The Taranaki Herald. NEW PLYMOUTH, FEBRUARY 11, 1865.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 654, 11 February 1865, Page 2

The Taranaki Herald. NEW PLYMOUTH, FEBRUARY 11, 1865.

THE SUPREME COURT. The session of the Snprome Court closed on Monday last, and it will thcroforo bo proper to say a few words upon ono or two of the coses tried, and upon some other matters immediately connected with the administration of justice.

There were at first seven cases set down for trial implicating ten persons, eight of whom were military settlers, and two recent arrivals. Of these ten men who were chai'ged with various offences, three were convicted, though not of tlie full crimes with which they were severally charged— six were acquitted, and in, .the case of the seventh the Grand Jury throw out the bill. The process of the English law has been Called uncertain, but we believe it is not common to see the acquittals exceed the convictions in the proportion of two to one ; and if wo wish to account for it wo must assume either that the Resident Magistrate committed them on insufficient evidence, or tliat the prosecution was not very skillfully conducted^ or that tho juries for some reason were unusually lenient. Whatever the cause may be it is to be regretted in the one case that so many innocent men should have been subjected to the injury and annoyance of imprisonment and trial, and in the other that so many offenders against the law should have been allowed to go unpunished. We merely wish to call attention to what scorns to be a notewoi'thy fact. There is perhaps another consideration which may throw some light on the result of some of the trials. It was said by Frederick tho Great, that in war Providence was 'commonly on the side of the biggest battalions ; and in the same way it may perhaps be said that in our courts of law. justice is coiiundnly on the side of the shrewdest lawyers — a consolatory reflection to those that are able to secure their services.

There is another matter to which we feel compelled to call attention, as one of much importance, which has been hitherto overlooked — the necessity that is, if justice is really to be done in cases whero Maoris are concerned either as principals or witnesses, that a competent interpreter should be provided. It is not every one who from living amongst the Maoris has gained a rough acquaintance with their language that is fit to interpret in a court of justice. Any one who has tried it knows that to translate faithfully from one language to another giving the exact moaning of the original and no more is a difficult matter, even when time is given ; bnt the difficulty is vastly • increased if tho task has to be executed on the spur of the moment, before judge and jury in a crowded conrt, and under the pressure supplied by an impatient counsel ;>-. - To do it properly ho clonb/t requires a fldan of more" than common ability, or one exceedingly conscientious and pains-taking in his work, and though such men are not common and may not be attainable, there is no excuso for not getting the best that is to, be had.

The only case to which we shall specially refei 1 is, that of Harris tried for the iniirder of Roebuck — the verdict in which has very much surprised mostpcople, for to tho public apprehension the facts wore few arid remarkably clear. The two men. were stationed in a redoubt in the enemy's country. The prisoner takes up a loaded rifle inbroad daylight, points it deliberately " for two or three seconds" at the deceased, fires, and the latter falls dead. Harris then puts the rifle quiotly down and says nothing — according to one witness Ire looked calmly towards where the body lay — but all agree that he w«s perfectly cool and collected. The first words, he ntters after being taken are " I have killed the bloody man if I die for it." As to remorse or repentance, whatever he may have felt, he certainly snowed none according to the witnesses. The defence set up was twofold ; first, that there was nothing to prove malice ; and secondly — not that ho did not know the gun was loaded — but that there was nothing to prove that he knew it was loaded. Ifc is time that no previous quarrel or ill will had been proved; but accprdiug to the law, as laid down by the Chic£ Justice, such an act as killing a man is in itself deemed to bo malicious, and the burden of proof lies therefore with, the accused ; it is presumed his motive was criminal until he proves to the contrary. Then as to tho 6econd part of the defence — that Harris had not been proved to\ jejiow that tho gun was loaded. # He was stationed at an advanced outpost in an enemy's country, where it was perfectly well known they might at any moment have to ' resist an attack, or might fall in with the Maoris when out on foraging expeditions fo'r potatoes and other tilings, and where, therefore, every rifle necessarily and as a matter of course was kept loaded. It is true that some of the men had fired their rifles that morning, but it was proved also that some at least of them had been paraded to load again. The presumption was more than fifty to one that any rifle taken up by chance would bo found loaded. But supposing this a pi(H rca- ; soning was considered inconclusive, there was almost positive proof supplied that he | knew it- was loaded by tlie last words of the 'deceased—" Look out, he has got a cap- on his. gun." These words were heard distinctly by the witness. Joseph Bird, who*was at the time behind Harris, and twice as, far as he was from the speaker. Moreover,- Bird's back was turned at the time, and he" had ho- reason to be thinking of Roebuck more than of another ; whereas Harris'- whole attention ! must have been fixed upon him, for ho was raising the gun as the words were spoken ; when Bird looked round qn hearing tho wprds he had it at his shoulderpointed towards deceased, and 'after 1 - fj£ second or two fired. Can any one reasoik. , ably doubt , that ho heard" thpse words fuven supposing thai, in Hie 'cool uud

collected ' state ho waa in he had taken up and cocked the gun without seeing tho cap ? And what was the effect of them ? Ifiidight bo said tho rifles woro always kept loaded but not alwuys capped, but by these words the prisoner's attention was called to tho fact that the one- ho had had a cap on and was ready therefore for instant use. Besides it was worthy of consideration that it was not tho prieoner himself but his counsel who discovered, or at least revealed, hia guiding motive, which in itself was a little suspicious ; a man who has killed another without meaning it does not usually wait for the assistance of a lawyor to say he did it accidentally. Wo hardly see now what evidence will be deemed sufficient to convict a man of murder unless he should confess his guilt, but even then the jury if it had the chance might acquit him on tho ground of insanity lbr making euch an admission.

Some porsons, rather hastily vre think, find fault with tho Bentencc as 'inadequate and compare it with that passed -upon Provost who got two years imprisonment for forging an 1.0. U. for £8 ; but they forget one or two things that should not bo left out of sight. IhJJie first place tho English law, in accordance wo ' supposo with tho national instinct, looks upon offences against property as far more serious than mere crimes of violence unless of the very worst kind, and thoro is no doubt that if the evidence against Provoßt had been as clear and complete as against Harris, the former would havo received the heavier sentence. . Secondly, they can hardly have considered the full meaning of the verdict. . When 'tho. jury said tho prisoner was guilty of manslaughter, bnt not of murder they virtually said ho was ignorant that tho gun was loaded. and Jiad no thought of harming the deceased. Tho Judge had not to "try tho case again ; and surely three years imprisonment was sufficient for an innocent mistake howevor doplorablc in its results. ' . '

Before concluding wo must express ourrogret that a letter should have appeared iv our columns last week, in which tho writer incidentally . spoke of Harris as having" murdered" Eocbtfck. •* Wo brad carefully avoided any comment on tho case ourselves, and should most deeply regret having in any way whatever helped to get him an unfair 'trial. ' Oitr conscience, however, in tho present "caBO has. been rplieved by tho verdict — unless . indeed tho counsel for tho defence should 6ay that, but for that' letter, the prisoner would have been honorably, acquitted. It is perhaps only fair to the jury to add that the verdict may havo boen in a great degree owing to the very favorable light in which the Chief Justice put th* dave for the prisoner in summing, up, though it might be inferred from what he said afterwards in passing sentence, that he did not concur in. the propriety of tho verdict.