NOTES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1505, 12 March 1887, Page 4

NOTES.

Among the petty annoyances of life perhape there are few of a more vexatious sort than those which are inflicted upon owners of gardens and orchards by the miserable paltry thieves who season after season despoil them ot choice flowers and carefully cultivated fruit. Except m the case of those who make gardening or fruitgrowing a business, every choice plant and pound of fruit generally represents m actual outlay ere it arrives at perfection far more than its market value, and such things are, therefore, not grown at home because it is cheaper to grow them than to buy them, but because of the innocent pleasure derived from watching the gradual development of the opening blossom and ripening fruit, and the charm which attaches to the production by personal care and pains of anything beautiful or choice. It is, therefore, with, a special sense of wrong that the ravages of the garden thief and the orchard robber are regarded, and the vexation caused by their depredations is by no means to be measured by the mere money value of their ill-gotten booty. Yet this kind of petty thievery is unpleasantly common, and there is scarcely a garden or orchard m or near the , town which is not visited m turn. It is not a case of boys tempted to pocket a few ripe apples, the prowlers we refer to visit the fruit trees at night and carry off their plunder by the sackful, stripping trees of their whole produce, and leaving the owner the bare branches. They watch the trees till their fruit ripens, and then visit them m the nick of time, just before it is likely to be gathered, and systematically carry it off. This is a sort of thing which needs to be put a stop to, and it is to be hoped that the first of these midnight marauders who is caught m flagrantc delido will be made an example vipour encourager Us autres.

The argument before their Honors the Judges constituting the Court of Appeal m the Hall-Cain case has served to bring into prominence the finedrawn distinctions of English criminal procedure. Whether or not, after proof of the death of A at the hands of B, the fact that B on another occasion wilfully caused the death of C can be adduced to show that the death of A was probably also wilfully caused by him; it appears to be conceded that the fact that B murdered C cannot be adduced as m any way presumptive evidence that he (B) was quite capable of murdering A. That is clearly m accordance with that judge-made law which has been built up by a long series of decisions and precedents, but it is notwithstanding perfectly open to criticism, and to amendment by statute law. And though those decisions and precedents may be m true accordance with the letter of the law as it has hitherto stood, we think that, even if so, the sooner the law is amended the better. For, m all ordinary common sense transactions, the general tenor of a man's conduct is taken into account m judging of the correct interpretation to be put upon a particular act ; nay, more, one act is regarded as \hrowing light on another. 1 hus, if a man be seen staggering m the street who has frequently been known to be intoxicated, we judge that his unsteady gait is attributable to this cause ; nay, .if a man be charged with drunkenness who has been known to be drunk even once before, the one offence is allowed to weigh tosomeextent m deciding as to the probability of the other. So with lying, so with dishonesty. This method of judging is the common rule of life, and we cannot see the smallest impropriety m making it a rule of law also. That is to say, we think it should be m all cases competent to tender evidence as to any similar transgression, quantum valeat, as proof of the probability of guilt, just as evidence of previous good character can be, and is, called for the purpose of showing its improbability. No jury would convict a man of an offence because he had been shown to be guilty of another similar offence, but especially m cases where the whole question turns upon circumstantial evidence, the jury would, it seems to us, be fully entitled to take into account the presumption of probability, either for or against the accused, afforded by . his general conduct, or by any particular action on his part.

There is something irresistibly funny about the declaration by the S\. Petersburg organ of the Czar's Government, that the limits of " Russia's patience ! " bave been exceeded by recent transactions m Bulgaria. "Ma Conscience ! " the reader may well exclaim,* for the attitude of injured innocence taken up by the Arch-plotter of Europe is absolutely impudent m its assumption of a virtue which Russia never possessed m the smallest degree. Doesn't all the world know that she has been, and still is, at the bottom of all the mischief that is going on, and is it not patent to all the world that she brings about disturbances for the very purpose of having an excuse to interfere ? Of course it is, but then even Satan himself likes to don the garb of mock-righteousness, and Holy(?) Russia even does not care openly to avow a policy of rapine and plunder. She covets the vineyard of Naboth, but wants an excuse to set foot within it,

and m default of having one ready to hand is quite capable of manufacturing a pretext for herself. Her own agents stir up strife, and then the existence of that strife is made the plea for interference m the cause of order and good government. It is an old game, and one that Russia has played with considerable success, and which very obviously she wishes to play again} She has been making active preparations for a long time, past, and only waits till what appears to be a favorable moment to put her plans into execution. The European spring is opening out and the hour approaches for the first decisive move. Hence her "patience" is exhausted. We may therefore, we suppose, shortly expect to see the mask thrown off, acd her real intentions declared.

Recently there has been quite an epidemic of fires— Dunedin, Auckland, Wellington, Napier, and Gisborne having all experienced conflagrations of great magnitude, the total damage done totalling up to over half a million sterling. Besides these instances of widespread devastation, there has been an immense number of smaller fires m

all parts of the colony', and the insurance offices must have had an exceedingly hard time of it, though the statement which recently appeared that the losses of the past six months would aggregate a larger sum than the total of the premiums for ten years must surely be an exaggeration of the actual fact. Be that as it may, matters are bad enough, and the frequency of fires, many of them obviously preventible, should lead householders to exercise greater precautions for the safety of their premises. As it is, carelessness is only too generally the rule, and m view of the extent to which it prevails the wonder is that there are not still more fires than now occur. Besides this, however, we fear that there is some connection between the depressed state of the labcr market and of business generally and the frequency of fires. The two things always occur together, and hence an intimate relation may naturally be inferred. It is to be feared that m some cases a fire is resorted to as the best way of realising upon property, and m others that the fiiestick is applied m the hope of creating work m the rebuilding of the destroyed premises. The best remedy for that sort of thing is for the Insurance Offices and the authorities to insist on a rigid enquiry into the circumstances attendant upon every fire, the origin which is not patently accidental, and the visiting of the crime of arson, whenever detected, with salutarily severe punishment.