JUDGES AND JURIES.

Waikato Times, Volume VIII, Issue 454, 15 April 1875, Page 2

JUDGES AND JURIES.

The Lillydale murder case has ended in a manner which, we think, is most unsatisfactory in the interests of the public, and really amounts to a mockery of justice. The case wag of the simplest character. There was » trnmwAw nmu-v^l r.^ Q . 4

cards between two men, and one of them goes to his house, fetches a gun, and deliberately shoots the other. He alleges in his defence on his trial that he did not know the gun was loaded ; but his whole conduct during and after the incident was inconsistent with the statement} and the jury evidently did not believe him. His Honor (Mr Justice Fellows) most properly directed the jury that the case was one of wilful murder or acquittal — that there was no room for a verdict of manslaughter. The jury, however, chose to take tte matter into their own hands, and thinking very probably that in consequence of the previous qua* rel the prisoner ought not to be hanged, they perversely assumed the functions of the Executive, and delivered a verdict which was in total defiance of law, but which they thought would secure their object of having the man punished, but not capitally. This was a gross abuse of their authority. They had before them a man who had deliberately taken life, and it was their duty to say so and toleave the consideration of the circumstances under which the crime was committed to the proper authorities. Juries in the present day have no reason to-Jear that any undue severity will be exercised, a^HJ they are quite inexcusable for trespassing beyond tt>eML province. But now comes a very serious qVtetrHn — What should be the conduct of a judge when a jury have returned a rerdict which h«.,eoasiders inadequate to the occasion, but which at the same time leaves him in a position todeal with* the criminal I His Honoc (Mr Justice Fellows) says to a man who has just killed another, " You have been found guilty of manslaughter, but without the slightest evidence of your having been guilty of it ; you are therefore- sentenced to 24 hours' imprisonment." *We cannot follow his Honor in this reasoning. The prisoner had killed a man, which is surely manslaughter. It is very true that he might have been found guilty of murder, but if the jury chose to say that in their opinion — however erroneous — the offence was reduced to manslaughter, why not punish him for. manslaughter in a manner proportionate to the offence ? Are we\to understand that if a judge and jury come intoScollision in respect to the boundary line between dbiiKl^r. and manslaughter, the offender is to escape altt£e«k<jr ? The doctrine would seem to relieve men of violent passions from any necessity of conttalHng^ themselves. We could understand some reaten *^or the course pursued if the consequences offy perverse verdict, as illustrated in this way, fell upon the jury themselves ; but unfortunately it is the public which suffers and not thejury. We must, therefore, in the interest or peaceable and law-abiding folk enter our most earnest protest against the principle, that if a judge and jury differ as to the distinction between murder and manslaughter, a man of uncontrolled temper, who has taken life, is to be let loose upon society without punishment. — " Melbourne Argua."~