H.—37

2

What it means to me can be understood when I say that I have lived in the district for the last twenty years, during which time I have admittedly borne an unimpeachable character, and also that I have a large family, whose reputation is, of course, involved in my own. It has, however, also meant a serious pecuniary loss to me. I have necessarily had to incur heavy legal expenses. Moreover, the proceedings took place at harvest time, as my crop was being cut, and I was put to much extra expense in consequence of not being able to give my attention to the harvesting. By reason of this I also suffered a heavy loss on account of an unusually heavy storm coming on before the cutting was finished, which I could have escaped if I could have given my personal attention to the matter. By this storm the crop was damaged to the extent of at least 3 bushels to the acre being destroyed over an area of 100 acres. I now ask that such redress as is possible, and compensation for my pecuniary loss, be made to me by the Government. lam advised that there is no legal redress available under the circumstances, but I submit that it is a case in which, in bare justice, the Government should compensate me. I say —and Ido not think it can now be denied—that the action of the police authorities towards me has been the cause of my having been made to suffer a grievous wrong and injustice; that I was arrested on a charge of which I was entirely innocent, which should never have been brought against me, and was committed for trial when there was actually and unquestionably no evidence to connect me with the alleged offence. I would at the same time call your attention to the method adopted by the police authorities in conducting the proceedings, which I consider most unfair towards me, and not calculated to promote the interests of justice. They appear to have been animated solely by a desire to sheet home a charge to me, instead of impartially searching for the truth. As instances, I would mention that a most important fact which was within their knowledge was suppressed at both the inquest and the Magisterial inquiry; and that was that, on the day that the man was found dead, an Indian hawker called at about 5 o'clock at the house of the witness Davis. He was carrying a stick on his shoulder supporting his swag—such a stick as, from the description given, might very well have been used in inflicting injuries such as were found on the deceased. It was not until after the Magisterial inquiry that this fact was ascertained by my solicitor; but the witness Davis states that he informed the police of the circumstance previous to the inquest. Why should this have been suppressed ? Why was not inquiry made concerning this man ? It is evident that a man of this sort was much more likely to have committed a diabolical outrage such as I was charged with than a respectable farmer whose antecedents were known to have been unimpeachable for the last twenty years. Was it fair or just that, in an inquiry to ascertain the truth, such an important fact should have been suppressed ? Then, I have to complain of the manner in which Detective Livingstone tried to make a case against me by saying to my boy Jeremiah that I had admitted having struck the man, and saying to my daughter Mary that I had said that I had kicked him, and having urged them that it was no use for them to attempt to deny it,'when, as a matter of fact, I had never made any such statement to him. Detective Livingstone also stated in the witness-box that there standing on my verandah you can see the country for perhaps five miles, and that there is no plantation sufficient to hide the view on the road where the man was lying, unless the man would lie under the gorse hedge. Now, it is a fact which can be ascertained that there is a gorse hedge all along the road, and that it, is so high at the place where the man was lying that any one standing on the middle of the road is unable to see my house. He also stated that the cut of the water-race is 12in. deep at the centre of the road. But, as a matter of fact, there is no cut at all in the middle of the road. If there was no water running, there would be nothing in the middle of the road to indicate a race. The bed in which the water runs is a mere gently-sloping hollow. The contention which the police were endeavouring to support was that it would be difficult for an injured man to run across; but, as the fact is, it would be just be as easy to crawl across the water-race as any other part of the road. In conclusion, the sum of my complaint is as follows: That my being arrested, imprisoned, and committed for trial are due to palpable and grievous errors of judgment on the part of the authorities responsible ; that in consequence thereof I have suffered irreparable injustice and being put to heavy expenses. My legal expenses alone amount to £65 55., and this, with the loss of time, loss of crop, and other pecuniary losses in connection with the matter, make my pecuniary losses not less than £100; and I appeal to the Government to make such compensation as is possible to an innocent man who has been wrongfully charged with the most serious crime known to the law, by reimbursing to him the amount of my pecuniary loss. I should feel obliged if you will be so good as to inform me if it is in the power of the Government to accede to my appeal, or if it will be necessary to present an appeal to Parliament, or what other course I should have to adopt to obtain redress. The Hon. the Minister of Justice, Wellington. Jeremiah McCarthy.

Inspector Broham to the Commissioner of Police. Sir,— Police Office, Christchurch, 14th May, 1895. With reference to the attached letter from Jeremiah McCarthy to the Hon. the Minister of Justice, seeking redress for having, as he states, been falsely and unjustly arrested, imprisoned, and committed for trial, owing to palpable and grievous errors of judgment on the part of the authorities responsible on a charge of murder, I have the honour to state that on the 14th January last an inquest was opened at Waimate before Major Keddell, the Coroner, on the body of one Thomas Sullivan, who was found dead on the 12th January at Waihao, about a mile and a half from McCarthy's. After taking some evidence it was adjourned, and was finally concluded on the 22nd January, when the Coroner reviewed the evidence, and from his remarks to the jury I was strongly of opinion that they would bring in a verdict of murder. This, however, they failed to do, but gave instead a verdict as follow-: "That the deceased died on the 12th January