The Telephone. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1884. HAS JUSTICE GONE ASTRAY?

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 60, 7 February 1884, Page 2

The Telephone. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1884. HAS JUSTICE GONE ASTRAY?

It is the boast of Britishers that in their Criminal Courts the “ scales of Justice are held in equal poiae”— that poor and rich alike are amenable to the same laws, and that where there is a doubt as to the guilt of the accused the prisoner is given the benefit of it; but, in these Colonies—as well as in the Old Country—many innocent persons have been, no doubt, found guilty, on circumstantial evidence, of crimes they did not commit. In the majority of instances in the Old Country, Besident Magistrates, and even Justices of the Peace, are gentlemen of education and good social position ; while in these Colonies, there are many men on the Bench who are totally incapable of conducting the business entrusted to them, and not, as they should be, “ like Csesar’s wife, above suspicion.” Some most glaring cases of lnconsistency-~in fact, of injustice—on the part of Magis. trates have come under our notice, and w r e certainly cannot compliment the Bench of these Colonies, as a body, on its ability aud integrity. We admit that some cases of wrongful imprisonment have not resulted from an inclination for persecution by the Bench, but rather through a want of perception on the part of the presiding officials—through a desire to interpret the law according to their peculiar ideas, in the place of blending a little equity with an interpretation of the statutes “ made and provided.” In fact, a great deal too much power is given the Bench in this Colony to deal summarily with criminal cases. In “Courts of Justice”—or rather Magistrates’ Courts — the presiding official often constitutes himself judge and jury, as well as prosecutor, and as to decisions being “tempered with mercy,” or the “benefit of a doubt” given to the accused, that is entirely out of the question. Some astute individuals pride themselves on their perceptive powers, and, simply because a person hesitates, or “ prevaricates ” in making a statement, they jump to the conclusion—in their wisdom—that he or she must be guilty, without turning a charitable thought to the probability that the accused—probably, through not having been in Court before and brought under the severe gaze of a mighty “ dispenser of the law ” —maybe confused and quite incapable of collecting his or her thoughts. Then, again, it too often happens that a witness is bullied into a state of confusion by “ my learned friend,” who has altogether too much license in a “ Court of

Justice” to insult and confound a witness by persistent attacks and unjust insinuations. Old hands and sharp witnesses who have graduated in Magistrates’ Courts arc often capable of “ sitting on” my “ learned friend but the poor sensitive creatures who are ashamed of the degrading position they are placed in become fit subjects for the attacks of the witty, astute while his Honor smiles encouragingly, and, of course, imagines be is justly carrying out the duties which have been, unfortunately, entrusted to him. Of course, many good men make mistakes sometimes, and we will presume that this assertion is applicable in the ease we are about to refer to—that is, for the purpose of according to the Bench that spirit of fair-play which does not appear to have been the guiding-star of its action in the prosecution of a Maori for the larceny of a greenstone pendant. This case has entailed much expense, and effected no material good—unless it be that the public have now an opportunity of judging how skilfully the “ scales of justice” have been held in the Gisborne Magistrate’s Court. The case was first brought into Court by the Police charging a Maori, named Kabaubia Kamo, with being in possession of the stolen article in question, at Maliaraka, when five Native witnesses swore that the accused was never in the hotel where the article was sold during the day. The case was then remanded, in order that a witness, Rewi ti Rangiteke, might be produced to give evidence for the prosecution. After some delay, Rewi made a voluntary statement to Sergt, Rubles that he had found the greenstone and sold it himself, and that Kabaubia Kaiiu had not had it in his possession. Rewt said he made this statement so as to get Kabaubia clear, and to show he was not to blame. When the case against Kabaubta. came on, Rewi became confused, and swore that he (Rewi) sold the stone on the Ist and found it on the 6th ; and his Worship, Mr. J. Booth, in summing up, condemned the evidence of Rewi, and, after sentencing Kabaubia to thirty days' imprisonment with hard labor, instructed Sergt. Bullen to keep a sharp eye on Rewi, as that Maori had, he said, evidently committed perjury. After this, Rewi was brought up by the police, before Capt. Porter, J.P., charged with perjury, Mr DeLautoub defending Much evidence was taken, when the charge was dismissed, Capt. Pouter stating that he was fully convinced that it was a case of mistaken identity—that the prisoner did not commit the perjury alleged. The prisoner was, therefore, released, but again arrested on the charge of receiving stolen property, which case came on yesterday before Mr. Booth, Mr. Rees defending In the case of Kabaubia Kahu, the defence was that the identification of the accused by a witness, named Francis, to whom the stone was sold, could not be substantiated. It appears that the owner of the article stolen, Simons, could not identify the prisoner, and it came out in evidence that Francis, the prisoner, and others had been drinking together ; therefore, there was not sufficient proof that the prisoner had either taken the greenstone, or received it knowing the ornament to have been stolen, —more especially after Rbwi’s evidence was given s yet the Magistrate thought proper to sentence the prisoner to thirty days’ imprisonment with hard labor. The man who was honorable and honest enough to come a great distance to save the prisoner from being wrongfully convicted had a charge of perjury brought against him, was imprisoned for ten days in default of bail, and nt last acquitted, Yet, in spite of the decision given by Capt. Porter, the man was again arrested—we presume, by the instruction of the R.M. —on the charge of receiving stolen property. This case came on in Court yesterday, and the persistent prosecutors were compelled to allow their victim to slip from their grasp. We do not remember having heard of a more determined case, apparently, of persecution ; and all right-thinking people will unite with us in requesting the Government to institute an enquiry into the extraordinary proceedings. Is not the law- of the land to be dispensed with equal fairness to the Maori as it is to the European ? Shall it be said that a case of persecution can be wantonly practised in our “Courts of Justice” with impunity? If the R M. has made a mistake—as any good man might do — it is his duty to make recompense to the wrongly-imprisoned Maoris; but if, on the other hand, he has ignorantly or wantonly punished innocent men he is totally unfitted for the position he holds. The question is one of very serious import, and we trust that the Government will give it a most strict but just consideration, without delay.