, 1885-02-07

a great part of those who in respect of lin
guistic knowledge, would be qualified, such
as merchants and public officers. If it
were intended to pay full compensation for
the fulfllnent of the charge, by taking into
consideration the individual circumstances
of the appointed court-witness, a dispro-
portionately high expenditure would be
the result of the measure.
On the other hand, it is supposed that a
satisfactory arrangement may be attained
by the adoption, at all events in the main
features, of the above draft, which is based
on such points, taken from the existing
state of things, as have been handed down
by practice, and hence agree with and Sa-
tIsfy the demands of practical life.
The chief difference between the prOpOs-
ed arrangement and the one given in ordi-
nance of 1S47 is that the former proposes
to take the court witnesses principally
from among persons who by their place
stand in a position of dependency toward
the judge, and that under the given circum-
stances it may be presumed that there will
be little necessity for looking to the mass
of the population for obtaining the required
number of court witnesses.
1t must be conceded that an arrangement
like the one thus proposed is not commend
able everywhere but in defence of its iu-
PRODUCTION in the Danish West India Is
lands it may be alleged, in the first place,
that the persons in question will constitute
the only class of persons which possesses
the required linguistic knowledge, and
which, at the same time, the public may
enJOln to act as court witnesses, without
imposing upon it a task hindering the per
formance of its general duties.
Next, it must he observed that long eX-
-. -. 49, l. .. -.o- - H.
persons in question as court witnesses is
not connected with any disadvantage.
Neither in the case of police courts, nor Of
the town courts or the district court of st.
John has anything ever occurred, as far as
can be seen, to call forth any doubt as to
that the purpose of the attendance of
court-witnesSes was properly served by the
employment of those persons.
Furthermore, it is self,evident that the
proposed arrangement recommends itself
when regarded from a financial point of
vieW.-1 consideration which under the
present fiscal circumstances cannot well be
diSregarded.
To adopt the principle of the ordinance
of 1917, and at the same time admit the
exception, by allowing the use of police
cOnStableS and similar persons as court
witnesses in the police. cOurt-a rule which,
it is thought, absolutely ought to be main
tanned on account of the extensive use
here made of the police court procedure,
and the burden which it hence would entail
on the common cOurt-witneSSeS to act in
this COURTS impracticable.
The consequence would b.. the Overturn-
ing OF the principle. There would be still
less grounds for hesitation to use policemen
&c. in the ordinary court, i'll which as Il
rule procedure in writing takes place, and
there would be just as little reason to hest
tate in admitting the clerks and writer's i'll
the town court as court witnesses; but
when these persons had been authorized
and sworn in-a point which ought to be
absolutely insisted On-they ought to be
used as extensively as possible, III which
case, however, there would be left but
little to do for the other court witnesses.
1t should however be noted that accord
ing to the proposed arrangement, in the
cases where the offices Of judge and of
policmaster are united. policemen may
appear in the ordinary court, even rs
clerks and writer's from the judges office
may act in the police court. To this there
can presumably be no grounds of objection
when it is considered that the persons in
question must possess competency as wit
nesses, and must be sworn in and be spe-
cially appointed as court-witnesses. 1t
would perhaps also be excessive Journalism
to have court-witnesses which the judge
L~--