THE Evening Star. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1869.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1976, 4 September 1869, Page 2

THE Evening Star. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1869.

The Criminal Session is over. There are no more prisoners to be tried, and there is no need to withold comment on what has occurred. Dunedin juries have many times disgraced the Province by their decisions, but in no instance has so glaring an error been committed as took place on Wednesday, when a Jury of twelve pronounced John Paterson Dent not guilty of a crime which, by his own confession, he had committed. It is difficult to imagine a case in which crime is so clearly brought home to a prisoner. Divested of the round-about with which the facts were invested in the relation of them to the Court, the history of the transactions is as follows: James Leslie, John Paterson Dent, and Charles M‘Gechan, formed a conspiracy to obtain money by forging and uttering cheques. Leslie appears to have been the business man, and probably Dent the most respected, for he seems to have been the willing tool made use of to get the cheques cashed. As a matter of course, to have attempted to get the money for the cheques from the bank or banks on which they purported to be drawn, would have been not only useless but destructive to the whole scheme ; so they set Dent to work to use his credit and acquaintanceship with different tradesmen to swindle them out of their money. For the first cheque money was obtained at the Rainbow Hotel, and the next at the Rising Sun. The money was divided in unequal proportions amongst the conspirators; the forger taking the larger share, the tool the smaller. We have here stated nothing but what Dent confessed to the jury. He certainly en-

deavored to make out that he was a victim of the other two, and we have no hesitation in saying that M'Gechan equally with himself was a guilty party, but he had only helped to contrive the swindle ; he had neither forged nor uttered ; he only gave his counsel, set the forger and the utterer to work, and shared the spoil. Could the law have reached him he deserved punishment, but law does not deil with people for introducing scoundrels to one another, nor for pointing out how acts of scoundrelism can be pei’petrated. It can only deal with the act itself, and therefore although morally M'Gechan was as guilty as Leslie, who suffered punishment, and Dent, who through the ignorance of a jury escaped, he did nothing that brought him within the reach of justice. He had the cunning to be the sharer of the proceeds of villainy without sharing in its risks. Such was the case. It was proved against Leslie ; it was admitted by Dent, and stated in evidence by M'Gechan. If such clear evidencebrought no conviction of guilt to the mind of a jury, what more could be given t For our own parts, we are at a loss to imagine. To acquit a man of crime, when such clear evidence of its having been committed by him is placed before a jury, is equivalent to expressing approval of it. Such a verdict is only excusable on two grounds ; either the whole twelve men must be insane, or utterly ignorant of the duti«s of jurors. We are inclined to think that the numerous instances of wrong-headedness which disgrace the judicial history of Dunedin are attributable to the latter cause. This may partly arise from difference in education arising from the difference of practice in Scotland and England. In Scotland a jury of fifteen decides by a majority. In England trial by jury signifies “the deter- “ mination of facts in the administration of civil or criminal justice by “ twelve men sworn to decide facts “ truly, according to the evidence produced before them,” and English practice prevails in Dunedin. Itisthisspecial duty of deciding only upon Jact that seems not to be understood. Almost without exception the idea prevails that the question of law is a part of what juries have to try as well as that of fact, and in many cases, inconsequence, the law is taken out of the hands of the Bench, and juries contrive to become judges too. This popular error it is advisable if possible to dispel, so that henceforth the Province of Otago may be aS remarkable for the intelligent decision of its juries as it has thus far been for their uncertainty. We do not know the name of a single juror in the case under consideration and should they feel aggrieved at our remarks, the only apology we offer is that we should fail in our public duty were we to omit them. They may have been guided in their decision by the most benevolent feelings, but their oaths bound them to put even those aside and to say “ yes ” or “no ” to the simple question, Did Dent obtain money under false pretences or did he not? His own statement was this :

Leslie said that he ought to have benn home before this, but that he would meet him that night at the Baptist Church, in Great King street, at seven o’clock, so he left us M‘Gechan and I then walked along the street towards Walker street. When on the way he said to me, he had got a cheque from Leslie to get cashed for money that Leslie owed him. He also said that the Bank was closed (it being after four, p.m.). and he knew no person who would cash it for him. 1 replied t at I knew no place but the Rising Sun Hotel, and that I owed him Is 6d ; so he said you can pay him what yon owe. He further said, if they ask you where you got the cheque, say from Mr Reid, your employer, for wages due you, as “ Reid” is the name on the cheque ; so 1 started to go for that purpose. When about three or four yards from him he called me back and said, if they a-k you to sign your name on the back of the cheque, be sure and do not put your own name, but write “Thomas Teviotso I left and went and got the cheque cashed, paid the money out of it (the Is 6d I owed), and said and done what VI ‘Gechan told me. 1 then came down to the foot of Walker street, where M‘Gechan was standing, and gave him LI 7s 6d. . . We then went into the Foundry Hotel, where M‘Gechan called for two pints of beer, which he got and paid for. We then sat down and ate the bread and cheese. We were there some time. When sitting in there he said, I owe you some money ; there is 7s 6d, that is all I can spare. I took the money and said, All right.

The prisoner acknowledges he went and got the money for a cheque. It was proved by those who gave him it that, according to the plan arranged by his co-conspirators, he did represent that the cheque was received in payment of wages by a Mr Reid, in whose employment he never was ] and the evidence of the handwriting in endorsement of the cheque showed that instead of signing his true name, “John Pater- “ son Dent,” he signed it, as agreed, “ Thomas Teviott.” Now, weakly supposing him ignorant of its being a forgery, two lies were told to induce the barman at the Rising Sun to give him the money : what farther evidence of obtaining money under talse pretences was wanted 1 Is not a lie a false pretence 1 But this was not the

only instance in which he became the instrument of the party. He not only got one cheque cashed, but another, and received a portion of the proceeds —and yet this man, most unaccountably, is pronounced “ not guilty by twelve men sworn to decide whether the facts alleged against him, and which he himself admitted, ever occurred. Plad there been a shadow of doubt either as to foot or intention, we should have felt bound to acknowledge the rigid conscientiousness with which the jury had discharged their duty. As the case stands, each member of it must learn to feel that his decision, by holding out a chance of escape to a criminal from a richly-deserved punishment, merely offers inducement to him to repeat his crime, and holds out a premium to others to follow in his footsteps.