y, but he adhered to his first answer. Dr. Coster then altered
his tactics and asked, 'Had you no opinions on the subject? Did you
not guess at all?' The witness replied that he might have thought and
conjectured at various times, but that he had nothing in the nature
of information or knowledge on the point. This did not satisfy Dr.
Coster, who then pressed the question, 'Well, what did you think?
What were your thoughts?' The witness objected to state what his
thoughts were, as they could have no bearing on the fact, and might
be absolutely wide of the mark. He could only repeat that he had no
knowledge. The witness appealed to the Bench for protection. Mr.
Wessels urged that it was an unheard-of proceeding to compel a
witness to state what he thought and to use it as evidence. The
objections were again overruled, and the witness was ordered by
the Court to answer. His reply afforded no satisfaction to the
Government, being to the effect that he could not then remember what
his thoughts were at various times. On the application of the State
Attorney the Judicial Commissioner sent him to gaol for twelve hours
for contempt of court.

Mr. Wessels strenuously objected to the decision and applied to the
Court to stay imprisonment to enable him to appeal to a judge in
chambers, but even this was refused. Mr. Wessels in the course of his
address received a reprimand from the Bench for stating that he now
recognized the force of the State Attorney's contention that the law
of evidence as obtaining in South Africa was not sufficiently wide;
for, he added, he thought it would suit the purpose of the Government
better if they reverted to an older system under which racks and
thumbscrews were popular.

The witness was sent to gaol. Some hours later an appeal was heard by
Judge de Korte in chambers, and the decision of the Judicial
Commissioner was reversed, but the prisoner had already completed
seven hours' imprisonment in a dirty cell. Judge de Korte stated that
he had reversed the decision after consultation with Chief Justice
Kotze, and it was felt that something at least had been achieved by
Mr. Schumacher, and the rights of a witness would be recognized. But
the end is not always in sight in dealing with the Transvaal
Government. The State Attorney in turn appealed from the single
judge's decision to the full Bench. Judge Morice, a Scotchman, many
years a judge of the High Court, supported the decision of Judge de
Korte.