Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERT EVENING. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1882

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1112, 2 August 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERT EVENING. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1882

The Borough Council very wisely rejccted Capt. Tuckeb’s motion passing censure on the Government for alleged interference with the Police in the case referred to in “ Hansard " No. 31, of 1881. How the Borough Council in common sense and ju.tice, and having a jealous eye to their own reputation, could have acted otherwise, we fail to see. As a matter of fact there was not the slightest interference on the part of the Government. The facts may be thus capitulated. A prosecution was instituted by Capt. Tucker against a certain person for forging the name of Dr. Nesbitt to a certain deed conveying title to a block of land called Matawhero B. This charge was heard by the R.'-1., Mr. Price, and, after full and patient investigation, dismissed by that gentleman. Captain Tucker then groceeds to endeavour to influence ergeant Kino, then in charge of the Police here, to institute further proceedings, for uttering, on behalf of the Government. Sergt. Kino, led away by the plausible arguments of Capt. Tucker, fell completely into his views; closeted day after day, night after night with Capt. Tucker, a sort of slippery game is concocted by which the Government might be entrapped i'ito taking up this further prosecution. However, luckily, Sergt Kidd had to

\ report to his superiors before he could act, and as a wise and necessary measure, Mr. Inspector Scully was deputed to make further enquiries. He came to Gisborne and remained here some days, during which time he thoroughly mastered both the facts and probabilities of the case. On that investigation he based a report, after receiving which, the Government declined to take the responsibility of a further prosecution, but informed Captain Tucker that police assistance would be rendered to him if he chose to institute proceedings. The Government, however, declined, and perfectly right too, to hand Capt. Tucker the report by Inspector Scully of his private investigations. And here lies the head and front of their offence against Capt. Tucker. We hold that the Government would be acting unwisely and unj ustlyin making detective reports,which are intended solely for official eyes, the property of private individuals. Would Scotland Yard part with any of their criminal investigation reports on the same grounds ? The very fact of such reports being made public would amply suffice to ruin the reputation and character of many an innocent man. We do not know what that report contained ; for aught we know it may not be very flattering to Capt. Tucker, but we do know’ that to entrust it to Capt. Tucker, for perusal even, would have been a piece of criminal negligence and careless disregard of police economy which would be worse than suicidal. On the refusal to produce this document for his use Capt. Tucker bases his motion. Let us go a little farther under the surface and look for another motive. In this we find it. The Government having offered, and given, every justifiable assistance, short of actual responsibility for what may turn out to be a vexatious and malicious action, involving pecuniary responsibility, decline to become the sponsors to Capt. Tucker’s proceedings further than they have gone. Capt. Tucker, after vainly moving heaven and earth, in the beatified forms of Messrs. DeLautouh and Hubbey, finds that if | he wants to prosecute any further, he must take all that kind of responsibility on his own shoulders. The Government won't undertake it, so he endeavours to father on the Borough Council the onus of edging the Government further on in the matter, and thus give him substantial grounds for reopening the question. “ But,” says Capt. Tucker in the Council last night, “ I do not intend even to use a name or quote an especial case, I go on the broad ground of public interest.” But Capt. Tucker was unhappy in that statement, for his motion distinctly quotes the complaint as grounded in the case referred to in “ Hansard, 31, of 1831, which we now refer to. Neod we say more ? Is it not patent to everyone having cognizance of the matter that Cr. Tuckeb’s motion was an “ axe-grinder ?” Let anyone read the correspondence as in “ Hansard,” No. 31, or 1881, and Capt. Tuckeb’s object is laid bare. He seeks to protect himself and Mr. DeLautoub against the possible consequences arising to them in case of an action being brought against them for malicious and vexatious prosecution. Prosecution, we said! We retract! Wemean’t persecution !!! Sergeant Bullen is not Sergeant Kidd, and Messrs. Dick and Bolleston differ from Mr. DeLautoub. Hine illce laohrymce.