THE CHATHAM MURDER CASE.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2312, 1 September 1881, Page 3

THE CHATHAM MURDER CASE.

[By Tblegbaph.] [fbom thb owh ooebbbpondbht ob' the " PBBSB."] WELLINGTON, August 31. The much talked of despatch from the Governor to the Seoretary of State regarding the commutation of the death sentence on Wharepa, was laid on the table of the Council to-day. It is dated only nine days back, viz., August 22nd, and is as follows : " My Lord—The 407th article of the Colonial Regulations provides that when a capital sentence is carried into execution in a colony the fact is to be reported by the Governor to the Secretary of State. No such report is required in a commutation of the sentence, and I did not, therefore, think it necessary to take up your Lordship's time by reporting that on the 11th January last, agreeably to the advice of the Premier, Mr Hall, but acting as directed by the eleventh paragraph of the Boyal instructions, according to my " own deliberate judgment," I commuted the sentenoe of death passed on a certain Te Wharepa, for the murder of his wife, into one of penal servitude for life. Mr Hall, the Premier, like myself, considered the sentence should be commuted, but the only two members of the Council (Messrs Whitaker and Dick) who attended its meeting were, on the on the other hand, desirous that Te Wharepa should bo executed. Two absent members of the Executive Council also telegraphed that they were in favor of oarrying out the sentence of death. The opinions of those gentlemen did not appear to me to possess all the weight which they would have had if delivered in Council after a oonsidoration and discussion of the arguments adduoed by me for a mitigation of the penalty, but they certainly show a preponderance of views unfavorable to the exercise of mercy in this instance among the members of the Council, and the case may thus be supposed to come within the 7th article of the Boyal Instructions, which directs the Governor to report the grounds and reasons of his action when, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Queen's letters patent, he acta in opposition to the advice of the Executive Council. I do not myself think that cases of this character are contemplated by that article, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy appearing to form a special subject of instruction exclusively dealt with by the 11th article, which itself points out the course to be followod by the Governor in the event of his commuting a capital sentence in opposition to a majority of his Council, but any doubt on the subject is sufficient to justify me in troubling your Lordship with respect to a mßtter of otherwise no interest beyond the colony, and as my Ministers are desirous that I should make such a report, with a view to its presentation to the local Legislature, I cannot have any reluotanco in oomplying with their wishes.—l have, &c, Abthub Gobdon." To this despatch is appended the following minute by the Governor :—" The Governor has carefully considered the papers on the case of Te Wharepa, sentenced to death for the murder of his wife. He has also duly weighed the opinion of the two members of the Executive Council who attonded the Board this day, as well as those of the other members communicatod to him by telegraph. The Governor has no doubt of the committal of the murder, or that the prisoner has legally, and his Excellency believes not unjustly, inourred the penalty of death ; but before deciding that that penalty shall be inflioted, his Excellency feels boucd to take into full account the following considerations : (1) That the prisoner was undefended ; (2) That the prisoner's history of the murdered woman and her adultery was not improbable; that it was generally supposed to be notorious ; that it was unquestionably believed by the prisoner, and apparently by the jury also, who would have recommended him to mercy had not the Judge forbidden them to do so. The first consideration has very groat weight with the Govornor. His Exoellency thinks that even the evidence given, adduced as it was wholly on behalf of the Crown, would have been sufficient to enable counsel to raise a possible presumption of manslaughter, it being alleged and apparently admitted that the woman had been banished from her husband's house, and was killed while endeavoring to foroe herself into it again aftor having been successfully repulsed in her attempts to force a passage by the door. It is quite impossi ble to say what might have been the verdict of the jury had this view of the oaee been put before them, or by what evi-

dence it might have been supported had a properly conducted defence been insisted on. Moreover had the prisoner been defended doubts may be entertained whether a successful resistance might not have been offered to the admission of the most important evidence against him, evidence which the Judge allowed to be given with manifest hesitation, first saying that ho would admit it if the prisoner consented to its reception (a course not altogether in accordance with that prescribed by the best English authorities), and subsequently (the prisoner having refused to do ttriß), admitting it at the request of the prosecutor, who in answer to a question from the Judge "took the responsibility" of the step. The second consideration of course has no legal value, nor does his Excellency attach to it all the weight which some might be inclined to do, but it is impossible to exclude it from all influence, when considering whe'Ler the circumstances are such as to permit or preclude the exercise by the Grown of the prerogative of mercy. It should not be forgotten that the jury desired to reoommend the prisoner to mercy on account of his wife's: misconduct, but wero directed by the Judge not to do so, there being no evidence on that point before them; that is to say, there having been no defence and no evidence given except for the prosocution, which was of. course not likely to adduce evidence exculpatory of the accused. Oa the whole, therefore, his Excellency cannot say that he is thoroughly satisfied that the murder was not the result of the struggle caused by the woman's efforts' to re-occupy her husband's houae, or that the case is one the circumstances of which preclude the Grown from sparing the life of the criminal. His Excellency, therefore, remits the penalty of death, as advised by the Hon. the Premier, commuting it to that of imprisonment for life, and directs the necessary papers to be made out accordingly. (Signed) A. Q., Q., Government house, Auckland. 11th January, 1881." This despatch and minute have met with a good deal of comment, and I understand that the subject is likely to be brought up in the House. The papers are not yet printed.