-"-
291
(1835) 7 C. and P. 187, where Coleridge, J., admitted oral evidence of such an observation. Russell on Crimes, 7th
ed., p. 2224, expresses the view that R. v. Weller cannot be
supported.
The authority of most of the cases cited in
the books on this point is perhaps subject to some doubt in
this Colony, because nearly all the cases were under 7 Geo.4,
0.64, which requires Justices to "take the examination" of
the prisoner. However, in R. v. Taylor (1875) 13 Cox 77,
which was after the passing of the Indictable Evidences Act,
1848, rett, J., seems to have assumed that such an observa-
tion could be proved by the depositions, though he allowed
oral proof in that particular case. What was there proved
was a question by the prisoner in cross examining a witness,
15. Section 10 of the Ordinance directs the magistrate to
take down such observations, and it makes the depositions
evidence of any such observation, so taken down, without
prejudice to any other method of proof. The clause also
applies to any evidence given by the accused before the magis-
trate. Probably the whole section is merely declaratory.
16.
It may be noted that under 1 and 2 Vict., c.105, an oath may be administered in any form which the witness declares
to be binding on him.
17.
In order to indicate the history of the various provi-
Ordinances sions the marginal references have been extended to Hongkong/ and have not been confined to English Acts.
18.
Strictly speaking section 3 should have referred to the Evidence (Amendment) Ordinance, 1915.
19.