The Patea Mail. Established 1875. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1883. LONGHURST’S CASE.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1090, 24 September 1883, Page 2

The Patea Mail. Established 1875. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1883. LONGHURST’S CASE.

The case of the prisoner Longhurst is once more , exciting a good deal of attention throughout the colony. It will be remembered that shortly before the close of the session the House pressed the Minister for Justice to favourably reconsider the case, and he promised to do so. That promise has been condemned as weak, because Mr Connolly had previously stated that he had no doubt whatever about Longhurst’s guilt. The circumstances of the whole case are, however, so extraordinary, that we can hardly blame the Minister for acceding to the request of the House. Bat, for all that, the interference of the House is, we think, injudicious in the extreme. Longhurst’s case has been considered over and over again by the Government and the judges, and, after calm deliberation, they have decided that the conviction was just. If, therefore, the Minister consents to his release, it will be through the pressure brought to bear by the House of Representatives. Members of the House cannot have had the same opportunities for earnest consideration of the case as the Government and judges, and their action is the result of sympathy rather than investigation. And no doubt sympathy with the condemned man has been very strong, owing principally to the trial of Adams for perjury which resulted in a conviction, although punishment was escaped through a technicality. The Governor is said to be personally reviewing the Longhurst case, his assistance in the difficulty having been sought by Ministers. A somewhat similar case occurred some years ago when Sir George Grey was Governor, the particulars of which are recorded by a southern paper. A man named Tricker was condemned to death for the murder of a gentleman at Rangitikei. Immediately after the conviction, circumstances came to light which impugned the veracity of one of the chief witnesses for the prosecution. The convict was respited, and the witness was tried for perjury, and convicted. Still there remained sufficient proof of Tricker’s guilt, without the evidence of the peijdrer, to satisfy many minds, including that of the convicting judge. At the same time, there was no denying the fact that the conviction had been obtained in part on perjured evidence. There was tremendous excitement about the case. Politicians took it up and made capital of it. Petitions poured in on the Government. Meetings were held, and violent resolutions passed, and every day the difficulty became greater. The Ministers were completely puzzled to know what to do. The wretched convict was all the while in suspense, not knowing whether at any moment he might not receive notice of the hour of his execution. The Government dared not give the order to the sheriff lest they should put an innocent man to death. Yet they dared not release the convict lest they should turn a blood-stained murderer loose on society, and imperil the lives of the witnesses for the prosecution, whom Tricker was said to have sworn to be revenged upon.. Months passed away and still Ministers could not decide; still the excitemen tcont inucd,antl still the convict remained under the shadow of the gallows. gAt length an end was brought about in this strange manner. Sir George Grey received an anonymous letter, reminding him that the preogative of life and death had been invested in him personally by the Queen, and imploring him in the most earnest

language not to shrink from the performance of a duty, for the faithful performance of which he was answerable to his Sovereign and his God. The letter betrayed no bias, either for or against Tricker. It merely pointed out the imperative duty of the Governor to cause the sentence of the law to be carried out if he held Tricker guilty | or to release him if he held him innocent. Sir George was powerfully affected by the letter. He sent the letter to his Ministers and commanded them forthwith to advise him as to the disposal of the convict. Mr Whitaker then took a most remarkable step. He declared that Ministers could not decide cither to release Tricker or leave him fur execution, and he advised the Governor to commute the sentence for one of penal servitude for life. The Governor acted on this advice without remark. As our contemporary points out either Tricker was guilty ornot guilty and ought to have been hanged or set at liberty. This was so clear that Ministers did not attempt to justify their advice, except upon the ground of public expediency. The consequence was that Trickcr’s friends revived the agitation for his release. Every session fresh petitions w r cre presented in his favour, but the House invariably referred them to the Government. Each new Ministry reconsidered the case, but always ended by leaving it where they found it. As soon as Sir William Fox came into office in 1869 he advised Sir George Bowen to pardon Tricker, who had been in penal servitude four years, and so ended the most inexplicable arid sensational episode in the judicial history of this country. Tricker left New Zealand and has never been heard of since ; and to this day no one knows whether he was the Rangitikei murderer, or whether he was the unfortunate victim of a horrible conspiracy. The surroundings of the above present many features in common with Longhurst’s case. In the latter, however, we have the Governor dealing with it himself, instead of commanding his Ministers to come to a decision. Whatever is decided upon, therefore, will be just and final, and let us hope that if there is a doubt Longhurst will get the benefit of it.