SATURDAY, JUNE 12, 1897. A RASH CONCLUSION.

Hastings Standard, Issue 346, 12 June 1897, Page 2

SATURDAY, JUNE 12, 1897. A RASH CONCLUSION.

A rather peculiar case came up at the Dunedin Police Court a day or two ago, when a respectable-looking lad was charged with obtaining £4 by means of false pretencSs. He was working for a fanner, who paid him when he left his employ. The farmer thought he gave him a £5 note and three single notes. The lad afterwards discovered that he had only received £4, and on representing the matter to the farmer's wife she gave him a £5 note, getting back £l. She told her husband on his return, aud as he could not believe he had made a mistake he gave information to the police, and the boy was arrested on arriving in town. He had two £5 notes on him, but it was shown that one of them was got in withdrawing his money from the savings bank at Balclutha. The police asked to be allowed to withdraw the charge, ajid after counsel had commented on the hardship of the -case and the rashness of the prosecutor, who had discovered his mistake, the Bench said the la.d left the Court without a stain on his character. The misfortune of the lad merits more than passing reference. The Press Association very considerately suppressed the name of the accused in its telegraphic message, but we do not think there was any moral obligation to conceal the name of the farmer who was the accuser. The profound belief of the farmer in his own infallibility led to the harsh treatment of an innocent lad, and the pronouncement of the Bench that he left the Court without a stain on his character, though true enough, scarcely removes the stigma. The fact of the lad's arrest on tbe serious charge of false pretences is recorded against him in the black budget of the police and he is always liable to be taunted with the circumstances of his arrest by everyone who is disposed to cast stones at him. Furthermore, should the lad ever again fall into the hands of thi police, a circumstance which appears improbable by the proved honesty of the boy, the present case will stand against him, notwithstanding that he has been proved to be entirely blameless and absolutely in-

noeent. The rashness of the farmer deserves to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. He might have done something in the way of reparation, and shown that he was at least sorry for having made a mistake. It would have been a graceful act had he, for instance, appeared in Court and tendered a full apology to the lad in public. The farmer made a mistake in believing that it was impossible that he could make a mistake, and he certainly would have done the correct thing had he openly admitted his error. In handling money some people labor under the mistaken notion that it is impossible for them to make a miscalculation, consequently when a sovereign goes astray they at once jump to the conclusion that someone has robbed them, the law is set in motion, and the lost sovereign is discovered to have never left its owner; but it turns up too late to prevent the arrest of some innocent person. There ought to be some redress for a person placed in the unfortunate position of the Dunedin lad. The certificate of the Court as to his character not being stained by the fact of his arrest is insufficient. A claim for damages ought to lie against the wrongful accuser, who under present conditions has merely to admit that he was mistaken to escape all punishment for his rash and hasty conduct. The experience of the Dunedin lad might be the experience of any otre of us, for who can tell the day he may be made the butt of some foolish mistake such as has been proved in the case under review. If we give a personal application to the case we should feel that there ought to be some material form of redress besides the Court certificate of almost meaningless words. The lad was told that he left the Court without a stain on his character, and that is all the redress he can get. It is not sufficient. No doubt in this case there is something to be said for the farmer. He honestly believed that the lad received the money from him ; but before he took the extreme course of setting the police to work he should have made sure that he was not mistaken. If there was present before him the knowledge that if he wrongfully accused the lad he rendered himself liable for a claim for damages it is not unreasonable to suppose that he would have taken some pains to ascertain that he himself had made no mistake about the loss of the money or the payment of it.