A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7844, 13 January 1887, Page 5

A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

<» A most extraordinary state of affairs, unprecedented wo believe in New Zealand, occurred at the criminal sittings of the Supremo Court on Wednesday. A young man named Anderson was arraigned on an indictment oharging him with larceny as a bailee of a watch and chain, the property of Miss Plow. Be pleaded not guilty, and a jury was duly empanelled. Mr. Gover, who appeared for the Crown prosecutor, opened the case to the jury, and the statement indicated that the prosecutor was guilty, not only of the crime with which he was charged but of very baae ingratitude. Having con-, eluded his address. Mr. Gover proceeded to call evidence. The first witness called was Mies Plow, but as she did not answer, Mr. Gover said that probably she would soon be present, and he then called Edward Hughes, the detective who had charge of the case. He also was absent, and His Honor, turning over the depositions, observed that the witness was a detective, and was the informant in the oase. Someone suggested that the detective was engaged at the Police Court, but Mr. Just ; oe Ward replied that he should be here. Mr. Gover then called Emanuel Mendehon, the pawnbroker to whom Anderson had sold the watch, but he also was absent. Mr. Hough ton, who appeared for the prisoner, said he was informed that Miss Plow had no desire to press the charge, but His Honor said that although she might not desire to prosecute the scamp in the dock, Hughes and Mendelson could have no such feeling. He would allow five minutes to elapse, aud then oall the witnesses on their recognizances. While waiting, His Honor commented strongly on the negligence of the police in this, a police prosecution, in not even informing the Crown Prosecutor before the jury was empanelled, that the witnesses were not in attendance, and he feared it would result in a gross miscarriage of justice. At the end of five minutes, Edward Hughes was called on his recognizances, £200, and as he did not answer they were estreated. Mendelson was then called, and not appearing, his recognizances, £100, were estreated. Five minutes' longer were allowed to Miss Plow, as a telephone message was received from her brother that she had left home that morning to come to Court. She was then called, and not answering, her recognisances, £100, were also estreated, His Honor remarking that any application for remission or reduction would have to be made to the Government. There being no evidence to offer to the jury, they, by direction of His Honor acquitted the prisoner and he was discharged. It is a very great pity that, in any case, there should be a miscarriage of justice, and that a person charged with a serious offence should be allowed to go free. But nothing else could be done in this case after the jury had been 'sworn, and the prisoner committed to their charge. We learn that the mistake arose through an unfortunate misunderstanding between the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Williamson) and Detective Hughes. The latter states that the Crown Prosecutor informed him that the oase could not come on that day, and that therefore the witnesses might go home. ,