The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1875.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 242, 27 January 1875, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1875.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

Thebe is something very conflicting, if not positively ugly, between the account first of all given by constables Joyce and Kino, in reference to the “ so-called attempt at rescue” of Von Bobken, by the employees of the Mil Bush, and that given by our correspondent this morning—“ A Saw Mill “ Hand.” The statement made by constable Joyce to the Resident Magistrate, and afterwards repeated by him in the Police Court, the purport of which has already been published, left a decided impression on our minds that the ends of justice were about to be defeated by a determined opposition by some 15 or 20 men —friends or mates of the run-a-way sailor —to the two constables, who had to draw their revolvers in self-defence ; and that it was with some difficulty that their threatened violence was appeased. As we stated on Saturday, what was then made public was solely the ex parte statement of the constables themselves, and, although we did not for a moment discredit that statement, we deemed it proper to withhold any remarks we might otherwise have felt disposed to make thereon, knowing well that one story is very good until another is told. Neither shall we make any remarks now excepting so far as it lies within the ligitimate sphere of our duty to do so in laying the matter disinterestedly before the public. Our readers being pretty well aware of what has been already stated by the constables, we shall proceed to consider the context as stated by our correspondent this morning; he has left his name with us, and is prepared to vouch for all that he has written. A Saw Mill Hand ” says that constable Joyce’s conduct was “ calcu- “ lated to cause a breach of the peace that he entered the “ sleeping apart- “ ment of a number of disinterested “ men, with a revolver in his hand,” and this, too, “ without showing his “ warrant.” His exclamation impressed the men whom he surprised with*tdie belief thajjSfe was “ considerably under “ the influence of liquor,” a belief, by the way, which was very much strengthened from the fact that he had “a bottle of brandy in one hand.” Our correspondent metes out, fairly enough, the justice which seems to be due to constable King, who “ ex- “ plained his duty in a rational man- “ ner,” adding that were it not for his temperate explanation, the “ conse- “ quences might have been unpleasant “to constable Joyce.” Here we may pause to interpolate this remark, that it shewed the good sense of the men in not allowing themselves to be overdrawn into violence- —as, under few circumstances, would such conduct be held to be a justification. Whatever their position may ultimately be in this matter, it is, undoubtedly, strengthened by them leaving the constables unmolested.

The “ ugly” features connected with this business (if true) are: —l. The forcible entry without demanding admittance. 2. Showing no warrant of authority. 3. Producing fire arms without good cause; and 4, having a bottle of brandy with which Joyce solicited the men to drink. Our correspondent thinks that this latter circumstance is a sufficient proof of the “ quietness of the proceedings but the question arises, “ was it the ‘brandy’ or the ‘revolver,’ or both, that produced the quietness ?” This, however, is not for us to answer ; and, for the present, we leave the matter to be dealt with by the authorities, for as it stands at this moment a full investigation is most certainly to be desired.