South Canterbury Times, TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2212, 20 April 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1880.

It would be difficult to say whether the original recital of the late Dunedin attrocity or the sequel to it supplied by the prosecution and acquittal by a jury of the supposed perpetrator, has excited in the public iriind the profoundcs! astonishment. The barren result of this trial, taken in conjunction with the unsatisfactory termination of an equally elaborate attempt to avenge the ruthless sacrilico of human life which occurred in that city only u few mouths ago, is calculated to give Dunedin a most unpleasant notoriety as a safe rendezvous for the worst of criminals. No person of ordinary intelligence who has perused the evidence brought to bear against the man 1 Hitler can arrive at any other conclusion than that he is one of the luckiest of mortals. Guilty or not, the circumstantial chain was so complete—the presumptive evidence so strong—that it is morally certain that in no part of the world, outside of Dunedin, would ho have escaped conviction. In endeavoring to solve the mystery that clouded the fate of the murdered Dewar family, the police authorities seem to have displayed the utmost prudence and intelligence. The magnitude of the crime indicated the hand of a criminal, beyond the ordinary type, and Butler answered the description. If, from the outset, suspicion alighted on him, he was entitled to but small consideration on that account, seeing that to be constantly suspected is a part of the righteous punishment that follows the habit and repute criminal. Supposing the verdict of the jury to be a reasonable one, Butler lias been the victim of a most unfortunate combination of circumstances and coincidences. It was most unfortunate for him that he happened to bo at large in Dunedin when the attrocity was perpetrated, that he was away from his lodgings on the night of tlic occurrence, and that he took Slight from Dunedin armed to the tooth for a life and death struggle, disguised even to the soles of his boots, and leaving his blood stained garments behind him, early next morning. The circumstantial evidence seemed so overwhelming that in spite of the ingenious explanations and forensic ability of the man—an abilily that elevates him to the same, plat form as Peace, aluonlite, and other departed desperadoes of the highly intellectual type —it is diliienlt to perceive on what reasonable hypothesis the jury was enabled to assume his innocence, and return the verdict they did. Of course there was no positive or direct evidence, but unless such crimes ns murder and incendiarism arc to be allowed to go unchecked and unpunished, direct evidence must not be insisted upon. It is not our intention to review the details of the evidence at this stage, seeing that the accused lias not been finally dealt with, but when the proper time comes, wc shall have something to say respecting the peculiar features of this murder trial, and the manner in which the functions of judge and jury have apparently been performed.

Ix another column, a correspondent calls attention to the decision of a Judge of the Supreme Court at Wellington, in the ease of George 'Ward Deere, as contrasted with the action of his Honor Judge Ward, in the ease of F. A. Sims, lu both cases the verdicts of the juries were as like as two peas, but the ruling of the Judges was diametrically opposed. That justice in New Zealand should, like Janus, have two faces looking in contrary directions must be regarded as nothing short of a public calamity. No one, at all acquainted with the circumstances, will deny that in refusing to accept the two lirst verdicts rendered by the jury who tried Sims’ case as a verdict of acquittal, Ilis Honor Judge Ward made a grave and fatal blunder. We arc not justified in assuming that when lie refused to accept their re-iterated verdict and sent them back with a very doubtful kind of direction, ho abandoned the character of an impartial judge, aud assumed that of an unflinching prosecutor, but the public,we believe,have formed very unpleasant inferences. If we adopt the most considerate view possible of Judge Ward’s conduct, wo must believe that both at the time, and after subsequent reflection, he was under the impression that his procedure was judicial and strictly impartial. Only on this presumption can the Judge’s refusal of the exceedingly reasonable application of the accused’s counsel for a new trial be explained. But the fact remains that while His Honor Judge Ward is perfectly convinced that he did what was right and proper, there is a prevailing, and we believe we arc justified in saying almost universal fcel-

big to the contrary. This feeling will now bo materially strengthened, uy the fact that, an exactly similar verdict to that returned in Sims’ case, has been accepted by a judge of the Supremo Court as a verdict of acquittal. We have all along been »f the opinion that bad the verdict which Judge Ward fused to accept been rendered before any other competent judge or magistrate in New Zealand, a reasonable interpretation would have been given,and the accused would have been acquitted. It is much to be regretted that in the lace of the strong presumption that a citizen against whose character no previous stain was alleged is suffering an unjust punishment, no effect has been given to the petition that was forwarded nearly two months ago to JI is Excellency praying for bis liberation. The memorial washastily prepared, but it boro the signatures of a large number of influential residents. If necessary or if any pains bad been taken at the time, wc believe, such was the bent of public opinion, that the name of almost every resident of the town and district could have been obtained to it. The fact that since it was despatched to head-quarters the aecuwd lias been allowed to serve half the term of his sentence, and nothing has been dune, is to say the very least, far from creditable. Apart from the irreparable wrung that has probably been inflicted on the victim, the memorialists have been subjected to a kind of treatment which the free citizens of a free country have no right to expect The alacrity in finding a "free pardon for the man Edward Thomas, after be had been convicted and sentenced for forging a dead man’s signature, stands in signal contrast to the inexplicable delay that has occurred in either giving effect to this public memorial or absolutely declining it. The memorialists bad certainly a, right to expect very different treatment, and wo trust some satisfactory explanation of this mutter will bo forthcoming.