Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 1863.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume III, Issue 134, 7 August 1863, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 1863.

That undeniable and most inexplicable contradictions are to be found in great numbers in the Statute books of the land is a fact. If we, the modern recipients of the benefits arising out of Magna Charta, and other important measures of that sort, cannot see, at first glance, anything very clear or satisfactory therein, or at all events, what ought to be clear and satisfactory, is so hampered and incumbered by the accumulated dust and corruption of ages that it is nearly lost; it is no wonder that our statesmen of New Zealand should think it necessary to revise the code of laws which has obtained amongst ourselves from time immemorial, and endeavor to render it intelligible to our brown brethren the Maories. But while we admit that it is highly desirable that the crooked ways of the law should be made straight, and the dark and hidden mysteries should be brought to light and explained, or rendered more explainable, to the benighted native, we are compelled to admit nlsn, that the same benevolent and philanthropic spirit which goes forth in search of the truthful and the just for the especial benefit of our aboriginal brethren, should extend in its ramifications and its effects to us, their, in other respects, more fortunate compeers. That in the eye of the law, guilt is often confounded with innocence and escapes punishment, and that innocence is often and unintentionally punished, is but too true, and of frequent occurrence. But that the law cannot distinguish between him who unfortunately came within its clutches, through ignorance of its existence, and not from a desire to commit a breach of it, and he who “ knowingly and with intent feloniously doth,” &c., break the bounds fixed and ordained by society as a safeguard and protection against evil doers, seems almost incomprehensible. That such instances are rare, and that cases of the kind seldom occur, there can be no doubt, but that they do occur is shown in the very remarkable case, Regina v. Morecroft , tried before his Honor Judge Johnston the other day in the Supreme Court sitting at Napier. The particulars of this case are, no doubt, well-known to most of our readers, for it has excited great interest and much sympathy for the defendant, he being a gentleman long resident amongst us. and highly respected and esteemed. The circumstances, however, are substantially these. It appears in evidence that on a certain day, Mr. Morecroft, being on his way to Napier, met the postman (a native, and requested him to give him (Morecroft) the letter bag addressed to the post office near which lie resided for the purpose of taking out his own letters. This was accordingly done, and the defendant endorsed the Letter Bill to that effect. Here then, in this act which was committed by the defendant, by way of showing that he had no felonious intention in opening the mail bag, was found the evidence of his having opened the bag. he being unauthorized to do

so, and, consequently of his having cbmmitted a breach of the “ Post Office Act,” which Act sets forth that if any person does “ opep, injure, or destroy, any of her Majesty’s Mails,” he shall he subject to certain penalties which are stated. But in this particular case, although we admit that the whole of the proceedings on the part of the prosecutor, the Judge, and the Jury, were all correct and according to the laws in that case made and provided, and under the circumstances of the Mail bags being constantly subject to this irregular proceeding, it was highly necessary to make an example, still it seems to indicate that the law itself is defective (probably not alone in this particular law) in not making distinction between one who is unquestionably fnnocent of all felonious intent, and one who is just as unquestionably a great rascal. That it is fortunate in the interests of lovers of law and order that Mr. Judge Johnston occasionally gives us a . look in to set matters to rights here, no one, we are inclined to think, will for one moment doubt or dispute, and that, in passing sentence of one month’s imprisonment upon Mr. Morecroft, he (the Judge) did so because, whatever his private opinions and sentiments upon the question of the intentions of the defendant might be, he was bound, as a fair, impartial, and able administrator of justice, to pass the sentence prescribed by. the law, entirely irrespective of merely presumptive conclusions, which might or might not be arrived at.

It is high time that the irregularities which are continually recurring in our Public Department should be stopped. Justice itself is dealt out in our local courts in a very extraordinary, free-and-easy style ; it may not be the worse justice in the abstract for that, but still the surroundings of this sort of thing should be in keeping, not with the mere taste of the administrator so much as with the importance of the cause and occasion which gives rise to the necessity for the existence of that administration. In short, we have often had occasion to point out the wretched state of the Public Departments here, and we repeat that we receive occasional visits from a Judge learned in the law so as to keep our small fry of lesser luminaries a little in order : but for that, Magna Charta would have been obtained in vain, the Habeus Corpus Act would soon become a dead letter, and Blackstone’s Commentaries would be as worthless dust and ashes ; Cooke might sit upon Lyttelton to all eternity, and the great lights of the law which have shone for ages and are shining now, would be extinguished here, and the luckless offender against them would receive scant and small justice.