Untitled

Manawatu Herald, Volume I, Issue 73, 9 May 1879, Page 2

The case of Brown v. Jones, for embezzlement, foil through, ia a most unexpected manner on Wednesday last. Considerable interest was felt in the case, as both parties were well known, and the Court house was consequently filled, buttbe sightseers were doomed to disappointment, as upon the very threshold of the case, fche informant made certain admissions which took the police by suprise, and led to the withdrawal of the charge. But one or two questions are suggested by this case. What right had the police to withdraw the case? When his Worship asked who prosecuted, Constable McA.nulty replied that Brown would, but the police wou'd assist. Thepolice were neither informants nor prosecutors. Upon what grounds, then, could they apply for a withdrawal ? It appears to us, that the prosecutor and informant ,wa9 the only one who could withdraw the charge. He was not consulted. His advice or opinion was not asked. Yet whilst his evidence was going on, a third party, the police, who had not before appeared in the case, applied for a withdrawal, which was granted. Such a course does not strike the lay mind as the best possible. The case itself was evidently of the weakest description. No attempt appeared to have been made at embezzlement. Plaintiff admitted that the defendant acknowledged having the money, and promised to pay him so soon as he received some money from Feilding. It therefore appears to us that Jones was fully entitled to an acquittal, instead of a withdrawal of the charge, which need not necessarily be held to have cleared him of, the serious offence he was charged with. But another question deserving notice is, whether there should not be some remedy provided for those who suffer through trumped-up charges Jones was detained in custody for nearly a tortnight, being unable to obtain bail. Upon the result of the case, we must of course accept him as an innocent man Yet he has suffered the ignominy of arrest, travelling in custody as a prisoner, his name telegraphed throughout the colony, himself imprisoned for ten or eleven days. With what result? Simply this, that directly he is brought face to face with his accuser, the charge falls to the ground. We merely point out the facts. The same thing might happen to any other honest settler in the district, and this phase of the question is deserving of the careful consideration of all who value liberty and justice. Certainly we object to the country being put to 00 much unnecessary expense through

ne rashnoss of a mistaken, individual. It would not bd very far wrong if such plaintiffs were 1 ordered to pity the whole costs attaching to such actions;