The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Thursday, February 26, 1891. THE SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 575, 26 February 1891, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning.

Thursday, February 26, 1891. THE SUPREME COURT.

Bs just auditor not; Let all the ends thou nlnrtt st he thy country’s, Thy God’s, and truth’s.

THE criminal business at the Supreme Court was brought to a conclusion on Tuesday night, when the case of Lane was decided. There is reason to feel pleased at the light calendar for the session, and , the outcome of the eases seemed to Indi* gate that Justice had been clearly done in

each case. The charge of horse-stealing against young Capper was one of the most remarkable cases that could have come before a Court, but from the evidence there was no doubt that the jury acted rightly when they acquitted the prisoner without even leaving their seats. The evidence against Roberts was very conclusive, and in taking a comparative view of the sentences there does seem a great disproportion in giving a man 75 years of age six months for stealing £15 —that being his first offence and he having pleaded guilty—while for such an offence as that of Roberts the sentence was only twelve months, while Lane only got twelve months’ imprisonment for burning his house and attempting to defraud the insurance companies. In the latter case the sentence was a very light one, but of course the circumstances are quite different to those which sometimes exist in arson cases, as His Honor pointed out. In regard to the Capper case, such further steps are being taken as will, whatever the outcome, make it a case of colonial interest. The prosecution of a person on a charge of committing perjury when giving evidence under the new Act, will be a remarkable instance in the chronicles of the New Zealand Courts of Justice. The case cannot be commented on at the present time, but unless evidence in such cases is of a very strong nature, the Act may be proved to be a serious thing indeed. In this case a young fellow of about 18 years of age, perhaps without friends in the district, and after trial by a jury, is again placed in gaol until the new charges are decided. He had already been in gaol over a month, awaiting his trial at the Supreme Court. At that Court the principal witness was proved, on his own admission, to have been able to write when he had sworn he could not, and a consideration of the mere facts shows what an awful position a mere boy may be placed in.