 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
The Hilderstone Miscellany |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Last updated 23/2/2001 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
 |
|||
They did not at first sight answer the description, but I found that by changing each other’s jackets, and turning them inside out, they did so remarkably well. Having got what I considered a fairly strong and straightforward case, I wrote it down setting forth the leading facts to be referred to in the evidence of the witnesses, thinking that by thus sketching it over trouble might be saved. I accordingly laid it before the Magistrate, who sat at an Inn, outside the Town, to hear the case. To my surprise he returned it without looking at it, informing me he ‘never did that”, but preferred getting facts from the witnesses himself. His Clerk, “the Old Farmer”, sat beside him, amusing himself as best he could, handing deposition papers and occasionally filling up a witnesses recognizance paper, of course speculating on a committal. The Magistrate commenced by examining the prosecutor, and writing down his statement He did not get on as he desired, and becoming cross, told him he should dismiss his case if he gave unsatisfactory replies to his questions, and, turning to me, said this case is got up very badly. I wished to explain, but “no”, he could not listen, “he never did that”. Whilst blowing up the witness he spilt the ink on the deposition, spoiled it, and asked for another; he had partly re-written it, when a number of erasures were made, and that too was handed back, and a third supplied. The blame for what had happened was laid on the unfortunate witness and myself. He now laid down his pen, and turning to me said, “You see, Woollaston, I can’t get on with this case. I must dismiss it. I see no chance. There’s no evidence. I said that I had taken great pains in making inquiries, and had thought the case a strong one, and had embodied all points which were material in the paper I submitted to him, and that evidence of both prosecutor and witnesses, as given to and received by me from them, was there stated Whilst this was going on, the “Farmer Clerk” had taken up the paper referred to, and seeing what was there stated, told him several things he had read. After this, he held out his hand, taking it, and finding it really was what stated, used it throughout the case. One of the prisoners sharply cross-examined witness, asking by what means he satisfied himself as to their identity, whether by their features or otherwise; and asked that their dresses might be spoken to. He in reply, gave a general description, but stated they were not as then worn. Here I asked to be allowed to change prisoners’ coats and caps. The Magistrate thought that course could not be adopted, but after considerable argument, permitted it On that being done, prosecutor at once swore positively to their identity. We then went on without further difficulty; both prisoners were committed for trial, and at the Assizes were transported for seven years each. This being an ordinary charge, would not have had notice but for the extraordinary incidents that occurred. If the case had been dealt with as threatened, a failure of justice would have been the result, and that not owing to any fault of mine, but consequent on the eccentricity and absurdity of adhering to old-established practices, of which I was so frequently, but unnecessarily reminded. The then Authorities, as I thought, were not satisfied with recent changes, and I believe the obstacles I encountered, resulted from misunderstandings with which I was in no way connected, notwithstanding that they operated to my disadvantage in several matters, which it is unnecessary here to name. Shortly, several new Magistrates were put on the Commission. These appointed their own Clerk, who was a legal gentleman, the two acting jointly. After this, during my subsequent service there, I experienced no further difficulty of the kind. |
|||
|
|
|||