WAIRARAPA.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 118, 19 July 1873, Page 5

WAIRARAPA.

(from our own correspondent.) Since my last I have received information of the death of another man near Castle Point. This man, called Mickey Troy, left Castle Point to go to his whare, taking with him, of course, a bottle of grog. He was found dead on the hillside, but whether the bottle was empty or otherwise, I cannot say. Ho one yet knows what was the immediate cause of his death. It will not be at all surprising if we hear of at least one more death, as I have been informed that a settler in the interior has been absent eight days from home, leaving his dog tied up on the chain. All that is known is that he had started to visit a friend. The sudden rising of the rivers may have prevented his return for a few days, but could not detain him so long. He lived alone. The trial of the case of malicious wounding came off at Masterton on Saturday, before J. V. Smith, Esq., and A. W. Renall, Esq., J.P. ; W. H. Beetham, Esq., J.P., also sat on the bench towards the end of the hearing. The facts of the case are these. Mr Tuck found one of his cows hamstrung. In company . with the constable he tracked it to a gap in the fence behind the house of the boy’s mother. On then being told that the boy had been chopping wood in the paddock that morning, he was arrested and put in the lock-up.' The case was partly heard the same day before Messrs Smith and Renall. After hearing the evidence of Mr Tuck and the constable, the bench asked the hoy if he had any questions to put to Mr Tuck. Considering the extreme youth of the boy, and that he had been four hours in durance vile, it need *ot be surprising if he felt extremely alarmed, and no doubt thinking the best way to get out of the scrape would be to offer the value of the cow ; asked Mr Tuck : If he would take money for it. The boy had not been cautioned yet. To my intense amazement and that of the whole community, the boy’s words were taken down verbatim , and used against him. On Saturday, the counsel for the boy (Mr Stedman) insisted on the boy’s words being expunged. The Bench, in its greater (?) wisdom, refused. The hoy’s sister clearly proved that she had put the cow out of the paddock in the morning. Another witness averred that the cow’s tracks were quite natural outside the fence up to where it was found. The boy’s mother was brought from her bed to give evidence that amounted to nothing. Though told this, the constable would insist on her being brought to court. The Bench, in giving judgment, stated that there was no evidence whatever to bring the crime home to the boy ; but, in view of his statement on the previous day, they were none the less convinced he had been guilty, and they therefore dismissed the charge with a warning. Much comment is made upon this decision. It is held that the justices had no right to go beyond the evidence ; yet they decide according to their own convictions. What reliance, I should like to know, can be placed in the impartial justice of J.P.’s if they make this admission. I can state—and Idoit at the risk of being committed for contempt of the Bench—that at least one J.P. evinced a considerable amount of bias. It was quite evident he did not sit as an impartial justice. The second did act fairly, and acted his part with the utmost impartiality. I cannot say that the dignity of the Bench was supported by allowing such unseemly altercations between the defendant’s counsel and the constable. It is hard to state who was the worst.