THE CONSPIRACY CASE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3515, 13 October 1882, Page 4

THE CONSPIRACY CASE.

Wellington Post, October 7.

Seldom has the verdict of a jury created a more profound sensation than that delivered last night in the case of James and Genevieve Adams, accused of conspiring to procure tho wrongful conviction of George Longhurst, on a charge of exceptional turpitude. For that verdict meant this— That an unfortunate young man had been sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude and two floggings ; had undergone one-fifth of his allotted term of imprisonment and both his floggings with the ' cat; had thus been marked and scarred for life, stamned with public infamy, and branded as a felon, on a false accusation, he being all the time innocent of tho crime, with which he was charged, and for which he had thus terribly suffered. Can there be any more horrifying reflection than this ? It is shocking even to think that such a degree of infamy can exist in a Christian land as to produce so peculiarly fiendish a crime as an untrue accusation of this kind. The learned Judge might well say that the reappearance among them of George Longhurst was like the return of one from the grave, or from a worse fate than the mere grave. Ifc was, indeed, a temporary recall from a living death—a doom of shame, horror, and misery unspeakable. And this dreadful doom is now declared to havo been undeserved ; to have been inflicted on an innocent man through false witness having been borne against him for the meanest motives of greed or spite. It is humiliating to realize that such a depth of depravity and diabolical malignity, can exist in any human being. The crime is the more dangerous to society, because it is one comparatively easy of committal, as well as peculiarly disastrous in its consequences to the victim. Hitherto, although convictions for criminal assaults on women or children have occasionally been impugned on the score of false evidence, we cannot call to mind any previous instance in which the attempt to prove the conviction erroneous was successful. The endeavor to prove conspiracy or perjury on the part of the prosecutrix has almost invariably failed. This is perhaps not surprising, ris the accusation of such an offence has been accurately said by one learned Judge to be ' easy to make, difficult to prove, and still more difficult to disprove.' When a man is once convicted on such a charge it is most difficult to prove that conviction a wrong one. For the exculpatory testimony, which at least might have saved the accused by the benefit of a doubt, might be wholly inadequate to secure the conviction of his accusers for conspiracy or perjury. Very much less evidence than that which produced last night's conviction would have produced Longhurst's acquittal. Tbe failure of past efforts of this kind to bring about the [practical reversal of sucli a conviction as that of Longhurst has led people to hope that it was almost impossible for an innocent man to be thus brought in guilty. The hope has been rudely dashed to tho ground. A long and patient trial before an intelligent and painstaking jury, and a Judge noted for his clearness of insight and lucidity of explanation, has resulted in the deliberate affirmation that George Longhurst was wrongfully convicted of an alleged crime attended with this deplorable miscarriage of justice and fearful wrong to a guiltless man has been due to a foul conspiracy, in which a father and daughter were the infamous and perjured conspirators. As to the miserable child herself little need be said, excepting that, painful as it is to find such wickedness in one so young, it is impossible to regard her as a fully responsible agent in this matter. She acted under the corrupting influence of her father, and his sin against her was hardly less than against the unhappy 1 onghurst, whom he made his wretched little daughter aid in ruining. It is a truly shocking case —shocking and Baddening from every point of view As for the man Adams, he stands convicted of the most formidable and dangerous offence against society that it is possible for any man to commit. His crime may almost be characterised as worse than murder, for any of right feeling would prefer to be killed outright rather than to be dishonoured and disgraced as his hapless victim Longhurst has been. A man who could act as Adams is convicted of doing, is a greater peril to the public safety than a wild beast or mad dog, and is unfit to be at large. When one reflects on the enormity of his crime one can understand those outburts of popular fury which in semicivilised countries have impelled the public to take tho law into their own hands, rather than risk the chance of such a miscreant's escape. It is well for Adams that he is in an orderly and law-abiding community, where no irritated feeling will be allowed to enter into the consideration of his crime and its deserts, but where he will be calmly and judicially awarded the punishment deemed suitable to his offence. It is not its least grave phase that it has tended to bring the administration of justice into distrust by showing the possibility of its being misled to the grievous wrong of an individual. It will henceforth be much more difficult to obtain convictions for crimes of the kind imputed to Longhurst owing to the doubt now cast on the class of testimony by which alone such convictions are usually possible And it may be added that the one good effect of this lamentable case ought to be to render people more chary of crediting such accusations, now shown to be so easy made falsely, and to be less ready to assume that a man must of necessity be guilty merely because ho is accused of such an.act. A rude shock has been given to the public credulity in cases of this description, from which it will not readily recover.

On tho details or circumstances of this horrible ease, wo are glad to be spared the necessity of commenting, beyond this—that the conduct of Dr. Collins in refraining from giving, at Longhurst's trial, evidence which must have led to his acquittal, and of the police in neglegting to bring forward testimony so vital to the interests of justice, appears to us open to grave disapprobation and censure. It is the duty of the police, not to strive for a conviction at all costs, but to bring honestly forward all evidence that has any bearing on the case. It is no justification of their action to say that the counsel for the defenco was aware of the existence of Dr. Collins' evidence. They ought to have placed Dr. Collins in the witness-box, whether he were a willing or unwilling witness, and compelled him to state what he knew. Had this been done Longhurst could not havo been convicted, and so the public would have been spared this dreadful scandal and wrong. Their action will militate seriously against their prbuppct of securing future convictions in similar and much stronger cases. As for the unfortunate man George Longlumt we presume not a moment will bo lost in granting him a free pardon, and in doing what may be done to compensate him in some degree for the terrible wrong which he has suffered during the last two years. We earnestly trust that we shall never witness such another case.