New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, JULY 4, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5079, 4 July 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, JULY 4, 1877.

The Grand Jury haying found no true bill in the criminal libel case Hillsden v. Powell the matter is no longer suhjiulice, and comment may be made on certain circumstances' in connection with the case, but having no real bearing as regards the parties to it themselves. Those circumstances will be found in the somewhat extraordinary evidence given by Farrell, the detective, at the Resident Magistrate’s Court at the time Powell was committed for trial. Farrell’s evidence elicited a. number of letters addressed to the Editor of this paper, but not published, lest anything might seem to be done prejudicial to justice ; and it also elicited warm comment in the Dunedin and other provincial papers, which comment we did not care to reproduce, being actuated by the same motives which induced us to deny publicity to the letters previously mentioned. But now, however, that the case is practically at an end, we may, without in the least entering into its merits as between Hillsden and Powell, point to the evidence of Farrell, and draw attention to it as evidencing a code .of legal morality on the part of one detective at least in this colony as dangerous as it seems false. We find that Mr. Hillsden, who is well known here as the secretary to the Public Hall Company, and "who has received more than one flattering testimony to his efficiency and, trustworthiness from his directors, found that those directors were in receipt of letters accusing him, in plain English, of robbing them, and promising, if necessary, to give full explanations on the matter. Naturally enough, Hillsden wished to discover and punish the person accusing him, as he felt convinced, falsely ; . but what initiatory steps he took towards the discovery of this person we are unaware. However, the at the .Resident Magistrate’s Court shows that the services of Detective Farrell (a kind of deus ex machina ) were early imported into the matter, and the evidence of that officer shows that this was the way he went about finding out who wrote the letter against Hillsden. In his modesty he did not. use. the customary police preliminary of saying “ from information received,” but plunged at once, into business by saying - ’ ’

I went to Powell’s house, and asked him if I could speak to him privately. He replied in the affirmative. We then went into the back room. There I told the defendant that I had a letter from Mr. Simonsen. of the Opera Troupe, then in Queensland, respecting two goblets Mr. Simonsen lost during his New Zealand tour.. >1 asked him for information respecting these goblets. He said he was anxious to oblige me, and would tell me all he knew about them. The last place he saw them was in the Auckland theatre, and he believed they were left there.

As Farrell never had had a letter from Jlr. Simonsen, the above statement of his to Powell was simply a little fiction; for the purpose of obtaining an introduction, we must presume. In other words, it was a .lie, told, we must suppose, in order to find out if Powell had been the writer of lies about Hillsden,- and told in all probability with a smiling, simpering soft air of innocence, sufficient to convince Powell that' in 'Farrell, he had met a bobby “indeed without guile.” Having apparently effected his object, Farrell next said in evidence— I then stopped the conversation, and turning to another subject said, >“ Have you heard anything about Mr.; Hillsden, I believe he is getting into a nice mess.” He asked what was the.m tter.- I said'things appeared to be going crooked at’ the Theatre. 1 told him that some of the directors had been speaking to me, not Dr. Johnston, but Mr. Krull and others. In answer to a question’from mo, he said he had been, working in the Theatre, but’not lately. I said I was puzzled how to proceed, being afraid to trust the check-takers. He then put up his left-hand, and said that his fingers were illustrative of the position of' affairs at the Theatre—the che-k-takers were in league, and if he spoke to one the. others would be aware of it. He said he would assist me, and I then left, promising to return next night. I went according to promise. Powell said to me he believed Hillsden was the real lessee of the Theatre, and used Howard’s name ai a- , cloak. He also said Hillsden must bo in league with the money and check takers, because he could not act dishonestly witho v . * is being in their confidence; that when the checKs were handed at the door Hillsden must go to’the check-taker, take from him a certain number of checks, give them back to the man in the box, and .'sell'them over again. He said every five checks made a pound, and during a season like the present Hillsden could very easily, take from.his employers about £2O a week without being’found'out. I asked him how Mr. Hillsden was paid. He replied that Hillsden got £IOO a year from the Public Hall Co., and £3 a week from .the lessee of the theatre, with house and fuel free, besides what hb made in other ways. He then said if Ilillsden made a slip now he (Powell) would get his billet. I said, “-You can bet your life he will slip -before ho is out of my bandS.” At this stage I pretended that I had cut off the top of my thumb, which I had covered in a handkerchief, and on obtaining a sheet of notepaper fronj the r landlord, asked Powell to. write a letter for me re the lost goblets I had been speaking about. He complied with my request. |lle wrote the letter produced which 1 hold in my hand. I carefully compared it with the other/lcttou and" found the writing to bo precisely similar.' I then told Powell that the directors of the Public Hull Company were in difficulty about getting another secretary, and told him that 1 had recommended him'to Dr. JohUston as a competent man, and advised him to make a written application. In order to avoid delay he wrote a letter at once, and by my advice addressed it to Dr. Johnston. I took it, and promised to deliver it myself to'Dr, Johnston. I kept my promise.” Now it will bo noticed from the above evidence that Farrell from first to last acted iu the same manner, stuck at no; species of untruth in order to get Powell to criminate himself. His mode of procedure was unquestionably clever; that it was one which should recommend itself to right-minded people is another question altogether. It seems to us that by using absolute fraud' and trickery, that is by telling consistently what was not true, by committing a moral if not’a legal, crime, ho endeavored’to entrap Powell into admissions and acts that would criminate him. To see the result of this mode of procedure, lot us suppose, as seems now to be justified, that Powell did not write the letters against Hillsden, yet’ entertained opinions similar to those expressed in the letters. Then Farrell goes to him, tells him deliberate untruths, and by doing so extracts from him his opinion, and induces him to apply for Hillsden’s situation, having 'first assured him- that that situation will be vacant. Had Farrell

been the keeper of a private detective office instead of an officer of the law, and had he undertaken on the usual terms to ferret out the business for Mr. Hillsden, his mode of procedure would have been none the less wrong morally, but,would not have been fraught with such dangerous consequences to society. We very much mistake had the case Powell v. Hillsden proceeded to trial, if Farrell would not have heard some opinions as to his conduct from the presiding Judge which would, at least have been unpalatable, though they might not have altered his opinion as to the rectitude of his own conduct. For it is noticeable that Farrell is evidently possessed of a very high idea of his probity. When asked by Mr. Buckley if it was not the duty of a constable to warn the prisoner beforehand, Farrell said, “ I had not the slightest notion that Powell was likely to be a prisoner at the time. I had a perfect right to act as I did.” Now, to our mind, this only aggravates Farrell’s offence. Had he been convinced in his own mind that Powell was guilty, he might have reasoned with himself thus ; “ Here is a man stabbing in the dark, and wounding in the moat treacherous manner ; there can be no harm in meeting trickery by trickery.” But his evidence on oath is in effect that when he commenced talking to Powell he believed that person quite innocent. He therefore stands selfconvicted of having used the most despicable means to entrap a man of whom he himself says ‘‘ he had not the' slightest notion that he was likely to be a prisoner.” But perhaps Mr. Farrell, whose innocent wisdom is remarkable, may have meant by this that he did not think Powell was to be proceeded against criminally, and, that only a civil action was likely to ensue. His ingenious answer that he had not the slightest notion that Powell was likely to be a prisoner will tit in with this asssumption. If such be the case, however, the matter is worse for Farrell, for it is scarcely yet the duty of the police to be employed in getting up evidence for civil actions. We are sure that everyone who considers this case will agree with the opinion we have expressed. If necessary we could qnofe cases in which Judges and Magistrates have expressed themselves strongly against practices such as those pursued by Farrell in. the case Hillsden v. Powell, but we need not do so. In writing of this matter we have done so out of no desire to comment on Farrell’s conduct otherwise than as comment should be fairly made on the acts of a public servant such as he is. We have written plainly in so commenting, because we have thought it best to be plain, and we shall be too happy to be shown that we are wrong. In the meantime, wo think that we are right, and that we have but expressed the opinions which every right-minded man would express under the circumstances. In the meantime, also, we congratulate Detective Farrell on having his merits so recognised by the police authorities under the new regime, as! to have recently received promotion, and an advance of wages, which makes him next to the Inspector the highest paid police officer in the Wellington district.