Civil Commissioner.

• 13. Coming now to the question of the jurisdiction to be given to the Civil Commissioner, I find in the memorandum submitted to Governor Grey by the Colonial Ministers in November, 1861, a recommendation that all criminal cases arising in Native districts should be disposed of in the Commissioner's Court, excepting only cases of homicide. The Ministers go on to say: "The District Commissioner will be a person of personal character sufficiently high to create confidence in the decisions of the Courts which he superintends; and ultimately the Governor in Council has the power of pardon. The proposal to establish regular circuits of the Supreme Court Ministers submit to be premature; they think that for the present the Supreme Court should be resorted to in the case of homicide alone, in which case Ministers concur in the very great importance of the trial taking place in the district where the offence may have been committed—a proposition which will, no doubt, be fully appreciated by the Native race. The Supreme Court could in such cases be put in motion by special Commissions. Ultimately, when more complicated relations arise between the Natives and Europeans living together, regular circuits will no doubt be desirable." I would propose that resort should be had to the Supreme Court, in the way proposed by Ministers, not only in cases of homicide, but also in cases of any actual violence of a grievous kind to the person of a man or woman.

  With this exception, all cases civil and criminal, where the defendant or accused person is resident within the district, should come within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. Also that jurisdiction should attach equally, whether the offence or cause of action arose on lands held under the Native tenure or under Crown grant. The accused should, in all cases arising between the two races, have, if desired, the benefit of a mixed jury, a device which was long employed in England for the settlement of questions between persons of different races, and is to a considerable extent recognized in the Jury Amendment Ordinance of 1844, and in "The Jury Amendment Act, 1862."

  To guard against an occasional failure of justice, it might be provided that, if three-fourths of the jury pronounce the accused guilty, it shall be competent for the Judge or Commissioner (if he agree with the finding of the majority) to award such punishment as he shall think right, within the limits allowed by law. With this exception, offences should be dealt with by the Commissioner and a mixed jury, in all respects according to the ordinary course of procedure; the sentence being of course subject in this, as in all cases, to be remitted in whole or in part by the Governor.