Untitled

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 563, 30 October 1871, Page 1 (Supplement)

[FliOil TiCfi " DAI [A' SOUTHERN CROSS,"

SEPTEMBER 20.1

The cau-je " .Ylohi v. Craig" will probably long liolil a prominent position among les causes celebrea of New Zealand; but if it result in compelling such attention in law as is cleariy necessary, its occurrence may afford grounds for gratification. Probably few will have gone to the trouble of following the intricate windings of this case, and the somewhat involved transactions in c >nneclion with the lands and lo^s in the neighbourhood of Mercury Bay; hu! a peru>al of the pamphlet on the subject recently published, will in most cases leave but a va^ue and undefined conviction, which it is difficult to throw off, that Craig has been singularly the victim of smart transactions ; and that under pakeha tutelage JViohi Mangakahia, whom from his blood we should expect to bo unskilled in the wiles of the Kuropean, has developed a good deal of that character immortalised recently by an American poet, in connection with the " heathen Chinee." For in ways that ;ire dark and tricks thil are vain, the Celestial, in manipulating the cards d>es not appear to have exhibited more surprising skill than tha1; exhibited by Kohi in working the machinery of our law courts. It is not our purpose to go into the intricate details of the case ; but to the most cursory reader the extraordinary manifesto issued subsequent to the trial by the twelve jurymen who for nine days had been engaged investigating the various transactions must bring home the conviction that there is a wrong that needs righting. Here- we find twelve intelligent citizens impelled by a sense of fair play to travel so far from the ordinary path as to issue a declaration, virtually to the effect that they had been compelled by the state, of the law to deliver a verdict contrary to justice. They declare in effect that the oaths of the pla^n; ilf's were not worthy of credence, and yei they (ire compelled to give such a verdict that defendant is saddled with heavj costs. These words of the jury with reference to their own verdict, present the most remarkable commentary on the administration of law in modern times that we Ivive ever read. "In our opinion," say the jury, " the action was a most unrighteous and vexatious one; and instead of Mohi being entitled to damages (or the pretended wrongs complained of by him, we consider Uraig to have been in the whole matter the injured party ; and if it had been in our power in that action, we should certainly have awarded substantial damages to Craig as against Mohi, and his accomplice, C. A. Harris, jun., for the grievous wrong 3he had snstained. at their hands."

And tho jury further added : " Being satisfied, therefore, that the law has, in this case, been made the instrument of spoliation and oppression which shocks every sense of natural justice, we should be highly gratified if the legislature would devise aud carry into effect a measure calculated to repair such an intolerable wrong. That such a protest should issue from a jury so strongly declaring a miscarriage of justice is not to be ignored ; and we trust that the legislature now in session will not only onco and for ever end the legalisation of robbery at tho hands of natives, but by retrospective action repair the grievous wrong that has been done under sanction of law in the transactions between Mangukahia aud Mr. Thomas Craig.