South Canterbury Times. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2952, 11 September 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1882.

The Hon. Mr Reynolds. ■ recently moved in the Legislative Council:— “ That all farther correspondence and reports connected with the case of E. Ff. Ward, junr., not already published in Appendix of last session, H-81, be laid oh the table, including a letter written by E. Pf. Ward, senr., to Mr Shearman, chief of the North Island police; also reports on the subject by Mr Inspector Scully.” This brings up a• well-nigh' forgotten trahsaction, which excited very loud and angry comment in the locality where it occurred, but received comparatively little notice in the South Island. Yet the case was at least peculiar, and the circumstances connected with it were characterised by a great many persons as disgraceful. Somewhere about the end of the year 1879 a conveyance of certain landed property was signed bver by, several natives to the now deceased Mr G. Bead, at Gisborne.

It did not then contain the name of Dr Nesbitt, tbe Trust Commissioner, but it was afterwards registered with Dr Nesbitt’s name attached. The natives concerned instituted a prosecution for forgery against Mr E. Ff. Ward jun. At the magisterial examination, the Bench did not consider the evidence adduced sustained the charge, of forgery, but intimated that the police would look after certain documents in the case, and institute proceedings against certain persons alleged to have been co-partners in the purchase of this land at tbe auction sale of the effects of the late Mr Bead. Suddenly, the prosecutor stopped proceedings, and the chief of police as suddenly arrested tbe action of tbe police. Other persons concerned then petitioned the Government on the subject. In response, the Government ordered Inspector Scully to furnish a report; and on receipt of such report the case was altogether abandoned. In the meantime Mr Ward, jun., had left the country. Judging from these facts alone, all of which were within the knowledge of the public, what are we to think? Clearly, that there was a very mysterious dereliction of duty on the part of the police. Now it very rarely occurs that the public have to complain of lukewarmness in the apprehension of criminals, or the detection of crime; the police often get fogged, they have even been known to blander; some people go so far as to say that they are not altogether the lynx-eyed guardians of the public interest that their friends declare them to be. But they are not accustomed to drop a clue when they get hold of it, or to abandon the pursuit of a ‘ suspect,’ We are forced to the conclusion, therefore, either that the entire charge was a trumped-up one, or that the arm of the law had been arrested by some hidden hand ; that back-stair influence bad been successfully used. Against the former hypothesis, we have the deliberate statement, and the Arm conviction of numbers of people acquainted with the parties and the circumstances, that a forgery had been committed, and the police report (which was suppressed) showed that a forgery had been committed and a person was suspected. In support of the theory of back-stair influence having been brought to bear upon the officers of the law there is to be said that Mr Ward and bis relatives addressed the police and the 8.M., and finally Mr Shearman who held an authoritative position over the police. It was on receipt of this last letter (written by Mr Ward’s father) that tbe action of tbe police was stopped and tbe case abandoned. , Let those who have been behind the scenes explain the position. It is pretty evident from this that influence was brought to bear by somebody on somebody else in office. Now comes a fact which taken by itself would have no significance, but which, read by the light of tbe circumstances just recorded has a peculiar complexion. One of tbe parties most interested in the case, applied to the Commissioner of Constabulary for a copy of Inspector Scully’s report, but was denied it, and was vouchsafed no inkling of its nature, on the ground that being “ of a confidential nature it could not be communicated.” The principle laid down is of course a most laudable one, but all things considered, the witholding of the report was at least unjnst to to the person whose name had been so generally coupled with the alleged forgery; if it were a damning one, action should have been taken on it, if it showed that no offence had been committed, it should have been made public. Why did not the friends of him who lay under a serious imputation request that it might be published ? Altogether the case looks, to use an expressive terra, “fishy,” and leaves an uncomfortable impression on tbe public mind that a disgraceful bit of patching-up was carried on by a “ ring.” Unhappily crimes of considerable gravity, fraud, embezzlement, forgery and the like, are continually happening in the community. The offenders are sought out, brought to the bar of justice, imprisoned, all in due coarse. They have, and the public have, at least this satisfaction—that the sword of justice which smites them is no respecter of persons. It has been the proud and not unfounded boast of Englishmen that their founr dation of justice is pure. The ermine is held to be immaculate. Shall New Zealand be the first of the British possessions in which the breath of suspicion shall tarnish the fair fame of English justice ; the first in which tbe finger of scorn shall be pointed at tbe law and its boasted strength and impartiality ? We hope to see the widest publicity given to all the papers relating to this mysterious affair.