The Eayers-Williams Case.

Observer, Volume 9, Issue 554, 10 August 1889, Page 9

The Eaye rs -Williams Case.

MR. NORTHCQTE'S REPORT

THE UNJUST JUSTICES

Some time ago we published full particulars of a gross miscarriage of justice ac the Thames, when Messrs Haselden and Douglas, J.P., dismissed the case of the Master of the Orphanage, on behalf of an orphan girl named Eayers, versus Mrs Selina Williams, of Parawai, who, it was most clearly proved, had beaten the child until she was literally covered with bruises. We now learn from the Thames papers that Mr Northcroft, R.M., has reported as follows on the case, and that the matter is now before Ministers : —

Thames, 12th July, 1889. Totho Under-Secretary, " Department of Justice, 11 Wellington. " Sir, — While at Ooromandel I received the following telegram from you : ' Minister wishes to know your opinion whether failure of justice occurred against Mrs Williams. Please report fully by post," I have the honour to inform you that I was at Te Aroha when the case was heard, and did not return till some days afterwards. I have nothing, therefore, on which to base a report, except the notes of the evidence on the case taken and signed by the Justices, copy of which I forward herewith ; together with clippings from the two local paper a, giving what purports to be a report of the evidence at greater length. From reading these I am of opinion that the defendant should have been convicted of an assault ; but reading a bald statement of any evidence taken in a narrative form, especially in cases of assault, where so much feeling enters, and hearing a viva voce statement of the same often leads to different conclusions. No one can judge the whole of the evidence by merely reading it. The demeanor of a witness is an important element in deciding as to his or her credibility, and only those who actually hear the evidence can judge correctly as to its value. — I am, &c, H. W. Northcboft."

On Saturday last the Thames Advertiser had another very outspoken leading article on the case, in the course of which it again reviews the evidence, and concludes:— " Our object in again alluding to the subject is that such a gross miscarriage of justice, which we emphatically assert has taken place, shall not be hushed up, and those who have perpetrated it remain in a position which shall enable them to be mischiev-

ous in the future. We demand in the name of the public that the name of the two Justices who sat on the case shall be removed from the roll, and we further remind the Mayor that the holding of a public meeting to deal with the case was only delayed till Mr Northcroft's report had been considered by the Government. This was dated 12th July ; there has theref oro been ample time for the Government to strike the nameß of the two Justices off the roll for gross incompetence. The inference therefore is that they have no such intention. The meeting must therefore be held, and public opinion brought to bear in order to compel the performance of what is a manifest duty. It is preposterous that two men should be allowed to sit on the Bench who could after hearing Dr.Williams's evidence alone, decide that the accused was not guilty of the charge brought against her. It must not be forgotten that there was no attempt to even insinuate that any other person had inflicted the injuries. We Bhall not allow this matter to rest till the names of the Justices are struck out, or a good and valid reason given for refusing to do so." Well done, the Advertiser ! There is nothing weak-kneed about these remarks ; but apparently if the names of Messrs Haselden and Douglas are to be removed from the roll of Justices of the Peace straight-hitting is necessary, as it would seem that some influence is being brought to bear in Wellington to have the matter hushed up. But it won't be successful, as public indignation at the Thames regarding the action of the Justices is as strong »s ever, and it is more than likely that a public meeting will be held at an early date.