The Western Star. (PUBLISHED WEEKLY.) SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 1880.

Western Star, Issue 346, 24 April 1880, Page 5

The Western Star. (PUBLISHED WEEKLY.) SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 1880.

The acquittal of the prisoner, Bobert Butler, charged with committing murder -at Dunedin has naturally occasioned much comment and much dissatisfaction both in the press, and among the public generally. That a most foul and brutal murder has been committed, of which an inoffdnsive and apparently estimable couple, the Dewars, 'have been victims, is certain, and it is not satisfactory to find that hitherto the perpetrator, -whoever he may be, is not legally brought to book. But it seems to us idle to discuss the matter in the quereous tone adopted by isome ofour contemporaries. At bottom they seem to bejannoyedat the result of his •trial, on account of its several of those cherished maxims which are commonly adopted by British people as j. if alii ole truths, but" which are only in reality true,, when subject to a deduction of very numerous exceptions. Thus, for instance, we are frequently told that murder will out”—well, if that means that the murderer must be discovered and brought to justice, the statement is not correct, as every old newspaper reporter ■knows perfectly well. The case of James Dewar, re ently murdered in Cumberland Street, is only one of several instances to the contrary. Nor can it be said by any reasonable person that the jury gave a foolish verdict, or that the judge summed up improperly. Any one who reads the evidence and the speeches of the Grown Prosecutor and the prisoner, can scarcely fail to see that however strong the suspicion may be that the prisoner was really the guilty man, nevertheless there was nothing but a strong suspicion established. As direct proof the evidence completely broke down, from the constant contradiction of the witnesses, by one another. That Butler is a great scoundrel is certain ; that there is circumstantial evidence against him is also certain; but *he has not hitherto been proved the murderer. It is quite possible that it may yet be found that he is innocent of this heinous crime, aud that a search for the actual murderer must be made iu some entirely ntffw direction. But the overthrowing of the maxim that “murder will out” is not the only circumstance which is unpleasant to the average British mind. The omniscient detective of sensational novels has come on the scene, and though assisted by an Inspector of Police and two or three constables as well, the combination of superhuman talent is not sufficient to accomplish anything. Nor is this the last shock, which the mind of the average Britisher receives. The common maxim that “ a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client” breaks down, and-'a layman speaking for six hours on his own behalf does not commit himself on one solitary point, and eventually succeeds iu obtaining from a jury, mutually chosen 'by the Crown and the prisoner, a verdict ’of acquittal. The absolutely necessary lawyer turns out not to be absolutely necessary; Lastly, the advocates of school education, and especially of school education associated with religious teaching, have been-disgusted to find a signal case of their panacea for all “ sins of will ” and “ taints of ’ blood,” as Teauyson has described them;' being quite a failure. Here was a man, not merely taught at a State school, but himself a school teacher, with his intelligence so largely developed that his speech in his own defence was at least as . able an address aS‘that of any barrister Dunedin has seen for many.a Jong day, not merely justly branded- Mas a hardened convict, an habitual thief, but also open to the grave suspicion of being a murderer as well. Truly we must not trust our general maxims too far. The Imman soul, for either good or evil, is too 1. • •

large to be enclosed in the narrynwdbqunds jof general. maxims.' Butler seems to be one of those waifs and strays of human life who cannot be adequately classified. He stands, before us as a man of very remarkable intelligence, which should have placed him in a high position as a pettifogging attorney, tut which is associated with an almost irresistible tendency to crime. The strong chain of custom in decent society in any station of life might have -kept him outwardly correct, but decent society of any kind apparently he never bad. AYhilst satisfied that a correct decision was arrived at by the Dunedin jury, on the evidence,hefore them , in common with many other persons we regret that the criminal law of this colony allows of only the two' verdicts, “ Gruilty ” or “Not Dnilty ” ' in this. instance clearly the onlv verdict which would really have met the lequifements of the case would have been that allowed in Scotland, “ Not Proven.” That verdict would exactly express the real position of the prisoner before the public. He has been able tu point out the bliinderings an,d eoi.itradict ions of the Dunedin cloliceand the unsound reasoning of’ the Dunedin medical men, but he has given no self-consistent story of where he was, and what he was doing before, at, and alter The time of the ■murder.