THE SOUTH SEA KIDNAPPERS.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2038, 16 November 1869, Page 2

THE SOUTH SEA KIDNAPPERS.

The affair of kidnapping and murdering certain nathes of the .South Sea Islands, in which Hugo Levinger, Captain Hovell, and others were implicated, and which resulted in a trial at Sydney, at which Hovell and Rangi were convicted of murder, and were sentenced to death, is not yet concluded. The legality of the conviction was questioned, points were raised by Sir James Martin, and the prisoners reprieved ; and a letter was addressed by him to his Excellency the Governor, setting forth, at considerable length, the grounds upon which he, having been counsel for the prisoners upon their trial, had cornc to the conclusion that justice had miscarried in the case, owing to certain misapprehensions, and that a verdict had been returned against them on insufficient evidence. Sir James Martin admits in the outset that it is not usual or desirable on ordinary occasions for a prisoner’s counsel to address the l‘ xecutivc with his own views of the case, but he submits that the present occasion, being one in which very serious questions are invo'ved maybe one which will admit of a departure f.om th s rule, his object being that the Governor shall with the assistance of such advice as he may receive from the Min’sters and the Judges, reconsider the points urged by him in favor of the pr soners. The main one is that the native whness, who was the only person who depose I to the forcible seizure of the three Pama men, was not sworn in a manner which could be held to be binding on his conscience. The interpreter bad indeed deposed that this witness believed an oath to be binding if taken upon what he called the “ llolumah book,” and that, believing the Bible upon which lie was sworn to be an English version of that book, he rega-ded an oath upon that to be equally binding, but it had been stated that in point of fact there vas as yet no translation of the Bible into the Rotumah language, and, therefore, whatever the “book” was in which the native believed, it was not the same as that upon which he had been sworn. However great the probability might be that the witness had spoken the truth, it could not be said that he had taken an oath. With reference to the veracity of his evidence, moreover, it was contradicted by the statement of another islander, who said that two of the three Tanna men had gone on bard of the Young Australian of the’.r own freewill, and were not, therefore, unlawfully detained at the time when the conflict occurred in which they met their death. It was further urged that the letter published by Dr Steel ha<i, in all probability, an influence upon the jury; and, in addition to this, the recommendation to mercy was also in their favor. This letter, and all the other papers connected with the affair, have been laid upon the table of the New South Wales Assembly. The points raised by Sir James Martin having been referred to the Judges, their opinions are given. That of Sir Alfred Stephen is lengthy, but very clear. He holds that the native whose evidence is objected to, believed that the book on which he was sworn was the same as that Rotumah “book” which he hid faith in, and therefore the oath was good. Hi? Honor dwells at some length upon the difficulty of always ascertaining, in the cases of such witnesses as these, how far the oath they take is held by them to be binding upon their consciences ; but he observes that if the evidence of this witness was improperly admitted, then the prisoners ought to be released. The further statements made went far to relievo Hovell; but his Honor had no doubt that a barbarous murder had been committed. This the captain ought to have been able to have prevented; but, on the other hand, it did not appear that he had any hand in the forcible detention of the men. Mr Justice Hargrave is more positive in opinion that the prisoners ought to be pardoned ; and Mr Justice Cheek, while admitting that if the evidence of the native witness was wrongly received that result ought to follow, still thinks the jury were justified in the verdict. On the whole, he thinks that the case is a proper one to be d u alt with by the Governor and the Executive Council.— Empire.