The Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1907. AN AMAZING JUDGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3769, 16 July 1907, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1907. AN AMAZING JUDGE.

—— ♦ On the whole, it may be assumed that even if Mr Justice Button, our latest puisne Judge, is a good lawyer, he is a pretty poor Judge. He has the requisite compassion for men in fairly good position and very little of the same judicial virtue for the small poor offender. In Wellington there wete two men. Both were trusted servants of large firms. One got a weekly salary of £5 10s and the other something over seven pounds per week. Both accused pleaded guilty to a charge of theft from their and the goods that were stolen were exchanged between the accused. Conspiracy. The man with the service of thirty years is a man well off in the world’s goods. He has a very handsome at the Hutt, near Wellington, and while he was answering to the charge preferred against him and to which he pleaded guilty, an expensive motorcar was on its wav out from England to him. It will be noticed that.this particular man, although he pleaded guilty, was a man of “good character.” An extract from the report of the Court proceedings : ofSt. James’ Church, Lower Hutt, said Whitton was a man of good character. He had long been a member of the vestry and a representative of the church on the synod.” It will be assumed that, this testifying- teacher of the gospel presumed that a- vestryman and a synodsman, although a self-accused thief, in some way was to be condemned lor an offence for which a drunken sinner down from the bush would surely have got three or five years. It will further be noticed that JusticeButton’s sympathies were entirely with the well-to-do thief, for he referred to him as “ a gentleman of Whitton’s standing.” Justice Button seemed to have made up his mind long before the end ot the case that the synodsman and vestryman. was a case for probation, and he admitted him to a year’s probation. In fact he admitted both well-to-do accused to a year's probation, unquestionably r because they were men of some financial status, and, at least, of seeming religious life. Even this obvious pandering to class would not have been so remarkable in a judge, if it had not been shown in another case how the judicial mind viewed the minor offender. The action of Mr. Justice Button in this case proves that he is unstable as the wind, and easily influenced. A young man had “ got a girl into trouble.” This is unfortunately common enough, although the papers do not as a rule speak quite bluntly about it. The young man was not “dishonourable,” as viewed by ordinary man standards. He married the girl. This, according to law, made any issue of the pair legitimate. But the young man, naturally perhaps, did

not want the world to know that • he had anticipated the cereitnny, and so he made a false .declaration under “The Marriage Act.” Viewed by ordinary standards, this does net seem to be a greater offence than fora well-to-do.synods-man and vestryman to rob his employer. His Amazing Honor, viewed this offence with alarm. He said he would give the young man (who according to our standard of morality had ‘‘done the square thing’ ”) fourteen days’ imprisonment. Counsel, also alarmed at the Judge’s attitude, pleaded that such a sentence would rob this young married man of his billet. The unworldly judge, apparently as innocent as a newborn babe of the attitude of employers towards “gaolbirds” actually asked how long did he think the man’s employers would hold the billet open for him while he was in gaol. Counsel possessing more common sense than the Judge, said that any period of goal would probably ruin the man’s chances, and this vacilating justice who appeared to be guided entirely by other people, at last admitted the man to probation. In this case a trivial offence of common assault, committed by the accused when he was a small boy, was brought up as damning evidence. We hold no brief for any person who commits any offence against the Jaw. We do not know that an injustice would have been done if this young married man had been sent to goal. But we do know, that there is something specially rotten in a judicial system that ignores the gravity of an offence if the offender is a pillar of the church and a “ man of good character,” but is morally horrorstricken at an offence committed by a person in humble circumstances. One housebreaker went to gaol for seven years at the same hearing, and another went to goal for eighteen months. We assert that the trusted servant who deliberately enters into a conspiracy to rob his employers, is a worse offender that the man who takes a bodily risk and breaks into a house. If the justice of Justice Button is impartial, God help the country.