Truth A TRAVESTY ON JUSTICE.

NZ Truth, Issue 109, 20 July 1907, Page 4

Truth

A TRAVESTY ON JUSTICE.

PUBLISHED EVEI^Y SATUBDAY MOKNm& at Luke's Lane (off Manneesstrebt), Wellington, N.Z. SUBSCRIPTION (IN ADVANCE), 13S. PER ANNUM. SATURDAY. JULY 20, 1907;

A LAW FOR THE RICH AND NONE FOR THEvPOOR.

"There is one law for the tfich and another for the poor." Theoretically, this is not so, but m active practice the wealthy criminal either escapes the consequences of his crime, or the light punishment imposed is m glaring disproportion to the gravity of Ms offence. . The truthfulness of the quotation was fully exemplified m the cases of John Henry Whitton and Henry Norman Oossar, superior warehouse thieves, who last week pleaded 'guilty to single charges of theft, and were remanded to the Wellington Supreme Court for sentence. When brought up for sentence last Saturday, an interminable array Of highly respectable witnesses appeared id bear testimony to the irroproaohable character of the two robbers, and it is singular that Mr Justice Button did not fully appreciate the sarcasm of Mr Justice Sinclair's remark, quoted with unction by His Honor,- that "an honest man has stolen a pair of [boots." Had he done so, he wouJd have imposed substantial pimishment upon men who used their good repute for the purposes of condoning their guilt. The extent of the duplicity practised by the accused, who were employed m positions of trust m two of our leading warehouses, raav be .'judged by the fact that there came forward, willingly, or unwillingly, such men as the Mayors of Wellington and Potone, three medical men, the manaeer of an insurance company, the assistant secretary to the General Post Office, a Hutt settler of sixty-five years' standing, a city architect, two other substantial Hutt settlers, and the rector of St. James' Church ; and these persons, testified that Whitton was a most honorable person, and they were shocked and grieved at the dreadful occurrence. • The Mayor of Wellington called it? a "moral oversight." Had the prisoner been a. common working-map-, he, as- Chief Magistrate, Would probably have named it just plain "stealing".; but it, is worthy of note that Mr Hislop told Mr Myers, Orown Proseoutor, that his conception of Whitton's angelic character was based on the assumption that there had not been a series of thefts. The parson stated that Whitton had held the highest positions m the parish. He was a member of the Vestry, and had represented the Church at the Synod meetings. By the time Lawyer Wilford had waded through the tedious chorus of praise, the highly imaginative person might discern, without glasses, a pair of seraphic wings sprouting- from Whitton's bowed shoulders. As the probation officer's rep.os.6was favorably # would

seem that wealth and influence had effected tlieir purpose, but they did not accomplish their object without a struggle with the Crown. The police put m a report that should have secured prompt imprisonment for any common or garden person, with no cash or influential friends. According to that document, "There is no doubt that the thefts the two abovenamed pleaded guilty to do not represent an isolated case on their part, but only one item m a system which has been m vogue for at least two years past. William Cornish, who gave evidence at their trial, states that for the past four years he has taken scores of parcels from Whitton to Cossar and other men m other warehouses, and brought back to Whitton parcels m exchange. The system of theft by exchange from the heads of departments m different warehouses is easy for them to accomplish and very hard to detect. Whitton could have been further charged with the theft of 81b of copper sheathing which he took from Mills and Co.'s warehouse on June 27, 1907, and did not pay for or charge to anyone. Cossar could have been further charged with the theft of a girl's macintosh, which he gave to Whitton on June 11, 1907, arort did not pay for or charge to anyone."

Here was sufficient to induce a mer-cifully-inclined judge to give pause. Moreover, as witnesses of a-bnormal tonnage had been called m favor of Whitton, Mr Myers claimed tho right to put Cornish m the box to show that the unfaithful servant was not a , fit subject for probation. Counsel for the defence delivered an impassioned protest against a course which he had not experienced within the sixteen years of his practice at the Bar, and it is a tribute to Mr Wilford's eloquence that His Honor should have been visibly affected by the" argument, that if the police had been aible to prove such a case as copper-steal-ing, they should have brought it m the lower Court. The Judge certainly held that it was competent for the Court to -go into matters respecting character if the prisoner failed to remove suspicions, but he did not think it was necessary to call Cqrnish, for it seemed to him the evidenco would not be definite enough to establish system against the prisoner. What "Truth wants to know is, Hqw did His Honor know, that Cornish's evidence would not be definite enough ? It appears to us that the simplest way to find out would have been to have called Cornish. In the face of the terrible indictment of the police, an indictment charging Witton and' Cossar with - being systematic thieves, of years' standing, and revealing a series of corrupt pibactices m the leading warehouses of the city, the man Cornish should have 'bean called. Certainly some explanation should be given of the circumstance that, the police report was entirely ignored, and that these influential felons were admitted to probation for twelve months. The Probation Act was intended to cover cases where the prisoner gave way to temporary tempta- j tkrn, and release under surveillance was desirable m the interest of tho unfortunate's future, but it was never intended to be applied to cases where men had ] ivied m the odour of sanctity and respectability, and were suspect-oil of making virtue a cloak for the concealment of systematic fraud. The Bench,, particularly m applications under the First Offenders' Act, his m the past been too eager to give oar to the unfavorable police report, and the refusal to take notice of it m this case is conspicuous and calls loudly for explanation. The influence brought to bear to get Whitton awl Cossar off is not astonish-in-g, when their positions arc studied. W'bitton is reputed to be worth £8000 or £9000. Ten days before the Court proceedings he refused ££000 for his house and section (which are clear of mortgage.) at the Lower Hutt. He has a farm at the Hutt, which brings him m £80 per year, and he is also the landlord of several small properties m the township. A £40^0 mo-tor-car is at present on the way out from England to has order, and he has a substantial balanoe m the Bank. In the circumstances, one would expect him to get more than £5 per Week. Cossar earned £300 a year, and he would have received a bonus of £25 at the end of June, if this accident bad not happened. Also, if everything bad gone right till the end of the year he wouM have got another bonus of £25, which would have brought his salary up to £7 per week.

The man of comparative wealth can always find friends, particularly if he hoodwinks the police by acting on a Vestry or represents the Church at Synod meetings. "Truth" does not know whether the fact of a churchman being found out m a system of thefts or m one single act of dishonesty, is sufficient, to overwhelm Mr Justioe Button m unspeakable grief, nor are we aware that as a Judge he possesses feelings different, to any other human being. This much, however, we do know, and that is that His Honor is a pillar of one religious body, that he has consented to his daughter, his own flesh and blood, being sent to China to civilize the Confucians, to take the risk of a glorious, yet nevertheless, an unholy martyrdom. Tbis wo therefore say, that Mr Justice Button seems to havo allowed his feelings to have overcome his sense of public duty. Because a man plays the part of a hypocrite, because* under the guise of religious fervor a nvan carries on a system of rougery, and is convicted of an act of dishonesty, which does not carry with, it the saving grace of sudden temptation, is just the reason, or the reasons, why the Law should frown severely, and be swift and sure with its punishment. This is a matter, which must be more fi.llv and further discussed within the Parliamentary Chamber.

That is one picture. Look at this. Whitton and Cossar werj no sooner at large once again than an old shiveririe wreck named John Morrison came up for his judicial deserts. It is true Morrdsqn has a bad record, but he is sixty-five years of age, and does not seem to have had much chance- be-tween <his sentences. When he came out of gaol on the last occasion lie found that his tools had been sold. Ho had 27s when liberated, and hunted for work till that money was exhausted. He had been three days without food or shelter, and it was rainiivg when be saw a kitchen window open on the Terrace.

He entered and devoured some food. He returned on another night), ana unfortunately discovered some whiskey. Morrison is a drink victim, and it was cold and wet and miserable. Afterwards he took articles which he pawned for extremely small sums, to obtain sufficient to buy food. The total sum received for the stolen goods did not represent half the value of one article taken by Whdtton or Cossar, and while Morrison thieved to live, the influential criminals were m a position to place them above this necessity. From the mere fact that they were m positions of trust and receiving high salaries, their crime was greater than Morrison's, yet they were admitted to probation, whilst Morrison was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. Seven years ! He is a -bowed and broken old man, apparently incapable of work, and if he lives he will be 73 years of aige whein he retrains his freedom. Morrison, through drink, is one of the failures of life. He has no money, therefore he is friendless and without iiufluenoe. Verily, there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. This, we are told, is justice. Could a greater travesty on the sacred name of Justice be ima-anned. There is a law for the rich and another for the poor, and that is.no law at all. We are told that the fact of the conviction against W'bitto<n and Cossar means social ostracism for them . ; so i does the conviction against Morrison, only his ostracism means a term in -gaol. There he is safe, or at least, Society is presumed to be. Whitton and Oossar will prey on Society from without the walls of a gaol, wherein they richly deserve to be. Last Saturday morning, m. the Wellington Supreme Court, marked one of thoso satires on Justice far too common m the colony. Whitton and Cossar can consider themselves extremely fortunate persons. They fell, like Adam, and sympathy and crocodile tears were for them. G-aol with" hard labor was Morrison's lot. "Truth"- has never bowled or hounded any man to saol, but m drawing attention to this gross inequality foe tween persons, or rather, criminals, we have domp our duty. -To guard a-gain-st a future contingency is the province of our Judicial Administrators.