The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, JAN. 2, 1882.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVII, Issue 6505, 2 January 1882, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, JAN. 2, 1882.

Two recent Magisterial decisions call, by their remarkable contrast, for comment. One was in the ease of the Hon O. J. Pharazyn, charged with doublevoting at the late elections ,in Wellington. The other was in the case of certain persons charged at New Plymouth with having stolen cattle, the property of some Paribaka Natives. Mr Pharazyn, who had a vote in each of two contiguous districts, pleaded that he had made a mistake. Under the mistaken idea that he was voting in two districts, he voted actually twice in one. The Court never for a moment entertained any doubt of the truth of this explanation. The Court resolved, nevertheless, to send the case for trial, holding that its duty was not to go further with the subject than it presented itself jprimd facie. So poor Mr Pharazyn finds himself committed to take his trial on a charge involving a very serious penalty on conviction; and is probably ruminating somewhat ruefully on the unexpected dangers which attend the practice of plural voting. In the Taranaki case, the accused, like Mr Pharazyn, could not deny the fact. They pleaded, also like Mr Pharazyn, that they bad made a mistake. Under the mistaken idea that certain cattle which, had been found alter search and yarded were theirs, they had killed them for the supply of the, Armed Constabulary Force at Pungarehn, for which two of the 'accused were the contractors. The Benoh, like

the correctness, of the explanation. Unlike the Wellington Bench, the New Plymouth Magistrates determined to deal with the case themselves. Accordingly theaccnsed were discharged, with the intimation that no felonious intent was proved prima\ facie, but that the owners of the slaughtered cattle have still, if necessary, their remedy by civil action. One curious feature of the New Plymouth case, the proceedings in which we reprint from a local contemporary in' another column, is that the Magistrates did not appear to be quite satisfied with their decision. They told the accused, in discharging them, that the evidence disclosed “considerable carelessness in the selection of cattle for slaughter.” They further informed them that people ought to be “ very careful, before killing a beast, to be quite sure that there is no doubt that they have authority to do so, otherwise they cannot complain if they are, in consequence of their carelessness, put to the risk and expense of a criminal investigation, and may be a trial.” It is impossible to understand how the gentlemen who used this language could have felt that no primd fade case had been made out against the accused. They had been found by the owners in possession of their cattle, two of which had been, and one of which was about to be, slaughtered. They did not liberate the latter, after being claimed by its owner, until a police officer came on the scene. Two of the accused bad out off the ears of the dead beasts, admittedly “ to avoid trouble with the Maories.” The cattle killed were working bullocks, whereas the cattle which had got away

on a previous occasion, and were being sought, were not. The cattle were in addition killed* for sale. And all this took place under a system of carelessness, which the Magistrates themselves say they look upon as calculated to send men to the Supreme Court to take their trial on a serious criminal charge. If that collection of facts does not make a primd facie case there never was a primd facie case made out. We do not for a moment say there was anything more. On the contrary, there is much in the evidence to sustain the plea of the accused that they acted in error. But the Bench was not the proper authority to decide the question. It was a question for a jury. The law does not allow suspicious circumstances to be explained away before Magistrates. Yery wisely, because the bulk of the primd facie cases are based on suspicious circumstances. Were it otherwise, the Resident Magistrates would be constantly usurping the functions of the Supreme Court. The New Plymouth Magistrates did not usurp these functions directly. They preferred the roundabout process of declaring that no case had been primd, facie made out. But that, as anyone who reads the case will see, is a transparent absurdity. Those who read will also see that the Magistrates, in justifying their conduct, floundered terribly, and showed that they were not very much in love with their decision. They admitted that the conduct of some of the defendants —servants of the others — is “ inexplicable,” and they, as we before observed, severely criticised the laxness *.# • aI. it a ' 4/iAW />

fraud. Magistrates who have not tho power to decide when a primd facie cate made out ia surrounded by facts which are clear, have not any more power when the facta are inexplicable. Tho Minister of Juetioe should enquire into this matter as ho did into tho Celebrated oaseof Augustus a few months ago. Ho ought to know that in the two recent cases the Wellington Bench was right and tho New Plymouth Bench was wrong. The one confined itself to its proper sphere as a Court of preliminary 'enquiry, while the other usurped the functions of the Supreme Court. While ho is about it, he. may as well enquire also how it is that Mr Parris came to be on the Bench at all. One Resident Magistrate and three Justices ought surely to be enough to try anything. Mr Parris, moreover, showed himself during Te Whiti’s trial quite unworthy to be ever allowed to sit on the Bench again. By the way, the general public, who are aware that every where else the economical policy of the day has made the R.M. a rare bird, would like to know how it is that at New Plymouth they can turn out a brace of R.M.’s whenever they please. The Minister of Justice, having satisfied himself about Mr Parris, should further enquire whether Messrs Bay ley and Elliott, who sat on the Benoh, are not related by marriage to. the Penningtons, who were the chief among the accused before the Court. If the prosecutors had been Europeans, we feel no doubt. that the Minister would have this, strange ease very oarefnlly overhauled. But as they are only Maories, the probability is that we shall hear nothing more of the matter. The Government, it will be said, ordered the prosecution in the first instance. We may ask in return who packed the Benoh P The whole matter is in a nutshell. It is not a question of the guilt or innocence of any person accused of cattle stealing. A bench of Magistrates has greatly exceeded its powers. The question is, what notice shall he taken of the fact P