Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A great deal of fuss has been lately made in Northern papers about a certain Sergeant King, of the Armed Constabulary, who, it appears, was wrongly convicted by a Board of Officers at Tauranga, and we republished a few days ago an article from the Herald, in whicli his case was made a handle to declaim against the tyranny of the Native Office. The sergeant was imprisoned wrongfully ; of that there is no doubt; but in stating a case of this kind, it would be as well if leading journals were to acquaint themselves with facts before generalising on surmises. The matter stands thus. Sergeant Kino, a man of {food character, forgot himself so much as to publicly

insult his officer. This may seem a venial offence, but in reality, where discipline is concerned, it is a very bad one; and, whether we call our armed force constabulary, or police, or soldiers, discipline in it must be strictly kept up for the good of the community at large. In accordance with the Armed Constabulary Act of 1871, the officers commanding the district summoned a board of officers, two of whom belonged to the militia, the third only being in the constabulary. Sergeant King was found guilty and sentenced, under the 20th section of the Act, to be reduced from his rank, to be fined five pounds, and to be imprisoned for three months, with hard labor. The three last words, though there were other technical objections to the sentence, invalidated it at once, for the 20th section provides only for imprisonment, and not for imprisonment with hard labor. Such are the bare facts of the case, and whatever blame is to be imputed to the officers composing the board for their ignorance of the law, it is absurd to throw any upon higher authorities, especially as the proceedings of such courts are not liable to revision by any superior officer. Sergeant King was wrongfully convicted ; but that does not in any way palliate the offence of which he was apparently guilty, and which, in no body of men arrayed together under the bonds of discipline, could be passed over without injury to the rest of the force.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18750510.2.26

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4411, 10 May 1875, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
367

Untitled New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4411, 10 May 1875, Page 4

Untitled New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4411, 10 May 1875, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert