124 Timehri. 



denied. It was said that the reasons were not sufficient to support the 

 application, but referring to the first reason there could not be a case in 

 which the necessity for the order on that ground was more obvious than 

 in the present one ; secondly, a ground of a less substantial character 

 was the allegation of obeah and the connection in this case with obeah 

 and obeah-workers. It was common knowledge — as had been shown 

 by the Attorney General in opening the case that Obeah took a very 

 prominent part in the proceedings and that was another circumstance 

 why the very best material that could be procured should be resorted to. 

 The first extract, or rather an extract from a leader in a Newspaper 

 called " The Tribune "' of the 7th July was filed in the course of the 

 application and not one word had been mentioned about the case in the 

 course of that article but it referred to the practice of Obeah. The 

 article laid down very excellent principles but the very fact that in a 

 Newspaper of the Colony there should appear an article of that kind as a 

 warning to people was in itself another reason to support the allegation 

 that this question of Obeah had a large bearing on the case. 



Introduction of Politics Deplored. 

 The other extracts he preferred to look upon as purely political, but 

 how deplorable it was that a case involving the lives of eight persons 

 should have the slighest breath or atmosphere of politics. That was in 

 itself a scandal ; learned counsel were assigned to defend the prisoners on 

 the evidence given for or against them in the case, but any reference to a 

 case then pending and dragged into speeches quite legitimately delivered 

 against a particular measure was a procedure for which he had absolutely 

 nothing but the profoundest disfavour. The extract was " Mr. McArthur 

 then referred to the Noitgec'acht crime which was the cause of the Bill." 

 It was a most improper reference ; any Legislative act or Bill should be 

 attacked in the proper way and for proper reasons. That the Noitge- 

 dacht crime should have been dragged in as a means of opposition seemed 

 to him to be highly improper. What were the arguments addressed 

 against the application ? As the learned Attorney General had properly 

 said it must be shown to the Court that on the circumstances to which 

 he had referred it would be to the prejudice of the prisoners that they 

 should be tried by a common jury and not by a Special Jury. What 

 attempt had there been to show that ? He thought every- 

 body would take it as a general principle that the higher 

 they went in the scale of the jury empanelled, certain qualifications 

 being necessary, the greater would be the ability to deal witli important 

 cases, and that the higher they went in that scale the better it was for all 

 concerned. There could be no contravention of that principle and he had 

 to decide, that principle being at work, whether it was affected or 

 whether it was traversed in any way by the fact of any arguments 

 adduced. He had heard nothing. 



No Proof that the Accused Would be Prejudiced. 

 He had listened with patience and attention to what had been said 

 and there was no argument to show him either from well known facts or 



