The enquiry by the Stipendy Magistrate who is to examine
witnesses upon oath & to return their depositions to the Col.
Secrety, may be a useful measure and may facilitate
prosecutions for arson by securing the testimony of witnesses
directly after the fire.
But I
do not like Sect 4 which
provides for an enquiry before a Jury & a Verdict by them; a
proceeding in short something analogous to a Coroners inquest
in cases of death. I see no advantage to be gained by such a
verdict, as the Ordinance does not provide that—as in the case
of the finding upon a coroners inquest—a person may be
prosecuted upon the inquisition. The coroners inquisition,
which is the record of the finding of the Jury, amounts to an
indictment, & a person is arraigned upon it in the same way as
upon an indictment.
Nothing is provided in the Ordinance with respect to the effect
of the Jury's verdict or the mode of dealing with it. Is it to
be returned to the Col. Secret
y?
Sanction with an obsn to this effect.
The object of the Ordinance viz to get a speedy mode of
ascertaining the origin of Fires, is really secured by the
enquiry by a Stipendy Magistrate or Justice of the Peace
under the earlier sections of the Ordinance.
I should be disposed to point this out to the
Govr & to
desire a repeal
I think I shd not interfere so far. They know what they
want—& if this provision does not give it them that, it will
teach them how to get it.
or at all events further consideration of sect
4 & those sections which depend upon it.