|
|
In the present case, the trial Judge was instructing the jury on the law governing the theft of a postal letter. After explaining the general law of theft, he told the jury that it had been decided in two cases, that a certain manner of dealing with a postal letter by a postman was, in law, theft. Taking his charge as a whole, and as stated in his notes, the trial Judge did nothing more than to say to the jury, “If you find such and such to be the facts,—and you are masters of the facts—I tell you, in law, it is theft,” and in support of his instruction in law, he referred to other cases where the law had been laid down or determined. As was said by a Chief Justice:—“He, the trial Judge, or the counsel, has the right to use the words of another as expressive of his own opinion. There is no objection to him (counsel) even using them as part of his own speech.”
|
