were subsequently charged with tli© offence were, on the 2 7th. of August, committed to take their trial at the sitting of the Supreme Court to bo held in Wanganui in the course of last month. The mate of the ship was bound over as a witness, and was discharged from his situation by the owners because he had gone ashore without leave on the night of the robbery. Being a respectable, active young man, well-connected, and holding a certificate, he was enabled to obtain another situation without any difficulty, bafc as his duties would have taken him beyond the colony the police interfered, and he lost his opportunity of employment. Doubtless the police did no more than their duty, and of course we are not at all blaming them. Since then the mate has been living in enforced idleness, awaiting the trial at which he is to give evidence. His means being exhausted, he applied to the Government for assistance, but received an unsatisfactory reply. At all events they paid him nothing, made no arrangement for his board and lodging, and gave him no promise. To pay his way he was compelled to borrow money on the security of his nautical instruments ; and, the trial being over, ho will, without a farthing in his pocket and in debt into the bargain, be at liberty to get another billet as quickly as he can and go about his business. This sort of treatment is wrong to the individual immediately concerned, and is prejudicial to the due administration of j ustice. Witnesses are more likely to keep out of the way and shirk their duty when they know that by coming forward and assisting the police they may subject themselves, and those dependent on them, to ruinous loss. In China they don't bind witnesses to appear, but they put them in gaol, and give them enough to keep body and soul together. It appears to be quite as good a plan as condemning men to enforced idleness, and making no provision for their maintenance.