The Capper Case.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 646, 13 August 1891, Page 3

The Capper Case.

Young Capper on Monday evening triumphantly went through another phase of such an ordeal as probably no person of his age (19) has endured of its kind. He has now been acquitted on three separate charges arising out of the one case, two having been tried by juries, each of which only took a few minutes to arrive at its decision. He had to serve several months’ imprisonment while waiting for his trial, and would probably have been inca’cerated for the whole period between the two sittings of the Supreme Court—having no rich friends in the district to risk the heavy bail—had not some of his friends in Opotiki made themselves liable for the large sum.

In addressing the jury Mr Rees said that Capper bad been acquitted on the charge of horse stealing, then released on a charge of perjury, and now they had the case in which Brown and his relations gave the one story, which the Magistrate cou’d not dismiss. This was in a measure trying the case again. Brown had sworn positively at tbe first trial that he could not read or write, and then he had to confess, on tbe question of a juryman, that he could write, and had been to the Gisborne school. Brown was accused of having sold the horse to Capper, and the only evidence brought was that of Brown’s relatives, and the father had admitted that the only way he knew the dates was because they had been burnt into his memory by tbe necessity of remembering that his son was there that day. When four Maori witnesses got into the box and were so explicit upon the dates, and yet said they bad not spoken to each other, they might make sure it was a concoction. As to ths circumstances on the Thursday they all tallied, then got hopelessly confused after that. Dick said be bad told the others he was going to summons them, and they all denied it, for fear that it would look as if they had made it up. Mr Rees went on to deal with the other contradictions. Mr Barker, junr., had given the best evidence they could get. Why was not Mr Barker, sen., called, Dick having said he had spoken to that gentleman that night ? Why did not Dick go to Barker’s in the evening to get the sacks, to be ready to start work next morning ? The mother bad stated there was a number of other natives at Tarere—why were not some of them called to testify to that 1 Then there were Brown’s own contradictions. They would remember that Counsel had suggested the reply to witness that he was not asked the question about his relatives being wiih him, Brown knowing English very well. How did Mr Batkei’a statement that the natives had been there a fortnight before tally with the assertion that they bad only gone (here on the previous evening? Was it not likely that some of Mr Barker’s people would have seen Dick if he bad been there a fortnight before tbe Bth ? It was said the distance from Tarere to Bailser'e was less than to Roseland—lhe idea of supposing that even a slow trotting horse would take all an afternoon to go to Makaraka I He poin-ed out that Ihla man cf 19 had twice been ecquilted when this Dick was really lhe accuser, and it they were to allow any person to get a few of his friends to foist up a ossa, where would it end ? Counsel had eaid that Capper was an interested party—was not young Brown an equally interested party? Wi bin two days after Capper had been acquitted here they had these two charges, and Brown came with this story whiob be had not previously told to anyone. If this sort of thing were allowed, what would be the influence on the Maoris themselves when they found that by a few of them getting together and sticking to one story they could foist any crime on acme other person ? His Honor said the only thing to do was for them to decide whether Capper had spoken truly. The case was for the jury to try—if it had been for him to decide it would possibly have been shorter. No doubt a prisoner making his nwn statement was under a temptation, and his statement should be received with great caulion, which he had told the jury in deciding the case of horse stealing, and they had acquitted him without leaving the box. It was clear that Brown took the statement to himself, and that he considered the jury’s decision meant that he (Brown) had stolen ths horse. Could they believe that Brown, when he got home, had not conversed about it with his relatives ? If Brown’s father had been a whits man ha should have been ver? severe on him, for the time he took to answer the questions. He cautioned the jury that when three or four persons agreed minutely on a thing that had happened a long time ago, it was more suspicious than if there were discrepancies. There was no doubt a motive in the minuteness of the evidence as to the 8 h—they must look on the evidence of the father, mother, and sister with grave suspicion. The jury need not go so Ur as to say whether the witnesses were wilfully swearing falsely, but whether what they did sta'e was actually true—if there was a reasonable doubt prisoner should get the benefit, and there was also the excellent testimony as to character: the beet character a man could have was to have it said that nothing had been heard against him,

After a retirement of four minutes the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty.