The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 440, 8 October 1880, Page 2

The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8.

The criminal sessions of the Supremo Court held on Monday and Tuesday last, in Christehurch, present several features which, though not absolutely novel, appear to us to call for remark. In the first place it is satisfactory to be able to record the fact that the calendar was exceptionally light, both in the number of persons for trial find in the absence of any cases of exceptional or aggravated criminality. Notwithstanding the undoubted existence of a considerable amount of distress arising from want of employment, none of the crime which camo under the notice of the Court appears to be duo to this cause. This is so far a hopeful sign, for when crime arises from a chronic state of misery and destitution it is impossible to hope to bo able to stamp it out except by removing its cause and parent. Neither does the calendar point to the existence of a professional criminal class. Most of the offences appear to have been of an unpremeditated character. Of course a very considerable quota of them were duo to that übiquitous cause— strong drink.

So far out , observation of the calendar presents matter for congratulation. We regret to say, however, that there are other matters apparent during the session which are not of so satisfactory a nature. The manner in which prosecutions are conducted on behalf of the Crown has frequently called forth the severest animadversion from the Bench, and it is a matter in which tin whole law-abiding portion of the population is deeply interested. We are perhaps too apt to look upon a criminal trial as a sort of duel between tho Crown an 1 the prisoner, in which we, as individual members of the public, have no interest. Of course, the slightest reflection will show the fallacy of this view. The fact 's that every one of us has a deep and personal interest in the criminal law being efficiently administered ; an accused person has a right to demand a fair trial, but society has also a right to demand of its paid servants that,a crime having been committed, all the circumstances connected with its commission shall be clearly laid before a jury, so as to enable them to fulfil their share of the compact, and "a true verdkt give according to the evidence."

Now, it is notorious that in very many instances this has not been done, and His Honor has had to direct an acquittal simply because the prosecution had failed to adduce some absolutely necessary evidence, which was possibly quite ej'.sily procurable. In such cases the issue lias really never gone before the jury at all, and the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor is Justus reprehensible as would be that of a police officer who allowed an accused person to escape from h"s custody. The man might not bo guilty, but a. jury should at least have the opportunity of judging of his guilt or innocence.

At the last sitting of the Court there were two notable examples of this negligence. In referring to these we desire to guard ourselves from being understood to express any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused persons. What we desire to call attention to is the fact that by the almost incredible carelessness and ignorance of the Crown Prosecutor (he can choose which horn of the dilemma lie prefers) the jury had no opportunity given them of investigating the charges. Ono Charles Batchelor was charged with receiving stolen goods. Of course the csccnco of a charge of this nature lies in guilty knowledge of the theft by the receiver. We may say at once that in this case the evidence of guilty know-

ledge was extremely slight, and prisoner would probably have been acquitted on

that ground. But it will hardly be believed that a professional man asked a jury to convict of this crime, and did not offer any evidence that the goods had been stolen at all! Yet such is the case. He really endeavored to make matters worse by gravely contending thfit he could use admission of the theft made by somebody else as evidence against the accused. This reminds us of the times when so called fi confessions " were extorted from victims on the rack and then jnade use of to bring other victims to the scaffold.

But if this case betrays a vrnnt of knowledge of the commonest rules of evidence deplorable iir a, professional man to whom the interests of the publicare entrusted, another tried on the same day manifests a lower depth of ignorance which we should be surprised to find in an intelligent constable. A man named John Leishrnan was charged with the very serious offence of stealing from the person with violence. The facts of the case are briefly as follows :

Prosecutor was knocked down in the streets of Christchurch. He could not identify his assailant. Some time after prisoner vtas arrested in Dunedin and a watch that hnd been stolen from prosecutor was found in his possession. There was no evidence whatever that prisoner was even within fifty miles of Christchurch at the time of the robbery. There were abundant suspicions circumstances connected with his possession of the watch and his failure to account for that possession, and if the Crown Prosecutor had taken the simple precaution to have added a count to the indictment charg-

ing prisoner with receiving a conviction would probably have been secured.

But this is not done, and again Mr Duncan ventures to ask a jury to convict on e\idence, which his junior clerk ought to have been able to tell him was utterly insufficient to satisfy the minds of any jury who had the slightest idea of their obligation.

Now, how long is this state of things to last ? Are we to go on till we have a murderer or two turned loose among us ? His Honor Judge Johnston, reputed to bo the best criminal lawyer in New Zealand, hsis continually called attention to what he rightly terms these gross miscarriages of justice. If the remuneration attached to the office of Crown Prosecutor is not sufficient to secure the painstaking attention of a capable man, let it be increased, but in tho name of justice and common sense lot the public be saved tho pom of witnessing every few months these painful exhibitions of

neglect or incapacity