Another case was that of Mr. Schumacher, a witness who testified, inter alia, that he did not know what the objects of a certain Development Syndicate were.  His evidence showed that he had not been informed upon this point.  He was very hard pressed by the State Attorney, 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.  The Chief Justice, who had advised Judge de Korte in his decision however in a most extraordinary judgment now reversed it, and in this view he was supported by Judge Ameshof—­himself a witness in the case against the Reformers.