The Telephone. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED. THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 233, 11 September 1884, Page 2

The Telephone. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED. THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11.

The administration of the Jaw in Australia appears to be as .great a mystery to the uninitiated as it is often thought to be in our own colony. Air. Gaunson has just been denouncing Air. Berry for what most persons will be apt to think a display of creditable attention to his duties. A police constable was ordered some time ago to report on the character of a man named Potter, who was employed by the. omnibus company as a driver, and who applied for a license. The constable found and reported that Potter and his wife had kept no fewer than three brothels in Fitzroy. Of course the application was refused, and shortly afterwards Potter applied again for a license in Carlton. The same constable, was told off to make inquiries as to his character, and started with the information that this Potter also was an omnibus driver. Nevertheless, he reported this time that Potter appeared to be a respectable man, fit to hold a license. Obviously he had either been “got at” or was grossly negligent. A board mercifully decided that he was only guilty of gross negligence, and followed this up by the most inadequate recommendation that he should be superannuated with a reprimand. The Chief Secretary appears to have taken counsel with the Chief Commissioner of Police, and for a time thought of fining the policeman and his sergeant, whom Mr, Berry regards as equally guilty. Nothing, however, has been done, and the public will probably be more inclined to blame Mr. Berry for this than for having contemplated any interference. While Mr. Gaunson was interrupting the Chief Secretary’s speech, Mr. Kerferd interjected, “ You have no right to bring the case here.” That is a point of much more vital importance to the public than the question whether Mr. Berry did or did not contemplate setting aside an improperly lenient sentence by a board. Mr. Gaunson, as he himself admitted, was professionally engaged in Potter’s case. When he brought it mock heroically before the House, he was really advertising the value of his professional services, and showing that he could make up by influence in Parliament whatever he fell short of accomplishing by his ability as a lawyer in the Courts. If cases of this kind occurred often, it would be necessary to exclude lawyers from the House of Assembly. The ordinary and proper assumption is that members do not bring their professional business into the House. In 1879 MrGaunson was charged with doing business for money at the Lands Office, and retorted that he had a right to charge because he was a solicitor, and that the amount he charged was “a matter entirely between attorney and client.” Parliament ought to draw up some very stringent rules on these matters. The general understanding in the country is that Parliamentary and private business are to be kept distinct; and we believe the great mass of members contrive to observe this rule. Stupidity and bungling are the distinguishing characteristics of the legal luminaries who constitute the official staff of Melbourne, district and police courts. To their utter ignorance are due the frequent failures of prosecutions and the quashing of convictions upon appeal. Many cases in support of our contention might be quoted, but the latest will suffice for the purpose. Last week Abe Hicken was summoned to show cause why. his publican’s license should not be forfeited according to the terms of the act consequent upon two convictions having been recorded against him within six months. The information set forth, in effect, that the defendant within six months “ preceding ” the 15th January last, to wit on the 4th July ' last past, was convicted of an offence—viz., of permitting liquor to be sold on his licensed premises. As a matter of fact he was not convicted of any such offence, which, as his solicitor pointed out, is one unknown to the law. The word “ preceding ” should have been “ following,” and the precise wording of the act should have been used in setting forth the conviction. The police were innocent enough to suppose that the defendant’s legal adviser would not go behind the evidence produced as to the number of convictions, and do not appear to have read the wording of the information prior to the case having been called on. Two notable cases were heard last week in the Criminal Court, in which the accused were each charged with manslaughter under peculiar circumstances. One was that of Thos. Biddle late station master at the Werribee, through whose alleged negligence a railway accident occurred, resulting in the death of three persons; and the other was that of Dr. Gunst, junior, through whose instrumentality a bar maid lost her life from taking an overdose of morphia. Both were unhesitatingly acquitted by the juries before whom they were tried. It seems extremely like a judical travesty that the ■whole machinery of the law should be put in force to bring a delinquent to book, and to find that so soon as the case comes into court it breaks down from the lack of the very element that was supposed to justify the prosecution. In the opinion of twelve intelligent individuals Biddle was not responsible for the consequences of his leaving his post unauthorised, preferring the attractions of an organ recital to the discharge of his prosaic but necessary duties. Dr. Gunst might also order poisonous doses for a whole family, and by omitting the requisite formula in the prescription cause their death, but unless it could be proved

that this was intentional and criminal neglect, he was in no degree amenable to the law. This seems the very mockery of justice, Sentiment rather than a stern sense of duty clearly animated the juries. To imprison j respectable members of society for a mere error of judgment was not to be thought of, and they were only too happy to avail themselves of the fine drawn distinctions elaborated by the presiding judge. The law regarding manslaughter must be defective. It may be harsh to imprison a professional man for a blunder, however gross, but some consideration should be had for his victims both posse and in esse, otherwise a diploma must comprehend a license to slaughter with impunity. Biddle’s acquittal was solely, attributable to juridical sophistry. To this Atticus adds testimony to the effect than an individual called at a Government accountants office on business and as a preliminary was requested to remove his hat in the presence of so great a person. Failing to do so the official struck it off (preliminary to granting the interview.) A struggle ensued, during which the intruder, who had so outrageously profaned the sacred presence, was excluded from the audience chamber; whereupon a summons for assault is issued, and all parties appear at the police court. The. bench, with that disregard for the refinements of high life which distinguishes the honorary magistracy, fined the defendant £t, which being paid, all parties left the court, without (as is customary in such cases) a stain on their character. Although the decision may have been.according to the Strict letter of the law, yet it must not be assumed that an ordinary citizen maywalk into a Government office with his hat on, or without evincing some outward and visible manifestations of awe and respect. Such an assumption could only proceed from a theory that Government officers are the servants of the public, a theory which we venture to think is discountenenced in any respectable enlightened community. It would appear that Victorians like some Gisbornites have become so autocratic through the false praises of a toadying press and general ignorance that they are not to be looked at without permission. We are forcibly reminded of a passage in King Henry V :—“ And what have Kings that privates have not too but ceremony.” Truly “ Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.”