THE Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1869

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1979, 8 September 1869, Page 2

THE Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1869

On Saturday an article was published in the Evening Star, pointing out the gross mistake committed by the jury in Dent’s case. It would have ill-suited the object we had in view had it not excited attention. At the time it was written, the decision of the jury to whom was remitted the task of

deciding upon the attack on the police at Waikouaiti, was not known, or it would have afforded additional illustration of the position wo then laid down, that in Dunedin, juries I’eturn verdicts unsupported by the evidence laid before them. The article to which we refer drew forth a letter from a person signing himself “ Humauitas, which was published in the columns of our morning contemporary, in which he endeavored to justify the verdict, re Dent, by a history of the proceedings in the case. We will accept his version as true, and give him the benefit of the misconception, if it was one. It does not materially affect the argument whether Dent was tried for obtaining money under false pretences, or for utteringa cheque knowingit to be forged,for both charges were equally supported by the evidence adduced and the prisoners confession. On neither of them could there be the slightest moral doubt, and the acquittal on either charge was equally disgraceful to the intelligence and sense of responsibility of the jury. A letter from a correspondent, which we publish to-day, attempts to shield them on other grounds, and points to motives for acquittal that ought to have no place in the mind of anyone placed in the position of a juryman. As in the case of Dent, so in that of Wain at Waikouaiti, speculations as to the consequences of finding a prisoner guilty have influenced the decisions, and Society has a right to complain that the juries have abused the trust reposed in them. We did not for a moment pretend to assert that there is any parallelism in the effects likely to result from the two decisions. In the case of the youth Dent, acquittal was harmless, so far as Society is concerned, compared with what may be the. possible consequence of the other. At Waikouaiti a treacherous and cowardly assault was committed upon a police officer while in the execution of his duty. It does not even appear to have been to effect the rescue of a prisoner but merely to gratify a spirit of revenge. Now we have no wish to say one word to aggravate the case. We may even admit that the Police do not appear to have acted in the most prudent way in the matter, and that they exposed themselves needlessly to attack. We will go further and imagine that the jury were morally certain that on conviction, a deservedly severe sentence or even say a harshly severe one, would be passed upon the accused. The circumstances are not any part of the question they had to decide upon. The police were not on their trial. The jury is not placed in a jury box to speculate upon what a judge will do or say. The judge, the counsel, the witnesses, and the jury have each their separate and distinct responsibilities. It is for the judge to see that strict impartiality is observed at the trial and to administer the law. It is for the witnesses to state truly what took place and for the jury to decide upon the fact : that is to say, whether the accused did or did not what is alleged against him. They have no right to allow any idea of consequences to enter into their minds, excepting to imbue them with a deeper sense of the solemn responsibility remitted to them by Society. The excuses of men who hide their maudlin sentimentality under specious Latin signatures and strive to throw a shield over jurors who decide according to their feelings, to the neglect of the obligation of their oaths and the higher dictates of their reason, tend to foster ideas that carried to their ultimatum would unhinge the framework of Society, engender a general disregard for truth, and bring the administration of justice into contempt. We base our condemnation of the verdicts of both juries on those grounds only. With regard to the case at Waikouaiti the responsibility was grave in the extreme. If there is one obligation more imperative upon a citizen than another it is that of protecting civil officers in the execution of their duties. Anything that weakens their influence or sanctions interference with them is in the highest degree detrimental. And above all, the police require every aid that Society can give them. Their office is at .best an unpleasant one. The law is a terror to evil-doers, not to those who do well; and it is just with evildoers that the police arc brought in contact. Were it not for them, the time would soon return when every man would have to fight his own battles, keep watch and ward over his own property, and no respectable woman would dare to stir abroad without a guard. But the verdict of the jury in the Waikouaiti affair was a virtual justification of the assault. To a certain extent, the peace and well-being of Society were placed in their hands. A few more such verdicts as that of Friday night, and no policeman would feel himself safe. To every one who heard the evidence, the guilt of the accused was manifest; for though to the jury is remitted the official declaration of opinion, conviction of innocence or guilt forces itself upon all who are pre-

sent, and the public waited and watched the verdict given, and approved or condemned accordingly. We have no hesitation in condemning their verdict as contrary to the most unmistakeable evidence. "We would gladly have avoided so painful a theme, but the public interest demands this condemnation from us. We may honor and even sympathise with the feelings that led to this perversion of truth, but if the jury allowed themselves to bo swayed by them, we as the organ of the public arebound to speak, and glad shall we be if this may prove the last time that the necessity occurs. What we desire is, that a healthy, intelligent, vigorous, public opinion may grow up in the place of that vague and misty idea of duty that has led to these sentimental verdicts.