The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1882.

Temuka Leader, Issue 905, 17 January 1882, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1882.

The extraordinary manner in. which the law has been administered by the highest judicial functionaries during the past few weeks in Wellington, is a matter upon which anyone who loves justice cannot remain- silent. First of all several gentlemen, amongst whom was Sir William Fitzherbert, the Speaker of the LegislativeCouncil, and one of the most distinguished statesmen in .New Zealand, were fined £lO each for the- simple offence of taking a share in a sweep at the Hutt Park Races. We have no sympathy with gambling, and we entirely approve ef putting it down,by the strong arm of the law.. But we certainly think that getting up. half-crown sweeps amongst friends for amusement is not gambling* and that the Legislature never contemplated the possibility of such a construction being upon ’‘The Gaming and Act,’’ which was recently passed- However, that is not the most serious part of the legal pantomime which has been enacted in the Wellington Courts. Another ancient member of onr House of Lords,, the Hon Charles J, Pharazyn, appeared in the second act to answer the charge of impersonation at the Thorndon election, and magistrates, judge, jury, and prisoner played their parts in itj the reverse of creditable. Besides being a member of the Upper House, Mr Pharazyn was a Justice of the Peace, Chairman of the Education Board, and a man who bad arrived at an age when he ought to know better than to break the law he had helped to make. At the recent elections, after having voted at one booth he proceeded to the next one and voted the second time. He explains this in h’» address to the jury (for he was too clever to need legal assistance, and he defended turns; If) in the following language : “ He (prisoner) was a voter for Thorndon, Te Aro, and South Wellington. Having recorded bis vote for Thorndon he as innocently as a lamb, made his way towards Te Aroa, intending to vote for Mr Johnston. So absorbed was he at the time that he entered the booth that his eye was unacquainted with what the brain saw. He did not at that time imagine that the return of Johnston was so secure, and therefore his anxiety. He

assured the Jury that he never thought for an instant that he was voting for Mr Levin.” Now, we ask, is it possible that Mi Pharazyn could at one booth blot out all the names of the candidates for election excepting that of his favorite candidate, Mr Levin, and go to the next booth with the intention of voting for Mr Johnston, get there a voting paper with the sametnanxes on it as the paper he had dealt with a few minutes before, again blot out all the names except that of Mr Levin’s, without knowing what he was doing. He must have read the papers or he would not have known what names to score out, and sim-ly he could not mistake the name Levin for that of Johnston. Again, is it not a most extraordinary thing chat in hia absent-mindedness he scored out the names of the candidates of whom lie did not approve. There was evidently method in his mistake. It is said of a great Scotchman that on the morning of his marriage he got into his room, began to read, and forgot all about the ceremony till, after having kept the bride, the- parson, and the bridal party waiting for some time, he was reminded of Ms engagements by a friend. Mr Pharazyn’s absent-mindedness surpasses that of the Scotchman. He had the names on ithe voting paper to recal his senses,, and must have been made the victim of some conjuring trick, or else he voted twice with his eyes wide open. Now that, offence is made criminal by law, and rightly so, and: certainly a man occupying his position, who broke that law, ought to receive no consideration. He ought to be punished far more severely than a poor, ignorant man who could not realise the gravity of the offence. Mr Pharazyn was. treated peculiarly. He was not asked by the magistrates to get into the dock ; he was allowed to banter and brow-beat witnesses, to make elaborate speeches*, and when the case was heard their Worships, in the most pathetic language, told him they believed his explanation that he had voted in a mistake, but musk commit him. for trial. Now this w-ijs a moat extraordinary proceeding. If' they believed him innocent for certainly he must have been innocent if his conduct was the result of a mistake—why did they commit him for trial. It is the intention constitutes the crime, and if they believed 5 Mr Pharazyn had no intention of doing wrcng they could not believe- him guilty, and therefore they did very wrong in committing him. ' But they did commit him and let him free on his own recognisance of £5. A poor man, u cooper by trade, charged before the same tribunal with a similar offence, had to give security to the extent of £SO, but he was not an M.L.O, a J.P., a Chairman of.an Education Board, and a rich man, and that made the difference. He was, however, innocent, as was proved afterwards while, on account of his misdeeds, the bloated M.L.O;- was stripped of the fine feathers in which he strutted so vaihgloribusly. Such Is the way Wellington Justices of the Peace dispense justice.. They evidently have one law for the rich and another for the poor, or else they manufacture law,- to suit special cases. The Chief Justice who subsequently tried Mr Pharazyn, acquitted himself no better. Mr Pharazyn defended himself, again before the Supreme Court because he was too clever to require legal assistance* and ,in his address to the jury said that it was- most unfortunate the Legislature had made no provisions for mistakes —that it was a pity important statutes were rushed through Parliament without: having received, proper consideration* and hoped to see it amended next session. It was of:courseunfortunate that a loophole was not left in it for Mr Pharazyn to get out of his difficulty, but evidently the trap which he himself had helped to set was one out of which he could not get. The jury,, after five minutes deliberation, returned-the following verdict : The jury find that Mr Pharazyn having voted once, at the elec tion for Thorndon, did apply for a voting paper in his own name, but so applied under the impression that he was voting at a different- electorate for a different candidate, and believe that the mistake was honestly made.” Now came- the critical moment. His Honor intimated to the prisoner that the verdict was one of guilty,, and the prisoner replied : “Your Honor, I am perfectly satisfied, but the verdict might be amended by the addition of two words. This is, I believe the wish of the jury.” His Honor ; “ What are the words, Mr Pharazyn ?” Prisoner : “ ‘Not Guilty,.’ your Honor. ” His Honor (laughing)-; “I don’t know about that.’’ There is a bit of grim humor, together with a good deal of ingeniousness, in the prisoner’s share of the dialogue that shows he-is not a man who would lose his mental faculties in a critical moment. He next appealed, on the- ground that the verdict was one of “Not guilty,” while the Chief Justice held that it was one of “Guilty,” and he was let go again in his recognisance of £5. Now, why did the judge allow the appeal if he believed the verdict to be one which convicted the prisoner of guilt ? The question at issue was : “ Hid the prisoner apply in bis own name fora voting paper after having voted in the same electorate on the sameday 1” and the verdict in the plainest manner said that he did. What more did the judge need 1 His duty was then to take into consideration the recoramenda-

tion of the jury, who said they believed

tJiat the prisoner had made a mistake, and

deal with the case without going any farther with it. It was a burlesque upon justice to sit there on the judicial bench listening to a prisoner discanting upon the interpretation to be put on a jury’s ver. diet which was as plain as a pike-staff, and afterwards yield to him. Really, the whole case is the most extraordinary : piece of judicial foolery that we have ever heard; The magistrates say, in effect ; “ We believe you had no intention of breaking the law, Mr Pharazyn, because you say you had not, I ut for all that we shall commit you.” The jury say : “You did break the law, Mr Pharazyn, hut you say yon aid so in a mistake, and we believe you.” And when the case comes up for argument before the Chief Justice a 3 to the proper- interpretation of the verdict, he says: “Yon have been found guilty, Mr Pharazyn, and therefore you are sentenced to one hour’s imprisonment, to take effect from the sitting of the Court,” which means that he can go. There is a screw loose in these proceeding somewhere. Ic is a well-established maxim of law that it is the intention constitutes the crime. If a man shoots another dead accidentally he is held innocent by the-law, but if he attempts to shoot him. with the intention of killing him, and fails, he is held guilty. This i s exactly analagous to Mr,-Pharazyn’s case., He committed a crime, according to the verdict of the jury, unintentionally, and he is convicted of it. We have already stated that it was difficult to believe Mr Pharazyu’s story, but the jury say they believed it, and that is more important than whatever may be the opinion of the public. If he did' it unintentionally, which is very unlikely, notwithstanding the belief of tue jury, I)3is hardly treated in being convicted of it, more especially as the conviction will lose him his seat in the Legislative . Council,, the Commission of. (he Peace, and all the publicoffices which he holds*; together with disfranchising him, for five years, aod the disgrace of the whole proceeding. If he committed the offence with which lie was charged, and that is likely - as there is a record of a similar offence against him in the Government Gazette of Nov. 3rd, 1858, he has been dealt too leniently with. Whether he is guilty or innocent, the proceedings from beginning to end have been conducted in a manner that is not at all likely to raise the law in the estimation of those who witnessed the trial, and that is a most.’’mportant matter. The dignity of the law ought to be maintained;, however high or mighty the prisoner is. Any departure from-Jlie usual course in favor of the rich isl ooked upon with envy and distrust-by the general,public, even though the ends of justice might be as well served, and therefore those who have the administration of justice in their hands ought to be very careful; bow they-:deport themselves in the high position in which they are placed.