Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1181, 21 October 1882, Page 2

Pompey : “I say, what dem posts for, eh?” Cu&sar: “Why, for de wires, what else?” Pompey : “ ’Xacly; but what’s de wires for deni” C®sar : “De wires? Oh de wires ; why to keep up de posts ?” This is exactly what is done by Garrett Bros. ; they keep up the reputation of their boots, so that their boots may keep up their reputation.— Ad vt. We are pleased to learn that the tickets for the complimentary banquet are selling rapidly, and everything tends to lead to the belief that there will be a large attendance. Entries for the forthcoming Agricultural Show will close tonight, and it is confidently expected that they will be numerous. It is notified elsewhere by the night soil contractor that all orders are to be left in the box placed at Mrs Wilshire’s dressmaking, millinery, and drapery.establishment, in Gladstoneroad. The following tenders were received to-day by Mr W. P. Finneran for the erection of a billiard-room and sample-rooms in connection the Argyll Hotel: —T. Wilshire, £660 ; Harris and Lincoln, £674; C. D. Berry, £765. Over 100 women are on trial at Gross Beckserek, Hungary, for poisoning their husbands. The guilt of 35 of the accused has been proved. During the bombardment of Alexandria one of the shells of the Inflexible, missing the forts, traversed a distance of six miles, and has been picked up, unexploded, at that distance from the ship. In commenting on the case of Adams, the Auckland “ Herald ” says:—The Judge hesitates or declines to pass or defer the passing of any sentence on the convict. Ii there were any doubts in the mind of the Judge as to the correctness of the jury’s verdict why did he sentence Genevieve Adams, the child, to three days’ imprisonment ? Assuredly, if the child was guilty, she must have been so in an inferior degree. She could not have beeu a party to the conspiracy which subjected an innocent boy to Mount Cook Gaul and the horrors of flogging at a hangman’s hands, save and except at the instigation of the male prisoner. But the latter is not punished at ull; he is out on bail to appear before the Court for sentence when called upon by a merciful Judge to do so. There is no assurance that he will ever be so called upon, and in the meanwhile George Loughurst, who has been declared by a jury of his fellow citizens to be innocent of the offence for which he has beeu flogged, and who is still incarcerated, will nut be released by a Government, presided over by the Chief Justice of New Zealand, because the Judge who sat and heard the case does not delivei* sentence. Can anything more abhorrent to our notions of justice than this be conceived ? Shamed be the Government who make such a scruple In opening the prison dooxs, aud blamed be the Judge who refuses in effect to accept the decision of a jury. Again wo ask, what shall be said of these things, what becomes of the boasted “palladium of liberty” when a Judge of the Supreme Court practically sets aside the verdict of a jury by not giving effect to it, and whereabouts is the vaunted “ liberty of the subject ” when a Government dares to keep an innocent man in prison notwithstanding such verdict? We have no desire to be aggressively expressive in this matter, but it does occur to us that in no other part of the British dominions would such a perversion of justice be permitted or suffered for a single day, and it will astonish us very much if it is suffered here. What is done with Adams is of comparatively little consequence; what must be insisted on is the immediate release uf Lunghurst from gaob