The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3418, 4 February 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1874

We do not remember a more disgraceful case than that of the abduction of the girl Maria Williams, brought before the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday. There was not a redeeming feature in it. In fact, every action of the accused aggravated the offence with which she stood charged. A girl, only thirteen years old, servant in a respectable family, was decoyed from her situation by a woman of disreputable character, and induced to become an inmate of her house. One would have imagined that having experienced the evils insepaiable from her own degraded condition,the latter would at least have had so much of our common humanity left as to shrink from involving an innocent child in like infamy. But no such kindly feeling had place in her mind. The evidence shows that not only did she induce the girl to become an inmate of her house, but exposed her to the brutality of a man who sought to consummate her ruin for his own gratification. But even then the climax was not reached. Becoming aware that steps were being taken to reclaim her victim, and that the police were on her track, she took means to secrete the girl, if possible, and_ to prevent her return to her father. Who the people are to whom she was transferred we know not. . Some of them, we may fairly infer, through their intimate acquaintanceship with Lizzie Powell, are of like vocation with herself j and it is not too much to conclude that all were led to the course they took by a desire to shield her from the legal consequences of her conduct. At length the girl was sent home, and very properly the woman Powell was called upon to answer for the crime of which she had been guilty. On careful examination of the evidence, we think it was sufficiently proved. At any rate there was a prirtut facie case against the woman. The 24 and 25 Yict. enact that “Whoever shall unlawfully take, or cause to be taken, any unmarried girl, being under the age of sixteen years, out of the possession, and against the will of her father or mother, or of any other person having the lawful charge of her shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Commenting on this offence, Wharton tells us that, “In order to constitute this offence, it is not necessary that any corrupt motive should be the inducement to commit the offence, and the consent of the child herself would be no excuse.” We are, therefore, at a loss to understand on what grounds the Bench dismissed the case. In fact, their decision seems to us one of the most extraordinary that has ever been recorded. As reported in the ; Guardian,’ their Worships said:— The Bench had no doubt that many women of the character of the accused inveigled young girls to their haunts for the purpose of their destruction. It was fortunate for the accused the Bench had not the power of dealing with the case summarily, or they would inflict a punishment commensurate with their opinion of it. As they thought, however, that it would not be sustained if the accused were sent to trial, they would discharge her, but cautioned her as to her conduct for the future.

What does that expression of opinion amount to ? Either the Bench must have been convinced that the woman was guilty, or they had no right to animadvert so severely on her conduct. If they thought she was guilty, their duty was to have committed her for trial. All they had to consider was whether or not there was a prima facie case against her. They tell us that had they had the power they would have sentenced her to severe punishment. They did not say they thought the charge was preferred under a wrong statute, or that the evidence was insufficient. They virtually admitted the woman’s guilt, and stated the conclusion they would have arrived at had they been on a jury empanelled to try her. But apparently their idea was that nobody else but themselves would have coincided with them. This, however, was not the point they had to consider. All that was required of them was to inquire whether the facts justified the prosecution, and if they did, their duty was not to think

“ that the charge could not be sustained if sent to trial,” but to leave it to the Crown Prosecutor, the Supreme Court, and a jury. Throughout the Colony there is increasing necessity for strong measures for the protection of young children. The increasing frequency of attempts at their violation is forcing upon society the necessity for deterrent measures; but cowardly as are the brutal attacks upon them of which we so frequently hear, the dastardly advantage afforded through abduction by abandoned women is equally reprehensible, because more subtle, and because the men escape ail possibility of prosecution ; and such decisions as that of yesterday, through affording probability of escape of a procuress, act as a premium on their repetition. The only possible solution of the process by which the Bench arrived at their decision is that they did not know what is included in the word “ abduction.” Por their information we may observe that it does not mean merely forcibly carrying away women or children, which is “ kidnapping, ” but “ fraudulently ” taking them away ; and we think there was quite sufficient to show that the girl was enticed away with fraudulent intention. Dunedin has for some time past been the theatre on which the great “ unpaid ” have played a conspicuous part. We do not know that they have figured worse than the average of men appointed more because their pockets are full than their brains clear. But quite sufficient has been shown to prove that the administration of law is nob safe, excepting in skilled hands. Here, as well as elsewhere, honorary justice is capricious and expensive.