Page:Things Japanese (1905).djvu/295

Rh the defendant, although the theory is that the defendant must be presumed to be in the right until actually proved the contrary. In this characteristic, Japan does but conform to her Continental models, and indeed to the universal usage of mankind with the solitary exception of the English. The judge conducts the trial alone. All questions by counsel must be put through him. Counsel do not so much defend their clients as represent them. Their statements or admissions stand for those of their clients, strange as such a thing will sound to English ears. Another peculiarity—at least according to English notions, though we believe that something similar exists in France is that husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant, cannot witness against each other. At the same time, they are not entirely excluded from the examination. The Code of Criminal Procedure draws a fine distinction, excluding them as witnesses, but admitting them as "referees,"—we can think of no better equivalent for the difficult Japanese term sankōnin. A "referee" is a witness and yet not an authoritative witness, a quasi-witness, if one might so phrase it, who is not called upon to be sworn. The idea is, of course, that persons thus related are likely to be prejudiced in each other's favour, and that their testimony should accordingly be allowed little weight in comparison with that of others more probably impartial. Witnesses are sworn, though not exactly in the European manner. The oath is rather a solemn asseveration, and is entirely unconnected with any religious sanctions. It is in the form of a written document, to which the person sworn affixes his seal, or, failing that, his signature. The proceedings at a trial are all committed to writing, but not always in the actual words used, as Japanese custom is averse to the employment of the colloquial for literary purposes. The general plan is, therefore, to translate the gist of the questions and answers into the book style.

Needless to say that the above is the merest shadowy outline of a vast subject. Transformed, revolutionised as it has been, Japanese law nevertheless retains not a few curious features of