THE Grey River Argus PUBLISHED DAILY. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1885.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 5361, 4 December 1885, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus PUBLISHED DAILY. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1885.

At the Resident's Court yesterday morning, before Messrs Nancarrow and Williams, George Simpson, a well-known expreßsman, was charged by Henry Moss with using obscene language on board the s.s. Charles Edward on the day previous. According to the evidence there was no doubt that Simpson both spoke and acted in a ruffianly y mariner, and the Bench sentenced; him to a week's imprisonment. The Police Offences Act of last year is very stringent in punishing offences of that class, the maximum' penalty being fixed at a year. It is a very general opinion amongst sensible people who do not like to go to extremes in anything, that the Act is in some of its provisions too Draconian altogether, especially regarding bad language. The Act has, in that; respect, gone. 7a very ..long way beyond the English law in punishing the use of filthy language, though there is no reason to suppose, that the -feelings of colonists are more refined or easily shocked than those of people at Home. But it does not follow that because provisions of exceptional, severityare introduced-into an Act they shall be carried out in all their rigor by the J.P's yho administer them. Bad language breaks no, bones, though it is likely, often to lead to a breach of the peace,' whichis'a misdemeanor ; and as it never imperils life or prosperity, the practice, has'been to inflict a comparatively light penalty for it. % We have not a word to say in defence of •' Simpson, who behaved in a most blackguardly way ; but as it was a ' first offence,, and he is a man who earns an honest living, it does seem that 48 hours' 'imprisonment would have fully met the case. Simpson may be a loose character, that is in respect to violent bursts of, passion and the use of bad language when so possessed; but he was not arraigned on His general character and should only be. punished for that which the law was called upon to take cognisance of. It is always a safe guide for J.P's. to temper justice with mercy. If a severe sentence is to be passed, we should always prefer to see it come from the regular stipendiary officer, who has the benefit of a wide 3xperience in dealing with such matters. It is not so long ago that two of our J.P's. —one, of whom sat on the Bench yesterday — gave a man a. month's imprisonment with hard labor for an assault of a veryi trivial kind, and for which 48 hours would have been ample punishment. The man , was too drunk to hurt anybody, and did I" not know what he was doing. If Simpson had been frequently before the Court for oMittceS of the kind ha was sentenced

for, he would have richly earned three months' incarceration ; but it was a first offence in the eye of the law, and first offences are usually dealt with leniently. There was another feature in the case worthy of mention. The Bench asked the prosecutor if he would press for the full penalty, and he, with the like burning desire for satisfaction'™ full that animated the wearerof the yellow gabardine in the "Merchant of Venice," amiably replied that he wished accused to be punished with the full rigor of the law. But is it not a new feature in jurisprudence, and a dangerous one to follow, to regulate the penalty according to the wishes of the prosecutor ? It is not easy to account for one so just and humane as Mr Nancarrow agreeing to such a sentence, except that he gave way to his colleague on the- ground of seniority. If we had the arranging of the rota we know the sort of colleague we should provide for Mr WilliamsV