248
to me apart from any objection technical or otherwise to the legality of the conviction is whether it is shown to be a person the prisoner or not - who for the peace and good order of the colony it is desirable to remove.
With regard to the 1st Question, I think there can be no doubt that the evidence, if it is to be believed, justified the conviction, and under §7 of 1868 $28, might have been kept in penal servitude for 14 years, or imprisonment with hard labor for 2 years, solitary confinement, and if under 16, with a whipping.
The prisoner in the opinion of the Magistrate did not exceed the age of 16 years I presume, and I presume that he received the sentence of 2 floggings under §9 of 1867. §6.
"With regard to the 2nd Question from the transcript of the evidence before me I do not know that if I had been acting as Magistrate I should have convicted, but the Magistrate had the opportunity of hearing the evidence and better means of judging. The prisoner acted certainly suspiciously at least, and I have no doubt as to his guilt.The remarks I made first as to his punishment in the case apply equally to this.
With regard to the 3rd Commission