TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1904 A MATTER FOR ENQUIRY.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 8102, 4 October 1904, Page 2

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1904 A MATTER FOR ENQUIRY.

The Xew Plymouth papers hay» called attention to a matter which needs further probing in Parliament. It is nob a very pleasant one to discuss in the public prints, because it arises out of a conviction at the Supreme Court for an alleged operation of a character which it is to be feared is much too common. But nevertheless it cannot be ignored. A young man named Baven got a girl into serious trouble, and employed a man named Brown, recently a resident at Opunake, to come to New Plymouth to perform the operation. Furthermore he wa3 present on the occasion. In -every respect he was an accessary — indeed, something more, for he wms the cause and instigator of the .crime. But when proceedings were commenced or had reached a certain stage he confessed and turned '.'King's evidence." Brown very properly was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, five years. On Baven being put forward for sentence, however, his counsel asked for a remand, on tho ground that he desired to communicate with Wellington as to the position of prisoner in consequence of his •having turned King's evidence. This request was granted, and when next the man appeared in the dock a strong plea was made for mitigation of sentence on various grounds. Mr Justice Edwards, however, comnvented rather. scathingly on tho 'case. He said "the offence was one of the most serious known to the law, an offence for which a person was 1-able to imprisonment for life. It was an offence, if common report and Court records could be taken as a guide, that was .common in. New Zealand, and it would therefore be a mistake to allow the public to imagine that a- crime cpuld be committed with comparative immunity frpm punishment. The circumstances pf the case did not strike His Honor as favorably as prisoner's counsel would have him to believe. The deposition!! showed that Raven knew the serious nature of the offence, for he employed a person to commit the act, had got the girl to go to a secluded place at night, and had held her hand while the operation was being performed. Was this an act of love, or, rather, was it not the conduct of a person who was anxious that his end should be carried into effect at risk to the girl T Baven could have made reparation to the girl. She was in his own station of life, and he coujd have married her. If she had refused to marry him, £b,en he might hftva I let nature take its course. His Honor was unable to believe that Baven did not know it was a serious offence and one attended with considerable danger to the girl. It was a sad thing to send a young man of respectable parents to gaol, but it would be far worse for him to allow the public to believe that such acts could be committed ~ with impunity. Bavin's guilt was less than that of the baa* in«tvujn#j}t Jje had em'plbyeo", atad he would therefore make \h» M^tengp proportionately lighter ttwn that of the man Brown he sentenced the other day. The sentence would be two years with hard labor." Then an extraordinary thing happened. The wires were set to work, and before the day was out a free pardon was telegraphed from Wellington and Baven was released! If ever a man deserved punishment for. his share of a crime th : s man did. The Herald states the case ternpe?*klyi IW* nmt- feflSMy, wtom it says : "Setting Mid* th» fact, QF perhaps we should My the strong ftsuumptign, thjtt there^wM ample evidence to conviot both men without one of them turning 'King's evidence'— always a despicable role to play— w« oannot hold with the justice of releasing without any other punishment than the cost and anxiety of trial mod the prickings of *his conscience, if he has one, of one who had committed so serious a crime and turned informer in order to HHstyfltfeU, gi| i crime in lome respects,

i was greater than that of the elder -man I who tried to help him and the girl out ' of their trouble. He caused the trouble and paid the other man to help him out of it, and his offence cannot properly be condoned on the ground that he was otherwise apparently a very respectable young man. Rather is it an aggravation of such an offence, for obvious reasons. Wa are sure we are only expressing the feel'ngs of a large section of the community when we say that Raven thoroughly deserved the sentence Mr Justice Edwards pronounced, and that his was not a case for the' clemency of the Crown. ' We need say no more, except that Raven came here from Adelaide, and that he is no connection of an old and highly respected family of this district." The Judge of the Supreme Court has been treated with contempt by the action of the Crown, and there ought to be some official explanation given to Parliament of the extraordinary course adopted. The only redeeming feature is that Raven's villainy will show the danger of accomplices trusting one another in future, and in this indirect manner good may come out of the incident, but apart from that aspect of the matter the pardon seems to be a | disgrace to New Zealand.