The Patea Mail. Established, 1875. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1888. NOT PROVEN.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 991, 31 January 1883, Page 2

The Patea Mail. Esta blished, 1875. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1888. NOT PROVEN.

Two charges of murder under circumstances of special atrocity have lately been tried simultaneously in the Supreme Court sittings at Oamaru and Auckland respectively. In the first case Alexander Beatty was accused of killing his wife with violence when the unfortunate woman was just recovering from the effects pf her confinement. In the cast} that at Auckland, a person:

named Priestly, a wonld-be teacher of religion, was charged, together with a woman, Mrs Hamilton, apparently his paramour, with lulling the husband of the latter. We do not intend to go into the details of the crimes, believing as we do with Mr Justice Gillies, that the records of the, minutiae of crime tend to make the commission of the crime itself more common. But on grounds oh public policy the results of these two trials need some comment. It is morally certain that in both cases, if the whole people of (he colony had been empannelled as a jury, and asked to decide as matter of fact and justice on the merits of the cases, the verdict would have been that of guilty ; and yet in both cases, on technical grounds, verdicts of not guilty have been recorded, and the accused are set free with full opportunity in the future to commit similar offences.'

This is most unsatisfactory. There is much wisdom in the old classical maxim —“ The judge is condemned when the guilty is absolved,” and in the administration of English criminal law it is tolerably certain that humanity and benevolence are stretched so far that the law is brought somewhat into contempt. The cases lately hoard in this colony seem to belong to that category. We do not assert for a moment, that the judges laid down the law, as it stands, erroneously, or that the juries gave wrong verdicts according to that law. But still if murderers and murderesses are from time to time to get off soot free upon trial, it is well to consider if it is not possible that there should be some alteration of our criminal law. For It is not as if the criminal law ot England was so manifestly sound that no improvement in it could bo made. On the contrary, no sooner do we cross the English channel to the nearest civilized countries at hand, than we find an entire difference. In France the casual hitches in the evidence which were fatal to verdicts of guilty, being pronounced here would have been easily supplied by the examination of the accused. In the administration of the criminal law of that country, so far from the accused being warned to say nothing that'may criminate biniself or herself one groat object of -the trial is to get him or her to do that very thing, and to make a full confession. The means, however, employed to extort that confession, are such as to act very harshly towards the prisoner. The counsel for the prosecution examines, and in that case it sometimes happens, and might often happen that an innocent person may inadvertently be entrapped by a clever barrister into saying what will really be most condemning admissions. In Germany also, the prisoner is examined with a view of giving an admission of guilt, but in this case the presiding judge is the examiner. And as judges are generally supposed to be, and usually are gentlemen of capacity, of integrity, and thoroughly impartial, it seems probable that the advantages of a distinct confession are often obtained, where otherwise the evidence would be considered to have broken down. It is known, indeed, that there have been cases where the charge has been in Germany sheeted homeagainst the prisoners where nevertheless . for want of some little piece of immaterial evidence, or from technical omission, the English law would have completely failed. A generation back, when Lord Cardigan was tried by the house of "Peers for murder in killing Captain Harvey Tuckelt in a duel the former had wantonly provoked, he was acquitted because the ordinary name by which the deceased went was not given in full, and he was not styled Captain Harvey Garrett Phipps Tuckelt. When each peer stood up in turn to give his verdict he said “ not guilty, upon my honor;” the Duke of Cleveland alone added the qualifying word, “not legally guilty, upon my honor.” And if we retain our present mode of dealing with criminal charges, some such qualification ought to be allowed. Perhaps the best plan would be to admit the Scotch verdict ot “not proven,” as well as that of guilty or not guilty. In that case, as at present, the demands of a strict but humane law would be fully satisfied, but at the same time prisoners actually guilty but not technically so, though escaping the penalty, would not escape the censure of the law. Madeline Smith, who was tried some years back in the celebrated poisoning case in Scotland, though not sentenced and hanged for the crime which she almost certainly committed, could never hold up her head again under that just verdict of “ not proven ” given in her case. Alexander Beatty, Poland Priestly, and Marion Hamilton within the last few days have been more lucky, but no one believes them less guilty, although they have the technical right to confront the world with brazen faces, as innocent people.