A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.—21ST M A Y , 1845.
A truculent old blackfellow named Koort Koort Kirrup, yvho was supposed to have committed several daring robberies, and more than one murder, in the Western country, yvas committed for trial, and sent to Melbourne. There yvas great difficulty in driving into the grey head of this savage any notion of a trial and its consequences, and he was detained in gaol for some time before the authorities could see their way sufficiently to bring him before a jury. H e was arraigned at the Criminal Sessions on the 14th March, but as there was no person capable of interpreting, Judge Therry remanded him. O n the 21st M a y he was indicted for the wilful murder of William M'Kenzie, by striking him with a waddy at the E m u Creek on 5th May, 1842. In the dock the m a n seemed the incarnation of stupidity, and he looked around with as m u c h unconcern as an old bullock, instead of one of the so-styled " Lords of Creation." A jury yvas syvorn to try the issue of his mental capacity; but his only " capacity " was an enormous one for the absorption of Government rations. T h e jury came to the conclusion that a gum-tree log had as much comprehension of the goings-on in Court as the prisoner, and it was impossible, according to any recognized principle of jurisprudence, to go further. A m a n could not be tried, and, probably, hanged, unless he had some rational glimmerings of the functions of Judge and jury. T h e Judge, however, assumed the responsibility of detaining the prisoner in custody until the Executive decided what was to be done yvith him. H e returned to gaol, where he continued for several weeks, and was then turned over to the charge of the Assistant Aboriginal Protector for the Western District. H e died with his tribe in about a year after his release. EMBEZZLEMENT AT THE TREASURY.—17TH JULY, 1845.
William V. M'Vitie was indicted for embezzling, on the 25th April, £40, the property of Her Majesty; and there yvere four counts alternating the offence. T h e Croyvn Prosecutor conducted the prosecution, and Messrs. Williams and Stayvell the defence. T h e accused yvas Chief Clerk in the Sub-Treasury at Melbourne. O n a certain day he received £33 l3s-> *'-e- t w 0 license fees of £ 1 0 each, and two assessments of £ 6 16s. 6d. each. T h e amount was paid by a Mr. Turnbull with a £ 4 0 cheque, and he received the balance of £ 6 7s, in cash. T h e embezzlement of the whole constituted the charge. T h e evidence disclosed the facts that the m o d e of doing business at the Treasury yvas irregular and unsystematic, and that however fitted for the satisfactory performance of other duties the Sub-Treasurer (Captain Lonsdale) might be, he certainly was not at h o m e in supervising the Provincial Exchequer. M'Vitie had been five years in the appointment, and there was never before the least ground for the slightest imputation on his integrity. T h e Judge's summing up yvas much in his favour, and the jury acquitted him. Public opinion seemed to discredit the notion of his guilt, the presumption being that the accused had got into trouble through some mistake ; a theory justified by some persons oyving to thefollowingcircumstance which subsequently transpired :—" At the period of the supposed fraud, the Treasurer's office was in a dilapidated building on Batman's Hill, and some years after, when they were moving away, a roll of bank notes* (between £ 3 0 and £ 4 0 ) was discovered crushed behind an old pigeon-hole; and this yvas probably the identical s u m for which M'Vitie was deficient in his accounts, and which had doubtless got into its hiding place by accident."
'viously stated that the money paid by M r , TurnhuU consisted of a cheque of exactly , £ 4 0 — E D ,
