Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5350, 9 January 1879, Page 2

The trial of William Marwood English, yesterday, charged with wounding a native with intent to do grievous bodily harm, but found guilty of tho less serious offence of unlawfully wounding, presented a variety of features of consiJerable public interest. The accused struck a native named Te Toko with a " bill-hoak" during a melee in which he, the prosecutor, and eight or nine other natives took part. The scene was a store and public-house, of which prisoner had charge, at Ohiwa, Bay of Plenty. The prisoner has always borne the character of an energetic and iudustrious settler. He refused to give some bottles of ale that were a present from tho wife of one native to the wife of another, the dny being Sunday. An altercation aroso. Tho pri.-oner handled one of the natives rather roughly, and tho others pressed round him. Mr. Penny, tho owner of the public-house and store, got him in doors, when he took down the billhook, went out, and with it struck tho prosecutor, in dieting a severe, but not a dangerous injury. The defence was that the accused struck the blow in self-defence. But hi 3 Honor Mr. Justice billies, held that whin English got iu-doors, being in a place of safoty, yet took down a lethal weapon, went out, aud htruck the prosecutor with it, he could not have the benefit of tho previous quarrel for his defence. It turned out that two of the natives got ioto the house with English, and that all three w'ere struggling there together. It waß contended, bucccss" fully, that this gave continuity to the " row," and the jury found the offence to be one of unlawfully wounding. His Honor made some very forcible observations upon the necessity of settlers in isolated Maori districts demeaning themselves towards the natives with discretion aud judgmeut. That, at least, might be expected from their superior knowledge and character. But a most singular turn wasgiven to the case « hen theCourfc was about to pass sentence. The prisoner urged his previous good cbaracti-r, aud the fact of his having a large, family in mitigation of punishment. His counsel handed in two testimonials—one proceeding from a uumber of English settler*, and the other from a number of Maoris. Tho settlers expressed their "sincere sympathy with him, and their approval of his conduct." The Maoris prayed the leniency of tho Court iu his behalf, because it was the first time he had ever done them harm. His Honor referred in terms of in liguant remonstrance to the testimonial of the Europeans, and declined to give effect to it. Viewed in the light of the trial and the verdict of the jury, it was au approval of a criminal offence. The testimonial -was not read, but we aro informed it went further than an expression of opiuion, and spoko oi a purse of sovereigns to be given to the prisoner as assurance of "sympathy" aud "approval." The whole thing wore a somewhat scandalous aspect. His Honor's remarks will bo found iu our report of the proceedings of the Court. He contrasted the teuor of tho Maori testimonial with that of the settlers, and expressed his intention to give effect to the former. The result was that tho prisoner was sentenced to uiuo months' imprisonment with hard labour. This trial teachcs three lessons, —(1) That natives are to bo'treated as fellow-subjucts with forbearance and discretion; (2) that a man will not be excused who revives a quarrel and strikes with a dangerous weapon ; (3) that those who will testify to character in a Court of justice must not ap-

prove of a criminal act. Indeed, the prisoner had reason to exclaim, "Save me from my i friends 1" !