|
[stealing – evidence, by child – oath, nature of]
R. v. Roach
Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s
Land
Montagu J., 7 July 1841
Source: Launceston Advertiser, 8 July 1841
Cornelius Roach
was charged with stealing from the person of Valentine Parish, a
gun of the value of 40s., the said Valentine
Parish being put in bodily fear.
Mr. Rocher appeared for the prisoner.
Valentine Parish, a youth about 13 years of age, was called and questioned by
the Attorney-General as to the nature of an oath, of which he was
quite ignorant; he did not go to church; but knew the Lord’s Prayer
and Belief, and also knew the consequences of false swearing.
His Honor said, he could not have the witness sworn,
as he did not understand the nature of an oath.
Attorney-General. - I am sure your Honor, there are some on that Jury who would find it a
matter of difficulty to explain the nature of an oath.
His Honor. - I hope not, Mr. Attorney-General, I cannot predicate
any thing of the kind.
Attorney-General. - Your Honor, it is an abstract question, and with
all possible respect for the gentlemen of the jury, I am sure some
of them would not be able to explain the nature of an oath,
although they perfectly understand the consequences of perjuring
themselves.
His Honor. - If so, it is high time we had a jury of another kind,
but I cannot Mr. Attorney-General indicate anything of the kind.
His Honor then at some length entered upon
the subject, and after explaining to the jury that he was bound
to reject the testimony of the witness, unless he could conscientiously
believe that he perfectly understood the nature of an oath, declined
swearing him, and the prisoner was consequently discharged.
His Honor remarked that he should much wish to see some law introduced into
the colony by which the evidence of children might be taken without
putting them on their oaths, but such not being the case, and the
witness distinctly stating that he had no knowledge of what constituted
an oath, he had no alternative but to direct the jury to acquit
the prisoner.
A verdict of Not Guilty, was then recorded.
Notes
|