THE HAZLITT CASE.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4233, 1 August 1882, Page 3

THE HAZLITT CASE.

A Beplt to " A Cbitical Chabacteb." (To tha Editor of the Evening Stab.) Sib,—Neither Mr Horn or myself called in question the of any witness xfpr the prosecution exeppt the little'girl, and her evidence did not remain

'. unshaken. Mr Hesketh called the atten- ■".;;- tion.of/the" jury to several discrepancies in the\;child!s..evidence. Had the jury believed the child they ought and must have found Hazlitt guilty of the offence with which; be Vas charged. But the jury found Hazlilt not guilty on the evidence. J None of the witnesses for the . prosecution swore to any attempt—they swore to the .commission of the crime; therefore,,he has been convicted without any evidence of, a crime with which he was not charged. •' A .Critical Character" says—" Are these^writers prepared to say that the. child was. not abused, and if abused, who wss guilty f" We are not -prepared ,fcf lay. (hat the child vtas not abused;" -We .have; not examined the child, and if we had, we probably have hot.the necessary medical skill to decide •b nice a '■ As to our. saying whb\was guilty, "A Critical Character" must have cool nerve to ask such a question. Neither of us belongs" to the detective police,force, and therefore it is not our province to find out the guilty. Meanwhile, because we cannot say who is the g'nilty. party, that is no proof that the guilty person is Hazlitt. "A Crifcies^ .Character ". is without doubt simply begging the.question. He, is quite correct in saying that the jury have nothing to do with the nature or extent of the punishment. The duty of a jury is simply to t find their verdict, and this is why I find fault with Mr Justice Gillies for informing tbe jury that a verdict for indecent assault" would amount to an acquittal. He should have, told the jury thatif they had any doubt of the prisoner's guilt it was their duty to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt. It was not for him to. tell them what would be the result of their verdict, it was for him to apportion the punishment. A " Critical Character" thinks because this sort of crime.is becoming more frequent, that it is necessary to inflict severe punishment. It does not appear to me that excessive punishment on an innocent or presumably innocent man is desirable, even for the sake of making an example; neither would it be just to flog * him so severely as to cause his death, even if guilty. The law has declared the crime with which he was charged as one of a degree less than murder. If he had committed murder he , would only.; have been hung—a lesser , punishment. The cat is a remnant of barbarism. In conclusion, " A Critical Character" is a plausible and clever ..reasoner, but he has not been very sound , on this subject;. Perhaps, he has only , taken, up the side he has for the sake 1 of provoking argument.—l am, &c, ' Geqbge Vidai. i [Mr Vidal omits an important element, viz., that Judge Gillies only pointed out to the jury that the charge would include not only the deed itself,. but the attempt ' to commit it, which would be equally] abominable; and as liable to punishment. We must presume that the Judge's law was sound, or the most eminent lawyer in Auckland who defended Hazlitt, would have c&sU^ged his ruling. That is a peg on&hichM would be useless to hang an argument. But there'are other elements of uncertainty which are worth consideration, such as the improbability of the girl-going by Hazlitt's house the second and third time if he so brutally ill-used her on the first occasion. We agree with Mr Vidal that the punishment of the lash might very, well, under the circumstances, have been omitted.-T-E».] ,

Son. Sec.