THE Manamatu Herald. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1879. RECENT COURT CASES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume i, Issue 52, 25 February 1879, Page 2

THE Manamatu Herald. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1879. RECENT COURT CASES.

In another column will be "found reports of two cases heard at ihe Resident Magistrate's Court, on Friday last, before R. Ward, Esq.,E. M. The same individual -was charged in each case— in the first, with stealing a horse ; in the second, with stealingtwo revolvers The- first charge was brought against Bellwood by William Langley, who has of late in various ways figured largely before the Court. The evidence for the prosecution went to show that Langley had lent the young man a horse to reach Fox- | ton, and on arrival here he found it had been taken on. He at once laid an iaformation, charging Bellwood with having stolen the horse ; he was arrested at Bulls, and remanded to Foxton. The prosecution endeavored to prove that Beliwood had openly stated the horse was his, he having bought it. To prove this, they first called Mr Chas. Howe, and to confirm his evidence, a man named Itonicles was placed in the box. Upon being asked whether Bellwood had said he bought the horse, Itonicles flatly denied having heard him say so ; but at a subsequent atage he expressed his willingness to swear that Bellwood had told him ho bought the horse at Otaki. Considering the circumstances under which this latter evidence was given, his Worship refused to attach any importance to it, and gave the prisoner the benefit of* the doubt. The statement of the accused man, however, is a very singular one. According to his story, both himself and Langley had arranged to go to Napier ; and he came on before, in order to await Langley's arrival ; when, the latter not putting in an appearance, he proceeded on in the direction of Waneanui, which had been appointed a rendezvous. About Bellwood's story, there is a certain air of probability. At the same time we believe this did not weigh at all with the Bench. The ground of his acquittal was the fact that no evidence was brought forward calculated to fix any felonious intention upon him. Upon this part of the case our readers can draw their own inferences.

But the second case is, in a certain sense, a more important one, and we desire to^ direct special attention to it. During a conversation between Constable Purcell and Langley, the former stated that Bellvrood had pawned or sold two revolvers whilst

in Foxfccm. Langloy a*; one*} r.JuinAod thorn as his property j aikt said tlioy must have been stolen, giving aocutato descriptions of thorn. l''ov some reason, • however, he cloclinocl to layj an information ngains^ I> ell wood. : The x>olico thorofovd tooK: i\\'& matter inhand> and ttb.jtfged Bellwood with having stolen the arms. Upon being placod in the witness -box, Langley .swore that he had since learned that hisjlittle son had made apreaent of tbft revolvers to Bellwood'j lie therefore disclaimed ownership ; and the case was di&nrissed. Constable Purcell Was naturally indignant at the way in which (as he said) the police had been " gulled," and asked that Langley might be ordered to pay tlie costs of the cases> as ho Md ' " sold" the police. His "VVorship commended the police for their prompt action, and said the cases had broken down through no fault on their parh Ele had no power to ftwartl costs against Lan3jley\ If he had, he would certainty exercise ifc. This opens up a question of great importance. It 13 quite time, we think> that some pi'p^ vision were made by which persons who bring foolish and trumped-up charges again3t others should be made to suffer for their folly, or whatever else it may bo. In tho cases wo are considering' the wliolo expenses merely amounted about £2 12s. They might easily have been twenty times that amount. Tlin conntry is made to suffer, a man is arraigned upon an indictable offence* numerous officials are put to great trouble, all because in a hasty and ill-advised manner, one man chooses to rnako random charges against another. The same thing is occur* ring in all parts of the colony, and thousands of pounds are lost each 3'ear to the revenue by reason of it. It may be said, of course, that if there were any danger of a man having to pay costs if the case broke down, many would prefer to allow criminals to escape rather than lay the necessary "information or complaint" We believe, however, that our Magistrates are sufficiently skilled to discover at a glance whether a man has a" fair' right to suspect another. Wo think the power should be given to them to say whether they consider one man was justified in charging another with a crime ; arid if lie was not so justified, then he should be made to pay the expenses. In the present instance, Langley at once most willingly consented to pay the costs, as the readiest way to get rid of what was evidently an unpleasant topic. Looking critically at the case, we think there is more in it than appears on the surface, and we shall not be surprised if we hoar more of it on some future occasion. Certainly, we draw the moral from it, that legislation is required to give the Beu<sh power in such trumped-up caso9 to order the complainant to b ;i ar the cost. Many persons make equally frivolous charges as thoso made by LanylG3 r , who are not so willing; to pay the expenses as ho proved himself to be. .