S
-8-
72
This remark sounds very strange at first, but I do not
think that the Chief Justice could possibly have meant
that the probability of quashing of the conviction would
be any reason for refusing to reserve a point. I think
that what he meant was that if, after consulting Gompertz J.
there appeared to be any real doubt as to the admissibility
of the evidence, he would have preferred to exclude the
evidence. It was obvious. that he was not at all in-
clined to admit it.
As a matter of fact the Chief
Justice seems momentarily to have overlooked Ordinance No.
10 of 1921, which empowers the Full Court to direct a new
trial upon a point reserved.
16.
with respect, the notes of the learned Chief Justice
are not quite accurate or full in certain places, but it
does not seem possible to do anything in this matter.
16.
There is no note of the summing up except the frag-
mentary report in the newspaper.
17. The pylons and pavilion referred to in the evidence,
and shown on the plan, were being prepared for the reception
of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
Attorney General.
28th April, 1922.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.