The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 3, Issue 266, 4 February 1879, Page 2

The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4.

An important point as to the law affecting bail for accused persons awating their trial has just been rsised in a case at present pending in Christchurch. We quote the following report of the proceedings from Saturday's Lyttelton Times: —

"At l!he Resident Magistrate's Court yesterduy Mr Gresson appeared' with sureties to enter into the required bond of j≤soo each for the release on bail of J. Bassingthwaite, committed for trial on the charge of fraudulent insolvency. Mr Wynn Williams, on behalf of the Trustee, objected to bail being received, as he was led to believe that the sureties were guaranteed for the amount of their bend by the accused. Mr Inspector Hickson, who was in Court, stated to the Bench that he had been informed that Mrs Bassingthwaite was interesting herself in collecting means to indemnify the sureties against loss in the event of her husband leaving the Colony. Mr Gresson, and with him Mr Izard, objected to hearsay evidence being received by the Bench, the latter counsel remarking that if hearsay statements were to be believed, Bassingthwaite was at the present moment dying in Lyttelton gaol. At the request of Mr Gresson, MrStanley Edwards, barrister, and Mr T. Craig, accountant, who had offered themselves as sureties, certified that over and above their debts and liabilities they were each worth JSSOO. In reply to the Bench, each of these gentlemen stated that they understood they were to be secured to the nominal amount o£ their bond. His Wor ship said that under those circumstances, the Bench did not feel justified in accepting bail. Mr Gresson contended that as Mr Whitefoord, K.M., had, after hearing the case and committing the accused for trial, granted bail on this indictable offence, in two approved sureties at £500 each, the application could not be declined. These sureties he had brought that day to Court, who had duly certified before the Bench, as required by the committing Magistrate. Hβ wished that a note of this fact should be made, as should he take any subsequent action it might be required to refer to. The statements made by the sureties who had tendered were then taken down, and counsel Jeft the Court. At a later hour Mr Gresson returned, and pointed out to the Bench clause 61 of " The Justices of the Peace Act, 1866," contending that all the conditions required by the committing Magistrate having being complied with, the Bench had no power to refuse to admit Bassingthwaite to bail. The matter was then adjourned until 2 p.m., to allow Mr Wynn Williams to be present. At the appointed hour counsel attended, and Mr Gresson handed to the Bench the Act with the clause, to whichhe had referred Mr Williams held that the words in the clause referred to bail, —" If it be produced, and be sufficient," showed that it was left to the Bench to say whether the bail was in every respect sufficient. It was against common sense to say otherwise. Had he received sufficient notice he could have produced ample authority against the views of the other side. The matter was of little moment, as if the prisoner were admitted to bail, he would be re-arrested immediately on another charge. The Magistrate said he was under the impression that he had seen bail refused under circumstances similar to the present, but by the clause to which Jhe had been referred, the amount having been duly sworn to, he must consent to the application. The recognisances would have to be entered into in Lyttelton."

Now, if Mr Gresson is right in his law (and the Bench seem reluctantly to hare come to the conclusion that they had no alternative in the matter) what does the position amount to ? Simply this—that if an accused person or his friends be sufficiently wealthy, he can " purchase his discharge " as easily as a private can buy his freedom from military service. All he has to do is to procure two convenient bondsmen, indemnify them against loss, and then pack his portmanteau, and take his leave for— Hong Kcng or any other convenient locality. No concealment is necessary. It is a mere question of money. The police hold that they cannot interfere. In the present case, Mr Inspector Hickson is reported to have said—" If he knew he intended to abscond he could not interfere to stop him, unless at the request of his sureties. As a matter of fact he had heard it said that Mrs Bassingthwaite was raising money to indemnify her husband's sureties, and Bassingthwaite was willing to lose £1000 so that he could leave the colony."

Now, we are perfectly aware that a great deal of what is talked and written about " every man being equal in the eye of the law," about rich and poor standing on the same footing, &c, is, unfortunately, a mere form of words. Rich and poor do not stand on the same footing in a Court of Justice, either in civil or criminal proceedings. The average Englishman regards wealth with such adoration, so thoroughly identifies " respectability " with " keeping a gig " that he either fails to see what is patent to the world outside, or, seeing it, accepts it as quite right and proper. Lest we should be accused by those who have never looked into this matter of drawing upon our imagination for such a statement, we will cite one instance. A prisoner is on his trial for an offence of which the law presumes he is innocent until he is proved guilty. Against him is arrayed a learned counsel, and any witnesses required are brought at the public enpense from all parts of the country. How about his side of the, question ? If he be rich, he can have a fair trial, that is, he can have equal advantages with the other side. But if he be guilty of the peculiarly British crime of poverty, he can have neither advocate nor witnesses. We have a case clearly in remembrance while writing, in which a prisoner could

have produced a number of witnesses who would have thrown quite a different light on the case in which he was charged with an assault, but as he had not the money to purchase subpoenas, he had ..to submit to a conviction on what wris, really an ex parte statement.., f But we fancy that the most fervjent sticklers for the Divirie rights of capital, the most ignorant worshipper of Mam- \ mon (say even the Hon.jMr.'Waterhotise, or Dr Grace) would scarcely have the hardihood to maintain"' that an accused person who could post sufficient capital should bo entitled to walk away and decline taking his trial at all. In a document whichrouß unenlightened (?) forefathers extorted from an English king were these words—" We will sell to no man ; we will not deny or delay to any man justice or right." If, however, the reading above quoted of our present law be correct, in this era of general enlightenment we have abandoned those principles as a mere oldfashioned superstition.