Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/378

 A Foreign Court of Justice. out several cases, when the accused express themselves satisfied. When the same jury hear several cases, they are resworn in each case. As jury men are paid, there does not seem to Ъе any discontent expressed at the prevailing practice. In the large majority of cases the prisoner is undefended by counsel, and he conducts his own defense. The judge, a native of the colony, a most careful and painstaking man and a good lawyer, takes an active part in the trial, and freely asks questions, especially when the prisoner is undefended. He gives every just assistance to the prisoner, and m his summing up, short and clear, he estimates the value of the evidence and leaves the matter in the jury's hands; when the jury have agreed on their verdict, which they usually do without leaving the box, they stand up and the foreman announces it. Save in exceptional cases, the sentence is at once given, and it seems to be severe in most cases. In one case in which two black men were found guilty of cattle stealing, they were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment and a flogging.

A prisoner may voluntarily give evidence on oath in his own behalf, when he is subject to cross-examination, but he may confine himself to a statement from the dock. As an example of the elasticity of the procedure, and to show how a judge will assist an accused person to defend himself, the following may be given. In a case in which a man was charged with obtaining money under false pretences, when the jury were considering their verdict, one of the jurymen stated that he wished to ask the accused one question, stating its substance. The judge informed the juryman that the prisoner could not answer any questions, unless he voluntarily became a witness. Rut he went on to say that the prisoner could make any statement he might like .on the subject-matter of the question. Acting on the principle that a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, the accused

337

made a statement substantially answering the juryman's question. One of the most noticeable things in a criminal trial, when the accused and the witnesses are unable to speak English, is the prominent part that the interpreter takes. He for the time being is the court, the whole court, and nothing but the court. A marvellous boy is the youth who acts as Kaffir interpreter. He is a white 'boy, and he lets himself loose in his work. Standing by the witness-box, he eyes the animated ace of spades that steps into it, and, speaking volubly in the native tongue, he raises his hand as an example to the witness to be sworn. He himself is first sworn to truly interpret. Each question of the Crown prosecutor is translated to the witness, and the answer given in English to the court—in the first-person. Occasionally the accused volubly bursts out in language not to be understood of the white spectator, at hearing some remark of the witness. At once the interpreter turns on him and reproves him, at the same time waving his arms and gesticulating in what must be taken to be the native fashion. No explanation nor translation of this passage of arms is given to the court, but the interpreter turns to the witness and proceeds with the case. In cross-examination by the prisoner the interpreter also acts in the reverse manner. When the evidence is concluded, the interpreter moves from the witness-box to the side of the dock, and then, translating the words of the accused, he addresses the jury on his behalf. In almost every case an interpreter for Kaffir or Cape Dutch is necessary, which means a delay in the hearing. Perhaps it is that the slowness of the hearing, on account of the necessity for interpretation, has made the actual work in the courts more leisurely than we know it in Great Britain or Australia. The fact is that it is more leisurely, and practice seems to be less exacting, and to demand less effort than in the countries mentioned above. Roman