THE LONGHURST CASE.

Evening Post, Volume XXVI, Issue 103, 29 October 1883, Page 2

THE LONGHURST CASE.

— __-* TO THI KDTTOR. Sir— l was pleased to soo the two lottora of Mr; J. H. Shaw, which appeared in your paper last weok, and although you have appeared to me to advocate the other side, I approve this act of impartiality on your part. lam one of thoie whe believe a most wicked oonspiraoy was oonoootod, whioh resulted in the trial of Adams, and was bo far successful as to result in a verdict against him, but, thanks to our jndieal system, the vbrdiot of » jury does not ahvayi go for much, for they are Bometimei opposed to common sonse and reason, and in tho Adama case I am glad wo had a Judge who pro* vented the mischievous offeotof thoir verdict being carried into effect. It is urged by theadvooatos of Longhurst's reloaso, that it is only a mere technicality that prevented Adams being consigned to prison. I believe nothing of the sort. It is the strong belief that h« was wrongly accused and conviotod, that is the operating oause, or if it were otherwise Longhurst would now be at liberty. Sir, if Longhurst should be reloasod and that aot is to imply Adams' guilt, I for one shall deeply deplore it; but if he oan go forth from prison in his true oolonrs as a> guilty man pardoned, then all well and good, as possibly ho may have been sufficiently punished, but on this subject I offer no opinion, personally I have no wish to koop him there, but I do obieot to his guilt being shifted on to Adams' shoulders. I am, Ac, W. Clark. TO THI EDITOR. Sir— Mr. J. H. Bhaw argues that beoauso Dr. Collins got into an awkward dilemma Longhurst should be kept in confinement. This childish argument seems to me absurd. What, the publio are moat oonoernod at is not whether Longhurst is guilty or innooont —whether Dr. Collins acted rightly or not— but in the f aoe of two contradictory verdicts the Government should liberate Longhurat. They dare not faoe the electors with Longhunt in gaol. I am, Ac, HUMANITT. TO TEX KDITOB. Sir— l do not feel called upon to reply to' the personal abuse indulged in by Mr. Shaw in his letter of the 26th instant, as I have yet to learn that such abuse hat anything to with the merits of a question ; moreover. I understand that Mr. Shaw is a professional man, and, as such, has his profession to consider, in the praotioe of which the value of' abuse in eking out a weak oase is not underestimated. Tho conclusion I sought to enforce, Mr. Shaw challenges on a variety of grounds, insinuating that the evidenoo> (submitted in the Adams' oase wasuntrustworthy, that the jury were a. sot of "thickheads," and that the. charge itself was the result of a conspiracy in favour of Longhurst. All this may of oouree be true, or It may only be gratuitous assumption ; but, in any case, I presume Mr. Shaw will not dispute that tho vordiot of his, gang of " thickheads " in the Adama' case holds good in law (so far. of course^ it has referenoe to Longhurst) in spite of the difficulty arising out of the tender age of tho girl Adorns. As a matter of fact no question was raided in the first instanoe aa to tho validity of the jury's verdict, and the presiding jul^ge actually, on the strength of it, passed sentence on tho more youthful offender, And was only deterred from treat* iutf the elder offender similarly by the difficulty alreaidy referred to. WillMr.Shawaffirm that there , is, in law, greater virtne in the decision of tone jury than in that of another P It would be Wore than his professional reputation is worth to hazard such a statement. Mr. Shaw suggests that a jury of "thiokheads" convicted the Adamses on "worthless" evidence. Bnpposing a jury of a. similar stamp 1 , had acquitted Longhurst in. the face of overwhelming evidenoe, will Mr.. Shaw take upoln himself to assert that theverdict would He invalid, and that Longfeurtt. would still be to trial, muoh less, to impri*onmenjt without trial? I am sura he would noc ; and yet, after a jury, has pronounced that Longhurat is now in prison in consequence of the wilful and malicions oonduot (if not oonspiraoy) of tho Adamses, he haa the temerity to tffirn that Longhurst is guilty. Whose province is it to again sift the evidenoe against him ? Whafe provision is there, in oases of this land, {«• what is equivalent to a new trial? Buttly* so long as trial b"y jury is retained, it will not be urged that ft was the provinoa «l the* Minister of Jnstide, in the absence- of thd prisoner and in the\ privacy of his offioe. Ac* to again try Lonfehurst for kis alleged offence, and by so doing set at nought andi pour contempt oni the decision of thet Supreme Court of tie colony. So far, the case between Mr. Sihaw and myself stands thus : He assumes that the charge against Longhnrst was an honest one, the evidenoe complete, and the in'.telligenoe, Ac., of the jury unimpeachable, (therefore the verdiot should stand; thaty on the other hand, the charge in tho Adams' case was a vamped-up one, tpe evidenoe " worthless," and the jurty a set of " thickheads," therefore tHe verdict should go for nought. I, however, unhesitatingly maintain that, even spppoeing Mr. Shaw's insinuations to be well founded, the verdiot of the jury in the more jreoent case is equally valid in law (so far as the guilt or innocence of Longhurst is concerned) with that given by the jury before whom Longhurst was originally tried, and this notwithstanding the technical point on tpe strength of which the man Adams escaped punishment. O£

coarse, if I am wrong in thin, Mr. Shaw will huve the best of tho argument. I am, Ac, Jamb 9 Carson. Thorndon, 27th Ootobor.