CRIMINAL LAW.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2657, 12 October 1882, Page 3

CRIMINAL LAW.

In the New South Wales Legislative Council, the other day, when the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was ander discussion, there was a very interesting discussion on tho propriety of extending the provision for granting a new trial of misdemeanor cases to felony cases. Some excellent and eloquent speeches in favour of this reform were advanced, but the proposition was negatived by the large majority of 42 to 14. Among the arguments adduced by the minority were Gallon's case, the Tam worth conspiracy case, and the Sydney arson case, as gross perversions of justice. In reference to the Inst mentioned, Mr O’Connor stated that some of the most prominent men in Sydney had expressed their belief in Mr Bechet's innocence, and there was very little donbt that the conviction was owing to a very large measure to the one-sided charge to the jury which was [made by Mr Justice Windeyer. There was a man prepared to prove that the fire at Beohet’e was not the act of an incendiary, but the result of culpable negligence on the part of a servant, and in a short time the whole matter would be fully laid before the Attorney-General. There was the case of two detectives, or two policemen, who conspired for the sake of a reward against a man of a different race to ours. Two men in the Tamwarth district conspired for the sake of £IOO reward to deprive a Chinaman of his liberty. They took a sheep, killed it, and placed it in the tent of the Chinaman while he was at work. They then went and gave information that ho had done this felonious action, and had him arrested, tried, and convicted, and this unfortunate had to serve some time in gaol until it was so glaringly realised that he was innocent that he had to be released. If it had not been for a fortunate circumstance this Ohinaman would have been still in prison. That was one case in which, under the provisions of this Act, tbe man would be deprived of a new trial. The second instance was that of a man he knew well. His name was Parfitt, and he had a first class business in the city, and an unblemished reputation. Ho was torn away from his home and chained to one of the most infernal criminals in the colony, and ho suffered for many a weary month until his innocence was established by the most fortuitous circumstances. The doors of the gaol ware opened to him, and for tbe outrage upon him he obtained £SOO, and the man who twentyfive years ago was in an independent position was now a beggarman, Mr Levien corroborated the statement made by Mr O’Connor with regard to the conspiracy against tbe Chinaman in the Tamworth district, which he considered was one of the most diabolical oases that had ever taken place. The Crown gave the Ohinaman no relief, but Mr P. G. King took the matter up and had had the Ohinaman released, while the Peel River Company gave him £loo—a duty the Government ought to have performed when they found their officer had committed wilful perjury.