• Nodehouse was certainly wrong. I have decided on the merits of the case. The Governor proposed in Council that the case against the accused be dismissed due to the evidence being "attenuated almost to vanishing point." It was the duty of the Magistrate to discharge the accused, and if he convicted him only in deference to a higher tribunal, he was guilty of a serious dereliction of his duty, especially if he was of the opinion that the explanation he forwarded reduced the significance of his decision to "an irreducible minimum."
I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Nodehouse's opinion on the evidence was clear and unmistakable in favor of the accused. He had a duty to discharge the accused. The Magistrate was and is the sole judge of the credibility of the evidence and of the weight to be attached to it, and the accused had the right to ask his judge to deal with the merits of the case on its own merits, and according to his conscience, and not out of deference to a higher tribunal to which the case could only be deferred when the Magistrate had found a prima facie case against him.
The Magistrate should have been guided by the law and well-known principles, and by his own conscience, and not by what he appears to have conceived were the instructions or wishes of the Government. It is impossible for the Magistrate to shelter himself under the letter of 27th February last, the object of which was simply to remind him that he only required a prima facie case, and it suggested that he should confine his enquiry accordingly. It was never meant to restrict the Magistrate in any way as to what should constitute a prima facie case, and it in no way directed him.
Page 180
Page 181
8.
•WNode house was
certainly wrong
I have posided out in
final
decision on
whould more
Governor
wao
the
Raying the merit of the
proponly
in Conveil,
corrcA
the case
from the
of the evidenier against the accused
" attenuated almost to venishing point " it.
t" it was
to diecharge
the
the dusty of the Magistrate
to
a
accused, and if he conuict him only in deference higher tribunal, he is quilty of a serious dereliction of his duty, expecially of if he was of option that the explanation wwhich he forwarded reduced the significance of his decision to " an
ivreducible minimum !
that
I have no hesitation in saying if such.
Mr Nodehouse's oprision of the evidence his clear and unmistakeable
the accused. He
duty.
AVAO
was and is the sole.
to discharge.
6 judge of the credibility of the evidence and of the weight to be attached to it, and the accused had the
right
9.
175
right to ask his judge to deal with the
merik, and accordings
on its own
care or
his conscience, and not out
of ann
to
deference to a higher tribunal to which
the
case could
only be deferred
when
the Magistrate had found a primà
facie
case against him.
The Magistrate should have been
quided by the law of the
"Known principles, and
cace, by well
by his
own
Conscience, and not by what he appears
to have conceived were the instructions
or wishes of the fovernment.
It is impossible for the Magistrate to shelter himself under the letter of the 27th February last, the object of which
was
could
he_
case,
- simply to remind him that he only require a priima facie and it suggested that he should confire his enquiry accordingly. It was
rever meant to restrict the Magistrate
in
any way as to what should constitut prima facie
cave, and it in no way
directed
Page 180Page 181
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.