Page:History of New South Wales from the records, Volume 1.djvu/323

 THE C50URTS OP LAW. 213 he miglit think proper. There were no regular or appointed times for its sitting during the early years of the settlement j it met whenever it was summoned in the manner mentioned. The procedure at the trial was short and simple. The charge against the prisoner, which was required to be '^ reduced Prooednw. into writing and exhibited by our Judge- Advocate," was not a formal indictment drawn up with technical accuracy according to precedent, but a plain statement of the ofEence committed. There was no room for technicalities of any kind in the practice of the Court ; there were no lawyers in the colony to take technical objections ; nor were prisoners in those days allowed to have counsel on their trial, even in England. The first Judge- Advocate was a military man and not a lawyer ; he was not even supposed to have any knowledge of law or of legal forms. The Court being assembled, its members — each of whom Judge and was in full military dress — ^were sworn to " make true de- liverance between his Majesty the King and the prisoner brought before them, and to give true judgment according to the evidence." The Judge- Advocate presided and regu- lated the procedure; but although he was a judge he was also a juryman, having a vote in the deliberations of the jury. In this as well as in other respects, the constitution of the Court differed materially from that of a Court of Justice in England, where juries were supposed to be sternly guarded against undue judicial influence, and the judge could address the jury only in open Court. When the prisoner was brought before his judges, the Practice. charge was read over to him, and he was called upon to plead. Witnesses were then examined for the Crown. The prosecution was not conducted by the Judge-Advocate, according to the practice of Courts-martial in England, but was left in the hands of the person who had made the charge.* The prisoner was left to conduct his defence in like manner. At the conclusion of the case, the Court was Digitized by Google
 * Tench, Narrative, p. 70.