The Globe. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1876.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 721, 11 October 1876, Page 2

The Globe. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1876.

The cabman, Charles Crease, has had a most fortunate escape from paying the penalty which the law directs shall be indicted upon those who, through negligence or recklessness, cause loss of human life. While unwilling to say that his dismissal from custody on the charge of manslaughter is to be regretted, yet we cannot lose sight of the fact that the result of the proceedings initiated against the man, both in the Coroner’s Court and before the Resident Magistrate, has caused considerable surprise. As the case stood, the evidence was clear and uncontrovertible that Crease bad violated the law, when rushing from the stand to “ cut off” another cabman who was first on the line. This breach of the bye-law led directly to the lamentable accident by which Ellen Sullivan was run over and killed. The Coroner’s jury certainly returned a verdict of accidental death only, but this might have been caused by the loose kind of evidence which was tendered before them, and which the Coroner has the jurisdiction to receive, or by the mode in which he chose to sum up that evidence. Proceedings in a Coroner’s Court besides, are not needed to form the basis of a criminal prosecution in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Crease was brought up in custody in the latter Court and discharged, the police having informed the Bench that it was not their intention to offer any further evidence than that which had been adduced at the inquest. Manslaughter, as defined by recognised legal authorities, includes the “ killing without intention, while “ doing another act, if the other act is “ in itself unlawful; and even although “ the act is not unlawful, if it be done “ in an unlawful or reckless manner. “ In the pursuit of lawful avocations, “ great recklessness may render the “ party criminally responsible, and “ persons doing certain acts in public “ places likely to cause danger may he “ guilty of murder or manslaughter.” It was brought out in evidence before the Coroner’s jury that such a byelaw existed which provided that the first cab on the line should go for the fare. And his Worship the Mayor has stated in the City Council that he had instructed that action should be taken against the cabman in question. Eurther, we find that the principal witness at the inquest said that both cabmen drove round the corner near the Cathedral at a furious pace. Taking all this into consideration, we fail to understand how the police withdrew the case, before, at all events, the Bench had gone into some of its particulars. Whether a committal had resulted from the examination or not, matters little. But, considering the frequency of these cases of furious driving and of reckless turning round corners in the populous centres of the city, it would have been well had the matter been thoroughly ventilated, and the law on the subject, with all its consequent penalties, been placed clearly before the eyes of the public. As disclosed by the newspaper reports of the proceedings in the Coroner’s and the Magistrate’s Courts, S soma people might infer that, in this unfortunate occurrence, no one has been to blame, and that no law exists which touches the case. It is not so, and it is beyond doubt that the foolish | cabman— who, we trust, has received a lesson he will not soon forget—made himself amenable to severe punishment.

The perusal of the report of the doings of the House of Eepresentatives yesterday, when going into Committee of Supply, shows that, at last the most important and delicate work of the session is under discussion. We refer to the financial state of the colony. As was long expected, Mr. Montgomery opened the ball, and, in an apparently well-matured speech, he probed to a great depth—and perhaps to an extent not at all relished by some parties concerned t’v position of the colony wit u reference to its present .indelnwdness and future prospect? of .Joboncj. Till the full report ie before ua it is impossible to enter upon a discussion of the in the debate. No one accused Mr Montgomery of being an adept at political croaking. The Hon Mr Waterhouse,Cassander-like, has always, especially of late, prophecied all sorts ox dreadful things for poor, over-taxed, gambling New Zealand. But thus cannot be said of Mr Montgomery and those who generally take the same view which he does of the finances of the colony. While accepting the policy of immigration and public works, he has advised prudence in its administration The time has now coma when we must pull up and balance the ledger. Cue more millions are at likely

to be borrowed, and authority for the raising of one will most certainly be given this session. We are not disposed to take a gloomy view of the position of Colonial finance, but we fully endorse Mr. Montgomery’s desire that the accounts should be laid tie fore the colony in a less intricate manner than they are at present. It is impossible to feel other than distrustful of our position, when our leading financiers cannot even agree as to whether we begin the year with a debit or credit balance. When Mr. Montgomery states that the Colonial Treasurer is wrong in his figures to so great an extent that, so far from there being an available balance of £50,000 to begin the year with, there exists a positive deficit, his opinion is entitled to considerable respect, Whether in private life or in regard to public affairs, the question of L. S. D. is a momentous one. At the present moment New Zealand is the most heavily taxed country in the world, and there must be a limit to the breaking strain somewhere. We are glad Mr Montgomery has had the courage to face the difficulty of the colony, and advocate a tax on property. We have on more than one occasion urged the necessity of the imposition of this tax. The holders of property have reaped a rich harvest from the expenditure of the borrowed millions, and it is only just and right that property should be called on to pay a share of the interest. But we do not purpose in the present article to discuss all the points raised in the debate last night till a full report of the speeches is before us.