The Daily News. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3. THE OPUNAKE EPISODE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 3 October 1907, Page 2

The Daily News. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3. THE OPUNAKE EPISODE.

Jt would appear that the lirand Jurv j had ample justification for returning | 1 "Xo Bill" in the now celebrated Opunake j' tarring and feathering case. in face of ' the evidence tendered, (lie members could scarcely have acted otherwise than they did. In the lower court proceedings the witnesses for the prosecution identified tho accused as taking part in 'the "unlawful assembly." When they came to lace the '■ r.ind Jury, however, they showed a disinclination to incriminate the alleged offenders, and were not at all ready to swear to their identification. It was, of course, rather inconsistent of the witnesses, but the jurymen had to he guided by their evidence, and knew that there was no case for the Common Jury. They, therefore, had no alternative but to throw out the bill. The Judge, in his charge, was particularly direct and explicit ill his direction to the jury over this matter, practically telling tlieni that there was only one thing to do, and that was to return a "true bill." The Judge, of course, was basing his view of the ease upon the evidence adduced in the lower court, which was ol a nature justifying any panel of men returning a "true hill." He could not lie expected to know of the change that had come over the

scene in regard to the evidence concerning the material facts of the case. Had he been cognisant of the weakening of these material facts, he would, we "feel sure, have directed the jury to act as they, in the circumstances, very properly did. On the face of things, it'looked as though the jurymen's decision had been influenced by considerations of sympathy for the accused men. We can appreciate the feeling expressed by tile Judge at tile time. Had the witnesses adhered to their former testimony, the course of the jury was plain enough. From what we know of the character of the jurymen, no ulterior consideration would have prevenlcd them discharging their duty in the matter. Apart from the action of the Grand Jury, it is a pity that the ca*e was not ventilated. We are sure that the evidence would have conveyed some lessons. The result would not have been dilficult to forecast. The Common Jury would liave discharged their duty and have done exactly what every other impartial jury in the colony would have done and can always be relied upon to do in similar circumstances. There are some forms of oll'ences against the law which the great body of men will always condone. And in many respects it is well that it is so.