The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, OCT. 19, 1906.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1909, 19 October 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, OCT. 19, 1906.

We live in a British country, and as a rulo we enjoy the privileges of “British fair play.” We are rather fond of boasting about it too, and most poople endeavor to act up to their professions in that respect when the doing of it does not touch their pockets too deeply. Many there are who would not depart from its traditions even though their conscientious actions caused their linauei'il ruin. Notwithstanding all this there are numerous cases where British fair play is not meted out, and people suffer injustice without the notice of any but their immediate morals. Especially is this the case in our courts of law where oven-handod justice is expected, but uot always obtainable. It is not perhaps the intention of anyone thore to indict injustice; but the very practice of the law in tbeno people familiarises its habitues with the contentious spirit, and that familiarity is apt to cause forgetfulness of the fact that there is such a thing as equity which can at times be at variance with law. Law is of course intended to be in accord with equity in all cases and under all circumstances; but everyone knows

hat ic in riot so, and none aro more

clearly cognisant cf that than avn these gentlemen who are charged with thn administration of tlio law. Oocasioualiy wo hour magistrates, in giving their dt cisions, say in olToefc that they sympathise witli ono side wtiilo tiio law forces them to give a decision in favor of thn other, and in many of those cases tiioro is no appeal or other means of obtaining a verdict that would square with the (masted vrinoiplo of *• British fair plav ” fn fact, in such eases fair play of any particular brand

(except perhaps Russian) is simply not obtainable, for the law ties tho magistrato'u hands and compels him to givo

a verdict against his bettor judgment. But it happens, too, that in very simple cases unnecessarily liavah verdicts are givon that, aro not warranted by the circumstances of tho cases and *• British fair play ” is denied to tho accused person for reasons other than any intention on tho part of tho magistrate to meto out ovon-handed justice. It may bo, as wo have said, because the magistrate has unwittingly allowed himself to fall into a groove, and Ims become so inured to iullicting sot, penalties for a certain sot of offences that ho follows, the routino witli unerring accuracy and puts the culprits through in swift rotation as if they were going through an automatic

turnstile that records tho same price of admission to each ono for tho same

privilege of walking through. Sometiling similar to this occurred in the Magistrate’s Court here this week when a number of men and boys were each fined tho sum of ten shillings and

seven shillings costs for the trivial oflenco of rifling their bicycles oil the footpaths and for riding them on the streets without lights. They all ploaded guilty, and they were all ordered to pay the same toll with a locturotte added in some cases. But where the injustice comes in is that the circumstances wore not the sarna in all the eases, nor was the culpability of equal moasuro though they were all technically guilty of an offence against the bye-laws, and this was deemed sufficient by the magistrate to treat them all alike. In the first place we consider that in every case the fine was unnecessarily harsh ; but in one) at least if justice had been done no fine at all would have been inflicted. This was the case of a boy who earns ton shillings a week and is the main support of his mother and younger brothers and sisters, he being the elder of the family. In addition to his daily work he, being a dutiful boy, earns an odd shilling when he can at night, and for that purpose was employed selling lollies at the theatre stall when the manager of the Tittell Brune Company asked him to run an urgent errand. The boy demurred to going the distance in the time allotted, and the manager asked him to borrow a‘‘ bike.” The boy replied that there was only one that he could get and that had no lamp; but the matter being urgent the manager said, “ Never mind that, it will be all right .” Ho went, to oblige the man, and for his obedience and civility he is now asked to pay about two w r eeks’ wages in the shape of a fine, for a vigilant policeman caught him as he was returning. It was attempted to bring these fact 3 before the magistrate, but he “ would not hear secondhand evidence,” and when the boy stood up to admit his technical offending and to explain the facts he naturally omitted the most important points in his timorousness, and although the magistrate had been already told that the real offender was not before the Court, not a question was asked of the boy to bring out the whole truth, so the case went against him by default practically. We can vouch for the fact that the boy is a truthful, industrious, and trustworthy lad, and were he'otherwiso he may have escaped the penalty now inflicted upon him, for he may have told the manager to go on the errand himself; but that is not his nature, hence his trouble. Knowing the facts we have taken some interest in the matter, and asked a solicitor to endeavor to get the fine remitted. This gentleman kindly consented to do what he could for the boy without fee, and the following noto explains the result of his kind endeavors: —“I have seen Mr Barton. He says, now that the conviction and fine are recorded, ho has no power, if he would, to remit the latter. Nor is there any sworn evidence before him to justify him in making any distinction in this case even if he had the power.” Here it will bo seen that the contentious

spirit of the law court shows itself most plainly, and there is no semblance of a disposition to regard the equity of the case, although only a paltry bye-law stands between the boy and “ British fair play.” The magistrate “has no sworn evidence before him.” Of course ho hasn’t, for he never asked

for it until it was too late. He knew what was required The boy didn't, and had no money to employ a solicitor even if he thought of doing so, which is very improbable. But such is “ British fair play ” in our courts of law sometimos. A demand has been made in writing for the payment of the fine in a courteous note from the Clerk of the Court, who says he “ would be sorry to have to take any further steps in the matter, and to do so would bo to add to your costs.” Well, what is the boy to do ? He cannot pay without indicting hardship on his mother, brothers, and sisters, and his duty towards them is a higher one than that he owes to the Court under the circumstances. It is, in our opinion, the magistrate’s duty to had a way for the boy out of his difficulty, and we wait developments in the hope that His Worship’s better nature will

get the better of his officialdom. It is a small matter, but it involves a largo principle, otherwise wo would pay the

line ourselves and have done with it; but wo want to see justice dispensed by rules of equity rather than law; and if magistrates have not the power at any stage of proceedings to do this, then the sooner the law is altered the belter.