OXFORD MANSLAUGHTER CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1527, 18 April 1882, Page 3

OXFORD MANSLAUG HTER CASE.

The trial of Mikacre for the manslaughter of Hoani te Kerei, on the Oxford racecourse on Boxing Day, was concluded on Saturday last. After the addresses of counsel, His Honor, in summing up the evidence, said : Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the jury. It is now my duty to call your attention to various points in the evidence before you retire to consider your verdict. The trial ha 3 been lengthy, and perhaps somewhat tedious. I should be guilty of direliction of duty if I did not direct your attention to those parts of the evidence which are most material to the issue yon have to try. I would ask you particularly to weigh the evidence, for this is a case of an important character ; not, it is true, involving the issue of the life or death of the accused, but yet involving the loss of his liberty. In the next place, I would tell you that this is a case which, had it occurred only a very few years ago, in the same part of the conntry, would certainly have led to bloodshed, and lives would have been lost ; for those two places, Waotu and Te Papa, were very nests of murderous pei sons, who then refused to obey our law. Now we have before us this man — a man of some considerable position — given up to our law for trial, and it behoves us to show that Europeans and their laws are equal to such occasions ; that our laws do discriminate, can track out evil when it is done, and are able to punish. I may further say to you that no feeling as to the uncertainty of native testimony should divert you from endeavoring to do the utmost justice, and coming in the most careful and deliberate manner to your verdict on this occasion. I think I shall be able to point out to you that the native, as a whole, is exceedingly trustworthy. If you make allowance for this disposition to magnify facts on one side, which may present themselves to his notice, and regard it as the complement of what he would be likely to diminish on the other side, taking the whole of the native evidence on both sides, I think you will find no great difficulty in coming to a conclusion. For, although you may find some discrepancy or inconsistency in some of the statements, yet these statements, if you will examine them, relate chiefly to side issues which do not affect anything but the credit of the person giving his statement of what lie conceived to be fact. As for the witness Skelly, if you believe him, there is no use going any further. He is the only witness, native or European, who goes to the extent of saying that Te Pana struck Hoani. I would ask you to examine most carefully the evidence of that witness. I do not say that his evidence might not have been given with perfect honesty, but there is little doubt that he has mixed a good deal of imagination up with it. There is no doubt also that he showed a great deal of leaning to one side. The most charitable view to take of his evidence, perhaps, is to say that having the occurrences in his mind, and the fatal issue of them making a stroug impression upon him, he may have come to the belief that a sober man, a man of consideration and good character, would be less likely to commit the offence than a drunken vagabond such as Te Pana appeared to be on that day. His Honor proceeded to read over the material parts of the evidence of the witnesses to the jury. He said that there was this peculiarity in the case, that while there were several witnesses (aix or seven) for the prosecution, who testified to the blow as having been given by the prisoner, Avith the exception of Skelly, there was not one of the witnesses for the defence who saw the blow given by Te Pana. The jury after an absence of about an hour returned averdictof " Guilty," with a recommendation to mercy on account of prisoner's previous good character. His Honor then passed sentence as follows : — Mikaere Te Papa, the jury have found you guilty of the crime with which you are charged. That crime was killing Hoani Te Kerei. The provocation that you appear to have received has, in fact, reduced the crime of murder with which yon were charged to that of manslaughter. Had you been found guilty of murder—that is, killing with intention to kill, or without provocation— the punishment would have .been your own life. The crime as proved amounted very nearly to murder : for after you received the provocation you had time to let your passion cool. But you again rushed into the quarrel. In these circumstances the law says that the punishment shall be very severe. But if .you behave well during your punishmentthat taken with your hitherto good 1 character, r.may hereafter cause a mitigation of your sentence. At present the sentencq.of the law mustbe, that you be kept in penal servitude for life.