By Irving Browne.
CURRENT TOPICS. Pr1soners as W1tnesses for Themselves. — "The London Law Journal" brings information of the progress of the "Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill," in the House of Lords, which provides that persons accused of crime may testify on their own behalf. It is our impression that the Lord Chancellor was the originator of this measure, if not of this bill. It is a humane measure, and is also calculated to elucidate the truth. It is regarded with favor in this country, and so far as we know, no state that has adopted a similar law would now dispense with it. The remarks of Lord Halsbury and the Lord Chancel lor on the moving of the bill for a second reading are of interest. Lord Halsbury said : — "He really thought the time was come when people should understand what absurd anomalies existed in the law as it at present stood. If their lordships glanced at the schedule of the Acts that it was intended to repeal by the bill it would be seen that in those different Acts there was a provision which enabled accused persons to give evidence on their own behalf; and matters had now come to this, that it required a special education on the part of those who presided at criminal trials to know whether or not the persons accused before them were capable of giving evidence or not. He might illustrate what he said by re ferring to an incident that took place before the Recorder of London. Two persons were indicted for an offense, and each of them desired to call his wife to give evidence in his behalf. They were informed that if the women were their wives they could not be called, whereupon one of the men said that he was not married to the woman he wished to call, though they had long lived together. On this the man was judicially informed that this woman could be called to give evidence, and she was called and made a credible witness; but in the other case, as the accused was married, the woman could not be called. That would give some idea of the present state of the law in this respect. Since one of the bills which he had brought forward had passed their lordship's house, a very remarkable case had been tried be fore the Lord Chief Justice. It was a case in which an old man, eighty years of age, named Barber, had been con nected in some way with a prospectus issued in reference to the ship "Great Eastern." He was charged with ob taining money by false pretenses by means of the pro spectus, and probably in consideration of his age, he was sentenced to only a comparatively light punishment. But the case arose again subsequently in civil proceedings, and
the same point on which he was convicted, whether the allegation in the prospectus was a falsehood, once more came up. In this civil proceeding the man was capable of being called as a witness, and, to t.he satisfaction of everyone, in cluding the learned judge who tried the case, he was ac quitted by the jury of having obtained money by false pretenses, and for the best of reasons — that that which was alleged to be a false pretense was, in fact, true. On that occasion the Lord Chief Justice took the opportunity of pointing out the hardship, the gross injustice, that this old gentleman suffered through the law having prevented him from being called as a witness in the original trial. Whatever was the principle which guided the law originally, he would ask whether it was reasonably possible to main tain the system under which every person indicted under the Acts mentioned in the schedule to the bill could be called as a witness, whereas every person who was excluded from them could not. But the question did not quite rest even on that. He had mentioned before that in this country, unlike many other countries, everybody was entitled to assume to himself the character of the prosecutor, and, as suming that character, unless the Attorney-General inter vened, he practically framed the charge which should be made against a person. A learned judge had told him that in his view it was quite possible in such circumstances for a person to take the opportunity of so framing the charge, by varying its legal quality, as to make it incapable for a person proceeded against to be called as a witness. What sense or reason could there be in such a system as that? The present state of the law had been denounced by nearly every person conversant with its administration. A circumstance bearing on this occurred in a case which was tried not long since, and it might a little shock the public conscience — a case in which it was stated that a prisoner about to be sentenced to death for murder de clared that he could have proved where he was at the time of the murder, if the law had permitted him to be called to give evidence. Without however relying on such an in cident, the mere fact that a prisoner was now able to say that the law prevented him from proving his innocence by reason that he was not allowed to give evidence in his own behalf, could not be ignored." "The Lord Chancellor said he entirely concurred with what had been said by his noble and learned friend. Per sonally he entertained the strongest opinion on the matter. Having introduced a similar bill, he should certainly ex ercise all the influence he possessed to insure its passing into law, and he was quite satisfied that there was no in disposition whatever on the part of his colleagues to see this bill become law. There were still some who retained what, in his opinion, were prejudices against the change; 303
