The Wairarapa Daily. FRIDAY APRIL 21, 1882.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1054, 21 April 1882, Page 2

The Wairarapa Daily. FRIDAY APRIL 21, 1882.

The caso decided in the K,M. Court at , Masterton yesterday afternoon was a somewhat sensational one, and proved the oft-repented n<dojn that trull) is stranger than fiction, First, it was remarkable for its hero—the infatuated Oasujiak—who bad run away with a middle-aged woman with a string of children. In the second instance, its heroine, Mrs Keiux, in spite of her wretched history, claimed a certain amount of respect by Jier wonderful pluck and keen mother wit. Mr Sandilands, the solicitor for the defence, too, came into prominent notice on this occasion by tho marked ability with which be handled a difficult case which he had taken up at an hours' notice, in the unavoidable absence of Mr Bunny. On the part of counsel 011 both sides the case was ably put, and till the Court gave its decision it was difficult to say whether Oashman would escape or be convicted. It was palpably evident that the mere fact of his lifting the box into the express did not of itself constitute larceny in the most remote degree, but by a legal fiction if when he lifted the box he intended to cohabit with the wife of the defendant, he was guilty. No one for a moment supposes that Oashsiax ever contemplated larceny or committed .it, in connection with the box in question, but he was caught in the meshss of the legal fiction to which we referred, and is virtually being now punished for a crime with 'which he was not charged on the strength of an offence which he did not commit. Wc do not for one moment challenge the decision of the Court. It was for the Magistrate to say whether the circumstantial evidence sustained in his mind a belief that Oashman intended, when he assisted Mrs I'eiuk to leave Mauriceville, to live' with her, Mr Wardell held that it did, and we do not, as a matter of fact, suppose that lie is wrong in his surmise, In an ordinary case, where a legal fiction was involved, we would rather see the prisoner get the benefit of the doubt; "but probably the Court felt the present case was not one in which it could extend any special consideration to the accused. No doubt if we possessed a greater amount of legal knowledge we should recognise the . necessity of legal fictions, but in our happy ignorance of the subtleties of the law we cannot help feeling uncomfortable when we ]

see ft man punished for an offenco I which he evidently did not oominifc—not because we have the slightest sympathy with the individual himself—but simply that'it. is a mutter of sui'-, prise to us that the law, to gain Its end, : should use means which are' clearly contrary to equity. Gasman legally committed larceny, hut morally did not commit larceny, His case should ho a warning to all who entertain top lively a sympathy for the misfortunes of married women.