The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5171, 18 October 1877, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1877.

The assault case, Hislop v. Mackay, and the judgment delivered therein at the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday, deserve comment. The case itself was peculiar in regard to the quantity of extraneous matter dragged into it. Thus the contention of Mr. Stout, for the complainant, was that he would have never written a letter practically calling the defendant a liar had it not been for a paragraph in the New Zealand Times. Mr. Stout is remarkable for connecting this journal with everything wrong under the sun, and an accident of time we must presume alone accounts for his not identifying it with the origin of evil. Mr. Stout also dragged the name of the Editor of this paper into his case, though the fact is that the Editor knew little and cared rather less about the matter. A paragraph about what the French would call “The Affair Hislop” did certainly appear in our columns, but as the evidence showed, that paragraph was the mere result of inquiries by a reporter, and was not substantially incorrect. Of course Mr. Stout was quite welcome to hud fault with the manner as well as the matter of the paragraph, but we must decline to accept him as an authority on such subjects until he himself learns to speak English, and gives up pronouncing the “o” in gross like the “o” in cross. However, this is but a small matter. Mr. Stout evidently traced the horsewhipping of Mr. Hislop to a paragraph in the New Zealand Times. Granting his counsel’s hypothesis, we at once proffer regret for having unwittingly led to an assault on Mr., Hislop. That gentleman has in body grown beyond the period of boyhood, and the assault upon him by Mr. Mackay, we may say at once, cannot be justified; bub really after an experience of the impertinences which Mr. Hislop in his place in the House continually throws out against those opposed to him, people are apt to wish that he were “a boy again,” in order that he might suffer the consequences usually entailed by such conduct. However, it is pretty evident that, from parliamentary and forensic custom, neither Mr. Stout nor Mr. Hislop regard the spreading of a false report about, a man, or the doubting of a man’s word, as anything outside the ordinary courtesies of society, and they are therefore scarcely accountable for not perceiving that men may at times be goaded into the commission of unjustifiable acts. Not that Mr. Hislop’s conduct justified Mr. Mackat’s breach of the peace. The M.H.R. evidently gave up to party what was meant for mankind, and, as he practically said, considered it his duty to carry about little stories in the interests of his party, and no doubt thought it a very trivial matter indeed that any of these stories should contain imputations against the honor and good name of any gentleman. There are plenty of people constituted like Mr. Hislop, and the best way for those injured by them to act is neither to seek redress by legal or physical means. Mr. Mackay did not appreciate the best way, and broke the law. For this he deserved punishment. It would never do if everyone who fancied himself wronged were to take the remedy into his own hands, and so create a reign of terror. But the justices of the peace who meted out punishment to Mr. Mackay will excuse us for saying that they went a great deal too far. Not long since an assault case was heard here, in which both parties occupied public positions, and in which twenty times the violence was given and received to what happened as between Messrs. Hislop and Mackay. The defendant was fined 40a. and costs. Day after, day we read of John Nokbs blacking Peter Stokes’ eyes, and getting off with a small fine, in default of imprisonment. For ourselves we think fines in assault cases are mistakes under nearly all circumstances, and that as a rule imprisonment should be inflicted. But the Bench in Wellington always seemed to think differently until yesterday, and then, in a perfect festival of virtue, it gave no warning note, but inflicted on Mr. Mackay a sentence which, to a man in his position and circumstances, cannot be measured by its mere period of seven days. Had the Bench in any previous assault case refused to fine, and inflicted a nominal term of imprisonment, at the same time intimating that in future the imprisonment'would be heavier, then wo say unhesitatingly that Mr. Mackay would have brought his punishment on his own head. But the Bench, after pursuing,an opposite course for years, all- at once found out that the law should nob be defied With impunity, and became Draconian in its severity. The storm of hisses which followed the delivery of the sentence was unbecoming a Court of Justice, but was not unnatural in the audience. Wo would fain think that the fact of the assaulted person being an M.H.R. had nothing to do with the severity of the sentence. Surely if scandal-bearing be as bad in an M.H.R. as in an ordinary citizen, there is no reason for supposing that the nether cuticle of a representative should be more tender than that of .a common mortal. Nor would it be fair to graduate punishment according to the rank of the complainant. To do so would initiate a sort of, criminal sliding scale, under which wo ■might kick a billsticker for five shillings, but dare not wag a finger at an M.H.R. under a less penalty than seven days’ imprisonment. We noticed that yesterday the Bench had added to its customary strength a member of the Upper House, (the Hon. Mr. Gray), who is not remarkable for devoting himself to the administration of justices’ justice in Wellington. As "the justices present . were stated to have j-’boeu unanimous in their opinion, no oVie need suppose that their sudden

abhorrence of assaults was caused by that gentleman: None the less, however, do we ehteri a protestj not against the due and proper punishment of assaults by imprisonment instead of fine, but against the ui.tor inconsistency which the Bench displayed. Had they yesterday declined to inflict a fine, and, hp.ving started on a new and proper course, had they, as a warning and intimation for the future, inflicted a nominal imprisonment of a few hours on Mr. Mackay, at the same time expressing their intention to inflict no nominal punishment in future, they would have done what all must have admitted as right and proper. Instead of that, they were seized with an awful sense of the evils of assault, and the proper dignity oi an M.H.R , and so almost irreparably injured a gentleman who, in service to the St-ite md as a citizen, is quite as good as Mr. Hislop.