Stealing a ham.
First offence.
An incorrigible rogue.
of drunkenness, petty larceny, assaults on the police or on private individuals, and indictable offences in which they take the preliminary hearing, and, if satisfied that there is a primâ facie case, commit the accused for trial. In addition to this, they have a vast number of duties recently imposed upon them by the Legislature, such as School Board prosecutions and cases under the Sanitary, Tramway and Public Carriage, Building, and Employers and Workmen's Acts, as well as various other matters which it is unnecessary to detail. Altogether the work is of a singularly repulsive character, and it is for this reason, perhaps, that many of the magistrates pride themselves on getting through the greatest possible number of cases in the shortest time. But this system of administering justice at high pressure is not entirely satisfactory. Most of the magistrates are remiss in the matter of taking depositions and notes of evidence. Indeed, this is very seldom done at all except in cases of indictable offence. The rapidity with which some of the cases are disposed of is almost absurd. For instance, in some courts when a prisoner is charged with being drunk and disorderly, the magistrate does not even give him time for defence, the trial occupying about two minutes and consisting of something like the following:—Officer (kissing the book): I found the prisoner outside the "Green Lion" publichouse last night at twelve o'clock. He was drunk and disorderly, and I took him into custody. Magistrate (interrupting): Five shillings, or seven days.
Chief Usher.
"For robbing the till to buy a bicycle."
There is no appeal, and no note is taken by means of which a possible injustice might be investigated.
Undoubtedly the magistrates ought to take notes in every case, so that, in the event of a miscarriage of justice, they might be submitted to the Home Secretary.
One of the gravest defects in the administration of justice by police magistrates results from the almost implicit reliance that they place upon the uncorroborated testimony of a single police-constable. We shall probably not be accused of exaggeration when we assert that the police are, as a rule, hard swearers. The very esprit de corps, which is in itself a commendable feature of the force, leads the constables often recklessly to support each other's evidence. Besides this, whenever the police make a charge against any individual they at once jump to the conclusion that he is guilty, and there is nothing that they desire so much as a conviction.
To such an outrageous degree has the acceptance of police evidence extended that the public have come to look upon it as next to useless to defend themselves against a police charge. No better illustration of this is to be found than in the complaints against omnibus and tramway drivers for loitering. One well-known magistrate was in the habit of doubling the fine where a defence was offered, and, conviction being inevitable, the public drivers now invariably plead "Guilty" by the instruction of their employers. They pay the fine without demur, rather than incur the expense and delay of what would certainly be a futile defence, be the real merits of the case what they may.
Not very long ago a well-known Metropolitan magistrate entertained the strongest possible aversion to bicycles and tricycles; and whenever he had before him a dispute between a cyclist and a constable, or, indeed, any other person, it was almost a certainty that he would decide in favour of the latter.
The fact that charges against police-constables are rare is largely due to the hope-
