A “TRIVIAL” CASE.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 425, 6 March 1890, Page 2

A “TRIVIAL” CASE.

The term “Justice’s justice” has become somewhat proverbial as a term of reproach to those gentlemen who, being on the Commission cf the Peace, give up some of their own time to devote it to the interests of the public, and who sit patiently from day to day listening to the uninteresting details of pettifogging cases, endeavoring to deal out justice between the parties. In some cases the reproach is not undeserved, for however willing justices may be to do their best it is evident that every man cannot be a good judge, nor is the mode of selecting them the surest way to-obtain the fittest men. In Gisborne, however, there is little to complain of so far ns fitness is concerned, fo r nearly every justice in Gisborne is well qualified on the position. Without instituting comparison we might eay that of those gentlemen the two (Messrs Bennett and Lucas) who sat on the Bench yesterday morning are both well qualified, one being a. sharp, shrewd business man, and the other having hud considerable experience in law, while both are endowed with a fair amount of common sense. But even full blown Judges and Magistrates err at times, and it can scarcely be expected that a Justice of the Peace should be infallible. _ These remarks are by way of introduction to a relation cf the facts of a case which came before their Worships yesterday morning, in which Mere Kwaka charged Keita Ngahai with assault. From the evidence given by the plaihtiff upon oath it appeared that the two native women had been living in the same house on the Haiti, Kate being there as a visitor. From some words that were spoken, Mary desired to eject Kate, and proceeded to do so by attempting to carry Kate’s clothes outside and ordering Kate out of the house calling her a remnant of food. Kate refused either to go herself or allow her clothes to be taken out, and one word leading to another it was alleged that Kate seized Mary by the hair at the front and back and twisted her neck, pinched her head, and kicked her three times in the stomach and caused her to fall down with the pain. Besides this the defendant also abused Mary in other ways, as well as tearing her dress nearly off her back. In cross examination Mary was asked if she had shown the marks to anyone, but said she had not—she did not know whether she had been marked or not, but she felt the pain. In reply to a question the informant said she had a witness to call, but although he had been subpoenaed he had not appeared. Without waiting to hear any more evidence, and although it was stated there were several witnesses to the assault, end in the face of the informant's sworn statement, the Bench oatne to the decision that the assault was a trivial one and dismissed the information. It may be that the Bench disbelieved the informant’s statement; otherwise we cannot see how they could arrive at such a decision. Certainly it seems to us that twisting, or as it is generally called, “ screwing ” a parson’s neck, is not the gentlest of treatment, nor should we say that a kick in the abdomen even from a women’s foot was “ trivial.” On the other hand, the Justices, notwithstanding the fact that the sama law is supposed to apply to European and Maori, may have thought it unwise to encourage natives to rush into Court for every little grievance. However, in the absence of any statement by the Bench to that effect we would scarcely be justified in assuming that it was so.