Truth IS HE GUILTY?

NZ Truth, Issue 182, 12 December 1908, Page 4

Truth

IS HE GUILTY?

Published Every Saturday Morn ing at Luke's Lane (off Manners- . street), Wellington, N.Z. Subscription (m advance), 13s. per annum. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1908.

Found guilty of an offence, "hated am detested by all- Christians," the boats wain of the Kaituna, one Walter Adiste Lindsay, after two trials— the jury m tl) first having disagreed— was one day las week sentenced to a term of seven years imprisonriient. The offence was ■ commit ted on a young Maori, and the evidenci was of such a fiHthy nature that Mr Jus tice Chapman had the Court cleared am directed the. press not to report the cvi dence, though m the circumstances'; re such order was at all necessary. How ever, "Truth" does not intend to tray erse the evidence, but at the same timi if it was considered at all necessary it the interests of Justice, we might deeu it essential to lay before the discerning public such facts that might justify thf Ec-opening of the case. INow, tnis young Maori, by name Hui Kai Rehu, was brass boy on the Kaituna, and' he told a reallj filthy story against the boatswain, whe denied the crime. Nor was the denial all; He prpved the Maori a dirty, .foulminded little devil and a liar to boot, It was 'a case of oath v. oath, and undei all the circumstances it is surprising tc find that a jury could be empanelled thai could .for half a moment place credence on the word of the dago liar, whose mind can best be compared with ap open sewer, That the first, jury disagreed must alsc occasion surprise, because on the evidence, or the very . fact that it was the word of a Maori who himself was, on nis evidence, a party to the dirty ofience, and a liar to boot, and a doubt must have existed, and it is an axiom oi British Justice- that if any reasonable doubt exists the accused should get the benefit of that doubt, and that a doubt existed' as to Lindsay's guilt, "Truth" at anyrate, has . no doubt. Moreover, we have received from one of the jurors who tiied Lindsay m the first instance the following letter, which speaks for itself :— One of the cases which 1 was compelled to listen to was heard with closed doors. I loathed the very thoughts o! the horrible crime with which the prisoner was charged, but 1 became convinced that - the man— "of good character and rising m the'service"— was nol , guilty. .1 pleaded very earnestly for _ his acquittal, I pointed out that the chief witness against him was dirty m his habits, foul-mouthed, had threatened to do a certain thing; but what was worst of all. to his discredit, he had admitted telling a< deliberate lie. On ' these and other grounds I pleaded for . acquittal. Ten jurymen were m favor j two others only held out ; and thus being unable to come to an unanimous verdict, the jury was discharged. A new jury was empanelled, the prisoner was found guilty, and he. received a sentence of seven years' imprisonment. If lam to believe .several of the second jury, certain evidence which had muchly eight upon the first jury was not mentioned at the second trial. . They had the advahtage, however, over the first jury, m being permitted to visit the ship where the offence is said to have taken place. She had left port before Vcouid y,et away to visit her, but m another ship of similar construction 1 heard and saw enough to convince •me that the. ..conclusion I had come to was the cor rect solution of the matter. In conclu sfon, I would remind "people that many an innocent man has suffered. ' if . the , sailormen and tlie men of the wate . have any sympathy m their hearts they will look further into the matter. IJ self-preservation only is the chart' they steer by it will be as well to get a few certificates as to moral character Thanking you m anticipation that you will m all fairness publish this letter. It looks to "Truth," anyhow, that there has been, if not a grave miscar.riage pf Justice, a grave mistake mado by a jury, inasmuch as certain evident given at the first trial was suppressed at the second/It might, /therefore, be jusi as well if Cabinet reviewed this case as it seems to "Truth" that it can, with advantage, be reviewed. Lindsay is how serving a seven years' sentence.' He may be innocent, but at anyrate there exist, grave doubts of his guilt;, and on tht principle that any accused man should receive the benefit of any doubt, Lindsay'. < -- case should be re-opened.