What to do with this Petition.

PLEASE read carefully the following statement of the case for James Larkin; and, if you then believe that he has been too severely punished, and you desire to support the petition, procced as follows:— Tear off and use the form of Petition at the back of this statement. 1. Sign your name on the place where indicated, and state your occupation and address, and date of signature. 2. Interview any neighbours and friends who may be interested, and, if they wish

to do so, get them similarly to sign your copy of the petition.

NOTE: Only persons of mature years and good repute should sign the petition. Also, be careful to see that persons who sign your copy of the petition have not already signed some other copy. The signatures of women, as well as of men are wanted. 3. Having obtained all available signatures, please post your copy of the petition, at the earliest possible moment, to

James Larkin Committee, P.O. Box 3408 R, General Post Office, Sydney.

You may retain this explanatory state ment—send only the petition, 4. The need for haste is emphasised.

Please catch the earliest available mail, 5. The copies of the petition will be assembled in Sydney, and then submitted, in proper form, to His Honour the Ad ministrator, in Rabaul.

Every effort has been made to obtain a copy of the evidence, or more ac curately, the judge’s notes, of the trial of Larkin in the Central Court at Ra baul; but these have been denied to the lawyers engaged, on the ground that an appeal has not been lodged against the conviction. The reason does not seem adequate, but the best must be made of the situation, as time presses; so the re port of the Central Court trial, which ap peared in the “Rabaul Times,” of 4th December, 1931, has been reprinted below, and in full, except for irrelevant things

which do not affect the argument. The report has the ring of exactness and authenticity. It is essentially a presenta tion of the prosecutor’s case, but no fault will be found with that fact; rather will an argument be directed against it.

Larkin did not appeal against his con viction. He was ill, and was stunned by his experience; he was advised to remain silent for a year or so, until the matter could be considered in calmer times; he took the whole of the blame for the affair on his own shoulders and saved at least

five natives from being convicted with him as principals, and walked in ill health to the obscurity of a prison.

Explanation Of The Law.

The Queensland Criminal Code Act was adopted in 1921 as part of the laws of the Territory of New Guinea. Larkin was charged with the crime of “murder” (not “wilful murder”) under Section 302, which states, inter alia, that “a person who unlawfully kills another” in the fol lowing circumstances, “that is to say—if death is caused by means of an act done

in the prosecution of an unlawful pur pose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life—is guilty of murder —it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person that is killed.”

While it is not specified in the charge that Larkin was indicted under the abovenamed sub-Section the remaining sub-Sections apply only to cases such as drugging, garrotting, malicious wound ing, etc., where death results, though such is not the intention of the offender. Per haps, it could be better explained by saying, that had the native lived after the thrashing Larkin might have been fined £20, but, death having taken place, he was charged with the crime of “mur der,” as defined above.

The Administrator’S Power

The Queensland Criminal Code was drafted by the late Sir Samuel Griffith, and it represents the codification of Bri tish criminal law through many centuries since the reign of Edward the First, and it is a model favourably referred to over seas. Of particular importance in the Larkin case is the Code as originally passed by the Queensland Parliament, as showing that the supreme power in cases of “wilful murder” and “murder” was, once the accused had been found guilty, vested in the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council. Thus, the only sentence a judge could pass in capital cases was that of death, but the sentence could not be carried out without the sanction of the Governor-in-Council, who was required to name the date and place of death by execution, and the Governor had the power to commute the sentence of death to one of imprisonment, or, as absolute power to remit the sentence altogether was delegated to him by the King, he could order the immediate re lease of the convicted person. The Royal prerogative of mercy is delegated to all Governors and Administrators, and the power is absolute and beyond appeal.

This is to prove that for the first few years of Civil administration in New Guinea the Administrator imposed the penalty in cases of “wilful murder” and “murder.” But by an amendment of the Code, as it applied to New Guinea, the crime of “murder” became no longer a capital offence, and the judge therefore imposed the penalty, the maximum pun ishment being imprisonment for life. The amendment also provided that the judge could in charges of “wilful murder” and “murder” convict the accused of a lesser offence—manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, bodily harm, assault and common assault. Thus, a person originally charged with “wilful murder” could be convicted of common assault and fined 5/-. While the Royal prerogative of mercy always, of course, remained with the Administrator, his power to deter mine the sentence in capital cases had practically passed to a judge of the Cen tral Court, for the Administrator must come in conflict with the judge if he reduced any sentence imposed in that Court.

In New Guinea under present condi tions, a judge sits without a jury, so he has tremendous power. Justice Griffith never intended that the responsibility for determining the sentence in a capital case should be vested in a single person, judge or layman; for cases of homicide are generally very involved, and it is better for several minds to consider it in the absence of legal forms, as is the case

with the Executive Councils of an Aus tralian State. Plainly, Justice Griffith never contemplated such a situation as has arisen in New Guinea, where there is no Parliamentary control of the execu tive.

The position in New Guinea is unfor tunate, as the act of an Administrator in reducing a sentence imposed by a judge is capable of being misconstrued as the censuring of that judge. In the case of Larkin, the judge imposed a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, which sentence could not be increased by the Adminis trator. If the Administrator reduced the sentence, he and the judge might be in conflict, and they certainly would be then in an unenviable position.

However, if the intention of the Code in its original form is construed, the Ad ministrator’s position is not at all dif ficult. Larkin was convicted of “murder,” and the judge was bound to pass a severe sentence, throwing absolute responsibility for its reduction on the Administrator; and there should be no conflict, even in the face of the judge’s summing-up, if the sentence is reduced. The intention of the original Code remains, and one sees the wisdom in Griffith’s draft.

Now that there is an Executive Council in the Territory of New Guinea, residents should realise the unfairness of placing the responsibility of imposing the penalty in cases of homicide on a single man— the Administrator or a judge of the Cen tral Court—and it has been suggested that they should press for an amendment of the law, so that the Administrator, with the advice of the Executive Council, may be empowered to determine the sentence in capital cases.

It is herein respectfully submitted that Larkin was too heavily punished by the sentence imposed on him, and in the fol lowing paragraphs we shall endeavour to prove that THERE WERE MITIGATING

Circumstances That Could Not

Have Been, On Strictly Legal

Grounds, Admitted At The Cen

Tral Court Trial, But Which

Could Be Admitted By The Ad

Ministrator In Reconsidering

Larkin’S Case.

The Evidence And Comment

Thereon

In the following paragraphs we have reprinted the “Rabaul Times” report of the trial; and, where called for, we have interpolated, in different type, the argu ment and comment which we submit in favour of Larkin. The Crown Law Officer’s address has been omitted, as it is covered by Larkin’s evidence and by the Judge’s summing-up. A medical assistant’s testimony is the only European evidence for the Crown, the remainder having been given by natives. Larkin gave evidence for himself, and his is the only European evidence of the facts of the flogging. A European doctor and Mr.

Edgell (Larkin’s partner) also gave evi dence on Larkin’s behalf. (From the “Rabaul Times,” of December, 1931.) James Joseph Larkin gave evidence in his de fence. He stated that Sambung, Pomnis, and Towan came to his plantation on Saturday, 24th October. On Monday they sent up several messages about leaving. I sent for Sambung, Pomnis, and Tcwan about 5 p.m. on Monday, 26th October. The three of them came up to the front verandah. I was sitting in the smoke room, which is a part of the verandah wired off. It is a mosquito-proof room. When I saw them coming up the ladder

on to the verandah, I opened the door and walked out of the smoke room on to the verandah and towards the boys, and spoke to them. Sambung was the nearest to me. He was on the verandah proper, and I said to him, “What is all the trouble about, what is all the hurry for, and the messages about wanting to go?” I said, “You are the one in the particular hurry, you are doing all the talking and sending all the messages.” His reply to this was, “Are you a master?” At the moment I did not quite understand what he meant. I said, “Yes, I am a master.” He replied, “Oh! I am only a boy, you are not my master.” His manner and his tone of voice and his replies to my ques tions were particularly insolent, overbearing, and cheeky. I said, “Yes, I am not your master” (I understood what he was referring to), but said, “I expect you while you are here at Noru to take orders from me and to obey orders from me if I give them.” It is an understood thing between Mr. Edgell and myself, in a case of this kind, where Edgell’s boys brought by boat from his plantation to my plantation, that the boys whilst at my plantation would take any orders from me while they were there. Speaking in Pid gin he said: “Oh, you master, me boy, that’s all”; but his manner indicated his insolence more than the answers. I said to him then: “Have you heard what I have said to you exactly, to go down to wait until such time as I have prepared my mail, given the engine a run,” and that he and all the others would go when I told them later. He was still standing up with rather an aggressive look, with his face jutted out and swaggering his shoulders, and after I had spoken these words to him—he was standing three or four feet away facing me —I said: “You have heard that, now you understand, get down below”—mak ing a gesture with my hand as an indication I wanted him to go. I did not touch him. Just at that moment, when I made a back-handed smack at him to emphasise my instructions, he ducked and hit my hand away, and put his head down and made a sort of diving football tackle or plunge at me. He gripped me around the knees or lower thighs, remarking as he dived and gripped me. “Oh! you are a master, are you, well me boy that’s all.” I grabbed at him and got him by the hair. His head was opposite my chest.

This attack took me by surprise and I half over balanced, and half staggered two or three back weird steps. We had reached the corner of the verandah by this time at the point marked c. on the plan. He crowded me into the corner, and was half on top of me. I had my back to the corner, and in the scuffle he wrenched my left hand clear and bit it savagely. I was holding him with my right hand and I released my hold and hit him. In the struggle I got up (I was in a half recumbent position), and threw him clear, re marking at the same time, “Enough, finish.” He came straight at me again, and I fought him off and hit him severed times as he came at me.

He got me into the same comer and half down on the floor. I had my left hand gripping the crossrail of the verandah, and my right hand on the floor of the verandah with my back in the corner.

I was endeavouring with the leverage of my hands to get up, and he gripped my left hand, bent it over the sharp edge of the diagonal verandah rail, forced it back and broke a bone in my hand. He gripped my wrist with his right hand, and my fingers with his left hand. I again got out of this position. At this juncture I kicked and kneed him off and got out of this position in a comer a little way, perhaps a yard. I could then see that the boy had by this time become completely mad. He did not cease for one second.

During the whole of this mix-up he did not cease to talk. Such remarks, “You master, me boy that’s all”; “this is true all right”; remarks like this over and over again, and crowding me, and not letting up for one second.

At least two or three times during the fight, particularly when I threw clear of him, I told him to finish, it was enough. He backed and charged me into the corner again, with him on top and me underneath, and he started diving at me and attempting to trip me. I tried to grip his hair and hit him with short-handed blows. I put up my knees for the purpose of protecting myself. I called out to Ubahau, my cook boy.

Ubahau arrived, grabbed Sambung by the shoulder or upper arm, gave him a vigorous shake, remarking in Pidgin: “Finish, Sambung, you like fight along master, you long long finish.” On hearing Ubahau’s voice, Sambung stopped fighting.

He stood up and moved back, and I stood up and said, “You get away quick, go, get out of this,” pointing to the ladder. The wire of the mosquito room was broken in the fight. Sambung went down the steps.

I walked to the bathroom and washed my hands and face, my own blood and Sambung’s blood. I then walked into the bedroom, drying myself, and, standing in front of the mirror, I realised that I had received a rough handling, that I had got the worst of the bout. I was white, and shak ing, and quivering. I yelled out to Ubahau to “bring that boy Sambung back on top.” I then changed my clothes from pyjamas into shorts and singlet. I was wearing my pyjamas at this hour of the day. I had for two weeks past had con tinuous recurring low fever, and I had low fever on this day. I walked out, and up and down the verandah, calling out to the boys to hurry up.

In a couple of minutes Sambung and the other boys, Singori, Wabio, Lowin, and Pomnis, arrived.

About five minutes elapsed from the time I got away from Sambung after the fight until the boys came back again to the verandah. I saw the five boys arrive at the front steps.

COMMENT. —Larkin’s evidence is of particular importance, in view of the attitude which the judge adopted towards it, and we feel that it can only be properly understood by Europeans who have had natives under their control. Larkin was ill and debilitated, which is confirmed by the fact that he was still wearing his pyjamas at that hour.

Sambung and the other natives were irritated at their delayed return to their master (Mr. Edgell) and Sambung had come onto Larkin’s verandah in a defiant frame of mind. Larkin had no legal sanc tion for striking him for impertinence, but he had every moral ground, and if whites in the tropics did not exercise on some occasions that moral ground their control would be lost. It is not usual for a native to join in fisticuffs with a white man, so Larkin’s evidence must be believed when he states that Sambung was the aggressor, and a persistent one. Reference to the depositions of the Coroner’s. Court at Manus leaves one won dering whether there had not been deliberate “bait ing” of Larkin by Sambung and two other natives who had come to Noru plantation in the pinnace (or launch). There was a terrific struggle be tween Larkin and Sambung, and it is evident that Sambung was crazed. Larkin was severely injured, a bone in his hand being broken. In fact, he was practically put hors-de-combat. The native fought with tooth and claw, and he dis played considerable spirit; but the point is that he should have desisted before he was dragged away from Larkin. All the merit appears to be with Larkin, for he was a white man in control of natives and the other was a labourer, and Larkin had given no cause for such impertinence and aggression on the part of Sambung. Sam bung could have broken off the fight simply by ceasing and moving away, but he continued until the cook-boy, Ubahau, who saw that the affair was serious, interfered. Further, Larkin’s plan tation was a considerable distance from the Gov ernment station at Lorungau, and he was the only white man in that area —a fact which, no doubt, influenced Sambung in defying Larkin. Larkin probably owes his life to his cook-boy, who dragged Sambung away, for in his crazed condi tion he might have used a weapon on Larkin.

LARKIN’S EVIDENCE.—I told them to bring Sambung up on the verandah. I told them to put him down and hold him fast, which they did.

His arms were stretched out, legs extended out with a boy holding each limb. I then walked into the dining room, got a walking-cane off the hat rack, calling the boy Ubahau, at the same time.

The top of the stick had a rooted end, used as the handle part of the walking stick, gradually tapering to the smaller end, which was the size of Exhibit B. Ubahau arrived, and I gave him the stick, and said, “You give him, Sambung, stick.” I did not tell him how many strokes to give Sambung. Ubahau struck Sambung on the buttocks with the cane. He was not skinned on the knees. He was not struck below the buttocks.

Ubahau gave Sambung five or six strokes of the cane. I told him to stop. He stopped. I said to Sambung: “You savvy who is master now?”

Sambung did not reply. I said to Ubahau: “Give him some more.” Ubahau hit him again on the buttocks with the stick about ten times. Again I told Ubahau to stop. Ubahau stopped. I spoke to Sambung again, repeated my former question.

He did not reply. I then said to Ubahau: “Give him some more.” Ubahau gave him about ten more strokes. I told Ubahau to stop. He stopped, and I took the cane from him. I then gave Sambung a couple of cuts with the cane on the buttocks. I threw the cane to Lowin, saying to Lowin; “Give him three, four feller.” Lowin gave him about six or seven strokes of the cane. I told Lowin to stop. He stopped. I then told the

boys to release Sambung. I said; “Loose him, Sambung, take him away.” Ubahau did not handle the stick any more after I had struck Sambung myself. I said: “All right, that will do, loose him Sambung, take him away.” I did not use the words “shoot him.”

COMMENT: This part of Larkin’s evidence is the crux of the case for the prosecution. Larkin, alone, was indicted for the offence; but, at law, those natives who assisted at the thrashing were equally guilty with him. They gave evidence against him, but the judge, in his summing, sug gested that they had been guilty of exaggeration, and it is obvious that they were badly scared of the Crown, which could have indicted them later.

IN FACT THEIR EVIDENCE AT THE MANUS

Coroner’S Court Is Largely Romance.

IT IS A TRIUMPH FOR LARKIN’S MANLI NESS THAT HE TOOK THE BLAME WHOLLY ON HIS OWN SHOULDERS. Had he denied the evidence totally the Crown would have been hard put to it to obtain a conviction on any charge. Larkin’s object in giving evidence is quite clear. He believed that in a moment of illness and pain he had committed an indiscretion, but not, to his mind, without justification, and not to an extent beyond giving Sambung a thrashing and so re-establishing his prestige with the natives.

Sambung’s meek submission to being spreadeagled on the verandah floor is beyond explanation except that HE WAS CONSCIOUS THAT HE HAD WRONGED LARKIN, had a “big shame,” as the natives express it in Pidgin-English, and ex pected retribution at Larkin’s hands, rather than be dealt with by the District Officer. Sambung’s return to Larkin’s house on being called could be attributed to arrogance, the belief that Larkin having been worsted could be worsted again; but it is difficult to explain submission to spread eagling, particularly by natives who had been members with him of the pinnace crew and who were his mates. IT IS CLEAR THAT NATIVE

Sympathy During The Thrashing Was

With Larkin And Not With Sambung.

Sambung could easily have run away from Noru Island—as two of his mates did—and reported the affair to the District Officer if he thought that he had been wronged by Larkin during their altercation on the verandah.

It is no use glossing over the thrashing. It was severe, but no one had any idea that it was too severe or could possibly be attended with grave consequences.

The Medical Evidence For The

CROWN IS IMPERFECT. AS THERE IS NO

Overwhelming Or Even Reasonable

Proof That The Flogging Caused

DEATH. Death might have been due to some other cause. The certainty is that no one intended to injure Sambung gravely or kill him. Any other implication than that is unsound, because experi ence has shown that natives will by physical force restrain a white man who is exceeding his powers.

If anything so desperate as killing or maiming Sambung had been Larkin’s intention, there would not have been a native left on Larkin’s planta tion, all being headed for their homes or for the Government station. No one loathes physical force more than a New Guinea native, and no one is slower to apply it.

There are some references to the Pidgin-English expression, “kill him.” It does not mean to kill or to murder, as in English, but rather, “make him feel it.” The word in Pidgin-English is used freely in such expressions as “Hungry he kill him me” (I am faint with hunger); “Kill him along hand” (knocked out or shaken by a blow); “Medicine he kill him me” (the medicine upset me); etc. Even the expression. “Kill him die” only means making one unconscious or comatose.

The expression for killing (i.e, causing death), as in English, would be very definite, as “kill him he die finish, enough along plant him” (kill him and bury him). “Kill him he die finish,” only means knocking one unconscious, the final ex pression being a superlative which must be added to imply loss of consciousness though not of life.

“Kill” and “die” are meaningless in Pidgin when separated from the rest of a sentence. Larkin had been for many years in charge of labourers and was fluent in the use of Pidgin, and he understood that “kill him” only meant striking severely.

Briefly, the thrashing took the form of some strokes, then the question, “Who is master now?” and then more strokes, etc. The important aspect of the flogging is that Larkin took little physical part in it and could not judge of its severity. He was ill, and had been injured and shaken, and sat in an arm-chair as an observer. A cane of

that size applied repeatedly would have drawn blood —the black man’s horror. Had the effect of the flogging been as described by the native wit nesses, there would not have been a native re maining on the plantation afterwards. Another point is that the principal flagellators—Ubahau and Lowin —were fellow-natives, with Sambung, or the Manus (Admiralty Group) District, and, with natives, blood is thicker than water. Larkins contention that the thrashing did not draw blood or cause any extraordinary distress in Sambung seems very sound.

Continuation of “Rabaul Times” Report: Dr. Sinclair and Mr. Edgell were called as wit nesses for the defence.

The hearing continued during the 23rd, 24th, 25th and 26th of November, 1931.

After the addresses by counsel had concluded on Friday, 27th November, His Honour found the accused guilty of murder and remanded him for sentence.

After the accused had been found guilty, he admitted four prior convictions for assault on natives and one prior conviction for flogging a native.

COMMENT: Larkin’s previous convictions, at first sight, seem bad; but his is the fate of prac tically every white man in New Guinea who has charge of natives, and who lives at a great dis tance from a Government station. Larkin spent practically all his years in New Guinea on isolated plantations, and had at times to take the law into his own hands —or walk out of New Guinea.

The law of provocation is the same in New Guinea as in any other country, but it does not make laziness or disobedience provocation for an assault, so many whites have convictions recorded against them for assaults, although morally they were in the right. The Administrator has power under the Native Labour Ordinance to prohibit the controlling or employing of natives by whites who have been convicted of offences committed against natives. THAT LARKIN WAS STILL AN EMPLOYER AT THE TIME OF THE SAM

Bung Affair Suggests That The Ad

Ministration Did Not Take A Serious

View Of His Convictions.

On Monday, 30th November, His Honour the Chief Judge sentenced Larkin to ten years’ im prisonment with hard labour.

Judge's Summing-Up.

Before sentencing the accused, His Honour the Chief Judge summarised the evidence and made comments on it. The following is a summary of his remarks.

In this case the accused has been found guilty of the murder on the 28th October of a native man named Sambung. The accused at the time was residing on a plantation named Noru, some little distance off the North-west coast of the main island of Manus. On the 24th October, three natives, Towan, Pomnis and Sambung, all of whom were indentured to a Mr. Edgell, came to Noru in a pinnace called the “Noru.” That pinnace was used for the business and Noru plantation, but Mr.

Edgell some fortnight before had got it for use elsewhere, and he returned it in the charge of these three natives. They had with them a note from Edgell to the accused. The note gave certain information and mentioned, amongst other things, that Edgell had effected some alterations to the engine of the pinnace, and that these three boys would show the accused what they were and how the pinnace was to be worked. It also stated that they were to return by road to a place called Woenai, where Edgell had a small block of land. Woenai is quite close to Lorengau, and it involved a long walk by road from the place on the main island, they would land at from Noru, right through several plantations, amongst them Imim, to Lorengau, and then to Woenai.

The accused then, was expected to give this boat a run while these boys were there, and there was some mention of letters to be sent back. When the boys arrived in the afternoon of Saturday, 24th October, apparently beyond delivering this note, nothing was done. The next day, Sunday, again nothing was done. It was treated as a holiday or an off day by everyone, including the accused.

On the Monday for some hours in the morning, again nothing was done. The three boys began to get anxious or restive, and sent up to the accused to say that they wanted to get away.

There is some evidence that this was about 10

o'clock, and apparently the accused, although he had his duties to perform in order to let these boys go away, was not yet out of bed. In his evidence he stated that he had been suffering for a fortnight with recurrent fever, or, as he put it in rather an extraordinary phrase, continuous re current low fever. However, from this time on, all traces of that fever suddenly disappeared.

COMMENT: An experienced medical practitioner says—“A person suffering from an attack of malaria is not necessarily prostrated, but merely ill, yet capable of attending in an inefficient way to his work.”

When this message came he had not made the slightest attempt either to write his letters or to give this trial run. The evidence is not quite clear as to what messages were sent, but there is a certain amount of evidence to show that this first message was repeated, and that the boys still wanted to get away. The accused then said to his servant, “Oh! give them some work, give them something to keep them busy,” and they were set to work, washing out the labour house and cutting grass around it. When that was done they naturally again wanted to go, and sent a further message, and he tried to stave them off by giving them more work. He had not made the slightest attempt to write his letters or to have this trial run. Later in the afternoon, prob ably about 4 o’clock, a further message came, and he says himself that he then got annoyed and sent down to ask them what all the hurry was about, all the trouble, and all the messages, and sent for the three boys.

The evidence is that the three boys came up together. The accused says that Sambung was the one who acted as spokesman, but at the same time, on his own evidence, it is clear that it was he who spoke to Sambung first, and said, “You are the boy who is sending all these messages, what do you mean by it, and what is it all about?

You will have to wait and have the trial run, and I have letters to write, and you can’t go until that is done.” The statement by the accused that it was Sambung who started this, even on his own evidence, is erroneous. Sambung was there with the others, but he was the one ad dressed first, and, naturally, he was the one who answered.

As to what happened afterwards, there is a clear cleavage between the evidence for the prose cution and the evidence of the accused. The evi dence for the prosecution is that the accused caught Sambung, with both hands, by the hair, pulled him down, then struck him a severe blow under the eye (it was bleeding an hour later), kicked him on the body and chest, and used his knees on him, and generally committed a most violent assault on that boy, during which Sambung closed with the accused and they both fell. The accused’s statement is that when he spoke to the boy as he did, the boy made a sudden rush at him, a football tackle, he called it, and got him somewhere about the knees, but before that happened he tells us that, having finished saying what he wanted to say to the boy, he told him to clear out, to get out of this, to finish, and get down, and made what he said was a gesture with his hands, that he pointed down the steps, but he did not touch him. In the next breath, he speaks of a back-handed stroke, as he calls it, which Sambung eluded by throwing his hand aside and ducking. It is probable that this seizing the boy by the head occurred, and that he ducked, and that is really what the accused calls the football tackle.

There is no doubt that once they got together there was severe fighting, and that the native retaliated, as under the circumstances he would be quite entitled in doing. If a man seizes another by the hair and kicks him all about the body and hits him in the face, it does not matter whether the one who does it is white, and the other black; they are both human, and the one attacked is perfectly entitled to protect himself.

The accused, of course, tells quite a different story; that as the native’s head was about to come into his chest, the only thing he could do was to seize him by the hair, and that they struggled and there was a very fierce battle, in which he says Sambung bit him somewhere about the thumb—which is extremely probable—and dam aged his hand by bending it back over one of the diagonal rails on the verandah, which again is extremely probable. I think that if one could follow it, it was very likely that Sambung had managed to release one of the accused’s hands and was trying to get it away. That may be.

However, the result was that the accused was getting somewhat the worst of it, and he then called to his cook-boy, Ubahau, who was in the kitchen close by, and Ubahau separated them and got the boy away. The accused says Ubahau got hold of Sambung and pulled him away, saying, “You are mad to hit a master.”

It is undoubted on the evidence that when Ubahau came and spoke to Sambung, Sambung stopped and walked across towards the steps and went off quietly. He went quietly and walked down to the store, which is roughly about a hun dred yards away. He made no attempt to escape, and it is admitted that he could have got away from the Island if he had wanted to. If he had committed this outrageous assault that would be probably the first thing that would occur to him.

But he simply went down to the store and remained there.

COMMENT: Against this contention of the learned Judge must be placed experience, which is that natives who believe themselves aggrieved will leave at once for the District Officer. Prior to the flogging, Sambung’s two workmates had left Noru Island for Lorungau, which they reached two days later. Why Sambung was not with them must remain a mystery, but it is probable that he did not feel himself aggrieved but realised, rather, that he was the aggressor.

The accused after he had gone (this is on his own evidence now) says that he went to the bath room, washed himself, took this blood off—both Sambung’s and his own blood—changed from pyja mas into shorts and a singlet, and had a look at himself in the mirror in his bedroom and then apparently, if one may believe him, he was so shocked at his appearance that he lost control. He says that he locked at himself in the glass, found that he was white and shaking, and that he got the worst of it. Why it had such an extra ordinary effect on him I do not know. I can see no reason why he should suddenly have lost control of himself, as he says he did, but un doubtedly after this interval he called to Ubahau and told him to bring back Towan and Sambung, and to get four other boys and bring them up to his house.

COMMENT: Larkin was ill and had been badly shaken. Bathing only occupied a few minutes.

Had He Allowed Sambung To Escape

Some Punishment He Could Not Have

Remained In Control Of Natives Any

Longer And Would Have Had To

LEAVE NEW GUINEA. The expectation that Larkin would have regained his composure in a few minutes after a bad shaking does not seem reasonable. His mind was in a whirl.

Larkin says he did not know what he was going to do. He had no intentions at all, but the fact remains that these two boys who came in the pinnace were to be brought up—Sambung, being the one who assaulted him, and four other boys, and that he had his cook-boy, Ubahau. Even then one would have thought that Sambung, if he was the desperate assailant of the accused, instead of coming quietly up to the house would have at tempted to clear out, but he came at once on that instruction.

The other four boys were brought up and, finally, the accused found himself on that veran dah with his cook-boy, Ubahau, and four boys he had collected, and Towan and Sambung under the house. It is worthy of note that this was several minutes, one cannot say how many, after this fight had taken place, and after this man had time to cool down and collect himself. When these boys came on to the verandah he told them to bring up Sambung. There is some evidence that Towan came up, but was sent down, and then Sambung was brought up. These servants of the accused were ordered by the accused to place Sambung on the floor of the verandah, face down, and each of them to take an arm or a leg and spreadeagle him in such a way that his limbs were taut. The accused then went into his room, got a heavy thick walking cane from a hat rack, brought it out, gave it to Ubahau and told him to lay it on.

The evidence is that the stick was at one end about an inch and an eighth in diameter, made heavier by the root which was the handle. The other end tapered off somewhat to just under an inch in diameter.

There is some vagueness as to the exact in structions or orders given by the accused to Übahau as regards the whipping. One witness said that he wanted him to have a hundred strokes and said, “Me like kill him.” Others say that they heard no mention of the number of strokes to

be given, and very probably there was not. On the other hand, it is quite possible the number was stated. Be that as it may, Ubahau began to flog this unfortunate spreadeagled native, and continued until he was told to stop and rest. When that had taken place he was ordered to go on again until there was another rest called. Then a third. Apparently the boy Ubahau was too tired with his flogging to continue with sufficient strength for this man’s satisfaction. Ubahau says that he did not want to do it, but was told that he would be flogged like that himself if he did not do it, that he gave some strokes hard and some light, and he was told to lay it on heavily. How ever, finally this man thought that it was insuffi cient so that the cane was taken by himself from Ubahau and he himself started flogging this unfortunate boy. Whether it was that he thought he could do it more severely than the others or whether, as it had been stated by some of them, to show hew it should be done, nobody knows, when he had finished his part of the flogging (I do not think, to do him justice, it would be very long, probably only a few strokes), he did not give this cane to Ubahau again, but he called Towan, who was holding a limb, and he, of course, would be quite fresh—to take the cane and flog Sambung while Ubahau was told off to hold the limb that Towan was holding, and the flogging continued.

COMMENT: The Pidgin-English expression “kill him” has been already referred to. It means nothing.

The learned judge is reported to refer to Towan as being one of the flagellators, but that native had run away from Noru Island with Pomnis before the took place. The natives’ evidence in the Coroner’s Court been commented upon as being unsound.

The learned judge is reported further on as saying that Towan (who probably was not then on the island) went and got a basin of water and threw it over Sambung’s head and back. Towan, in his evidence before the Coroner, said that he saw Singori, Lowin, Wabio and Wowas holding Sambung on the verandah, and he then ran away to a point on Noru Island where he joined Pom nis. He and Pomnis pulled in a canoe to the mainland and then proceeded on foot to the Gov ernment station at Lorungau. Neither saw the flogging. THE REPORT OF THE TRIAL AT THE CENTRAL COURT AS TO THE FLOG GING IS AS HAZY AS THE DESCRIPTION

Given By The Natives Before The

Coroner. Just What The Truth Is

Must Be Inferred From Larkin’S Evi

Dence.

How many strokes were inflicted, and how long they took, must be a matter of uncertainty.

The natives' evidence for the Crown goes to show that it went on from about 4 o’clock until almost dark, which would be about 6 o’clock. I think that is impossible. As cruelly as that boy was used, I do not think there would have been a breath in his body if one could imagine a two hours’ flog ging with the weapon used, even allowing for breaks and rests, and so on. The accused in his evidence puts it at ten minutes. I think he is just as wrong as they are, but that it was some considerable time, and that it was a flogging of the severest description there is no doubt at all.

When the flogging stopped the accused told him to take Sambung away. The accused says that the boy was quite normal then, but that he him self gave the order to take him down—quite un necessary if he were unhurt—and he was taken down. The accused says that he was helped down by one boy; the other evidence is that he was supported down by two of them, and put on the bottom step, which was a square of cement. The accused says that the boy was in a half sitting position, leaning against the post. The other evidence—and it fits in a great deal better than the accused’s—is that he was there lying prone on his face, and that is borne out by the fact that Towan went and got a basin of water and threw it over his head and back, but so as to avoid the buttocks, because water there would have caused him pain. I need not go into the subsequent evi dence as to what happened immediately after the native was taken from the verandah, except that it shows that even then the accused was acting in a brutal way to this boy. He said, “Let him alone, he can walk.” The result was that Sam bung staggered and fell. There is also evidence, which I am inclined to believe, that he forbade Towan getting another basin of water for him.

He denies this. The evidence of the natives who were present at the flogging is that before it was finished Sambung’s buttocks practically from the

waist down to the lower part of his thighs were a mass of lacerated flesh, the skin all off and blood and a watery substance all over.

COMMENT: In the Coroner’s Court the medi cal assistant referred only to injuries on the right buttock and the left buttock, and said that the trunk showed no signs of violence. The learned judge in his summing-up stated that the natives who were present at the flogging said that before the flogging was finished his “buttocks” practically “from the waist down to the lower part of his thighs were a mass of lacerated flesh, the skin all off and blood and a watery substance all over.”

Plainly, The Natives Were Lying.

Larkin had lived for many years in New Guinea, and it was a considerable time before the Sambung affair that he had taken a change of climate. Only those who have lived in the tropics know what that means. Larkin was a bachelor and he bad to depend on his native cook for his food which, at best, would be rough, and debility was his fate, for he was outside the range of refrigerated food.

Superimposed on debility was malaria, and he was ill for some time before and after the Sam bung affair. Considering his courage, as demon strated in the late war, it is not conceivable that he should suddenly develop into an arch-fiend.

And he did not. A person’s actions are guided by his state of bodily health, and the inference that he sat calmly in the deck-chair and saw Sambung flogged to death is unsound. If Sambung was flogged to death it was not because Larkin willed it.

In the deposition of the Coroner’s Court at Manus, from which court Larkin was committed for trial at the Central Court, there are references to “crying out” on two occasions. One native witness, Ubahau, stated that he had a “blister on his hand” through using the cane on Sambung’s buttocks, that he had skinned Sambung’s buttocks in the “first hundred strokes”; that more skin came off on the second and third floggings; and that it was “about four o’clock” when the flogging commenced and about “six o’clock” when he com pleted his part of it!!! Another witness, Lowin, said (in the Coroner’s Court) that “Sambung cried out” and “Ubahau hit lightly” because of that.

Another witness, Wabio, said that “Sambung cried out and said that he felt like dying,” and that Larkin said, “Never mind, die if you want to.

If the District Officer comes up, show him.” THE

Statement Attributed To Larkin Is

UTTER RUBBISH, AND IS A STOCK STATE

Ment Of New Guinea Natives Who

WANT TO “LAY IT ON” IN A COMPLAINT

To The District Officer. Variations

OF IT ARE, “AND HE SAID THAT YOU

Were Nothing, And That He’D Killed

District Officers Before And Would

Do It Again,” Etc. Etc.

Another witness in the Coroner’s Court, Wowas, said that he “was washing the labour house, but followed out of curiosity” to see the first inter view with Larkin, and that he “saw Larkin punch Sambung and was frightened, so ran away to the labour house.”

There is a lot of mystery about the evidence given by the natives before the Coroner, and there is a strong suspicion that Larkin was “baited.”

The native, Towan, said that he, Sambung, and Pomnis were on the verandah when the struggle between Larkin and Sambung commenced, but he and Pomnis ran away to the station store where, later, Sambung joined them, and Sambung was said to be then bleeding from a cut under the left eye. Pomnis then ran away and did not stop until he reached the Government station at Lorun gau, but it is not stated whether he complained to a Government officer or whether Towan, who was hot on his heels, complained.

The Important Point About This Is

That Sambung Meekly Submitted To

A FLOGGING WHILE THE OTHER TWO RAN

Away, After The Fight With Larkin,

Thus Proving That All Could Have

Run Away Had They Considered

Themselves Aggrieved.

The native Lowin also said: “Larkin told me to get the cane quickly. I took the cane and gave Sambung five strokes. Larkin’s attention wandered a little, so the next five strokes I gave I hit the floor with the end of the cane so that SAMBUNG did not feel it. Larkin was angry and asked if the plank was a man that I should

Cane It.” This Statement Is Absolute

Rubbish, And Belongs To The Realm

OF ROMANCE, AND IF IT IS SUBMITTED TO

The District Officers And Other

Members Of Courts For Native Af

FAIRS IN NEW GUINEA WOULD BE DIS

Missed On Their Experience Of Native

Mentality As Utterly Dangerous

Lying.

The depositions in the Manus Coroner’s Court are highly important in supporting the contention that too much was made of the natives’ evidence in the Central Court, and that the Administrator should take action. It is important to note that the depositions in the Coroner’s Court could not have been used in the Central Court except in the case of a witness who had died before the trial, or could not attend through severe illness; or, under cross-examination, to rebut the evidence of a witness who had changed his story in the superior court. The Coroner (Mr. Townsend) is one of the best Pidgin-English speaking officers in New Guinea, and, to one versed in that intricate language, his translations appear admirable as recorded in the depositions he took in the lower court when committing Larkin for trial. One can read in them the mind of the natives; their adherence to a single story, which is undoubtedly collusion; their exaggerated story of the flogging (which, judging from the time they say was taken, was about 1000 strokes!) From the evidence of the native who went to see the show “out of curiosity,” there is clearly an undercurrent in the evidence suggesting that there was native mischief in the air that day with Larkin at Noru Island.

The Depositions Should Be Submitted

TO MR. TOWNSEND AND TO THE OTHER

District Officers For Their Opinions

AS TO THE VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE.

During The Coronial Inquiry, Before

Mr. Towsend. Larkin Did Not Question

The Native Witnesses At All. There

Was No Need To—Their Evidence Was

Plain, Stupid Rubbish.

Larkin was convicted of the assault on the native on his own evidence, which he gave voluntarily and confidently. Whether the crime was “murder” is a matter of law and fact, but the judge’s stric ture, passed on Larkin during the summing-up, that Sambung was flogged to death, cannot be supported at all by the evidence given before the coroner. The judge was bound to follow legal forms in the Central Court AND THEREFORE HE COULD NOT BE SHOWN THE DEPOSI TIONS TAKEN BY THE CORONER. As the case was one of homicide, Larkin would have been in a better position had he been charged and con victed of wilful murder; for then the matter of punishment could have been considered by the Administrator entirely in the absence of legal forms, and the advice of his officers obtained.

Larkin, At The Worst, Was Only

Technically Guilty Of “Murder.” As

native evidence practically decided the nature of the verdict against Larkin and the punishment inflicted on him. it is respectfully submitted that the judge must have placed a greater reliance upon such native evidence than would appear justified by a perusal of the depositions taken from the natives by the Coroner, and remembering the well known propensity of natives generally to lie and exaggerate; and from this point of view it is suggested that Larkin was unjustly treated.

In The Central Court Only Larkin.

The Court Interpreter, And The

Native Witnesses Understood Pidgin

English. Translated. The Evidence

Of The Natives Was Worthless And

Even Highly Dangerous.

It is folly to regard adult natives as being cap able of giving evidence that is to be accepted as being as sound as that given by European children; that is to say, their evidence should not be re ceived without corroboration. Magistrates of the Courts for Native Affairs, where the language used is principally Pidgin-English, are accustomed to native evidence and have repeatedly thrown out cases which in the cold English of the deposi tions—to the inexperienced—appear to be conclu sive as to the accused’s guilt. Hearing native cases, day after day, a magistrate’s mind is able properly to value the evidence given. IN THE

Central Court, The Judge Hears Only

Interpretations.

A BAD ATTRIBUTE OF THE NATIVE IS THAT HE WILL TRY TO CONNECT EVENTS, ALTHOUGH HE HAS NOT SEEN THE LINK.

TO THEM—SO IT APPEARS FROM THE EVI

Dence In The Coroner’S Court-Sam

Bung’Is Death Was Incomprehensible,

So They Have Exaggerated Their Ac

Counts Of The Thrashing.

A bad statement by Ubahau (describing the flogging) is: “I hit Sambung on the buttocks, and (Larkin) said that if Sambung cried out loudly I was to hit him on the head. I hit Sambung hard, as I was afraid of Larkin.” As there was no one to hear on a lonely island, the certain inference is that as Larkin would not be concerned whether Sambung screamed or not, it is at least extremely doubtful whether Sambung screamed at all. This is only one instance, comparatively small, which indicates that a native will exaggerate or invent in order to create an atmosphere to fit the ulti mate event in this case, the death of Sambung.

The native flagellator, Lowin, said: ‘‘Larkin was dissatisfied with the strokes and told Ubahau not to play, but to hit hard. Ubahau did so. Sambung cried out and Ubahau hit lightly. Larkin then threatened Ubahau and Ubahau hit hard. . . . Sambung asked us to ease his legs and we did a little, and Larkin threatened to treat us in a like manner, so we tightened up our holds again. I was holding one hand. Larkin told me to get the cane. I was sitting down and did not get up. He then leant towards me and threatened to punch me, so I got up. Ubahau took the hand I let go,” etc., etc., in this impossible strain. Further quotation only would em phasise the absolute worthlessness of such evidence.

Judge’s summing-up, continued: The accused says that at the end of that flogging the boy was normal, and that the skin was not broken, and that there was practically nothing wrong with him. Perhaps I should say here that the accused's evidence as to the flogging is that he was in such a state of rage that he had no fixed intentions, but whether he had fixed inten tion or not, he had very fixed plans, for according to his own evidence he had this boy spreadagled, he told Ubahau to start beating him, and after about five strokes he told him to stop and said to Sambung, “Do you know who is master now,” and that he got no reply. He was trying to beat down the boy’s resistance to him. When he got no reply he says he ordered Ubahau to continue flogging, and he gave him about ten more strokes, and he told him to stop and asked Sambung this same question again, got no answer and told Ubahau to continue again. Then Ubahau gave him about another ten strokes—it would be about 25 strokes in all. Then he took the cane from Übahau, and, he says, he does not know why, but he himself inflicted some strokes, two or three, and then again, for no reason at all, he did not give the cane back to Ubahau to continue, but handed it to Towan and told him to give Sambung three or four more. Towan then gave, not three or four, but six or seven and then stopped. The accused’s account of the flogging I do not believe for cne moment. To say that the boy was normal is ridiculous. He says that when the flogging was over the skin was not broken. The whole of the evidence for the prosecution is that it was not only broken, but it was lacerated. All the evidence as to the boy’s subsequent condition points to this, because he was, after some time, taken down to the labour house and laid down there. Those who took him there say that he was lying on his face again which, considering the state of the boy’s body, was the only position he could lie in.

COMMENT: Saying that the native Sambung was normal is unsound; but Larkin was a layman, and he obviously meant that there seemed to be nothing wrong with him beyond that expected from a good caning on the buttocks. MEDICAL EXPERIENCE IN RABAUL IS THAT A NA TIVE DOES NOT STAND A FLOGGING WELL, AND MAY FAINT AFTER 15 STROKES HAVE BEEN GIVEN. The fact that Sambung was con scious gives weight to Larkin’s evidence as to the degree of the flogging, which, while severe, was not murderous. While there would be weals on the skin from the strokes of the cane it does not following that there would be lacerations unless, several blows struck the same place. Presuming that the weapon used was a smooth cane, about an inch thick, the damage inflicted is more, doubt ful still. There would be a tenderness of the but tocks which would preclude sitting down. Lying on his face would be a natural position after such an injury, but it does not necessarily point to laceration.

The accused says that when he went down at 7 o’clock at night the boy was just lying on the bed and he spoke to him and asked the boy if he were in pain. He said “Yes”; he was hurt, and

was ashamed of himself. The accused says he took down Condy’s crystals, and bathed him. He may have done so, but was not seen to do it by anybody. However, he was left there that night, and in the morning he was still there. He was taken by one of the boys to the sea, which was between 25 and 30 yards, and washed and cleaned.

The accused, apparently, by this time, was be ginning to get a little anxious. He went to the labour house in the morning and asked how Sam bung was, and asked Singori if in Singori’s opinion the boy was all right, and Singori said “No.” He then asked if he thought he could stand—this boy who was normal the night before—and they got him to the end of the bed and put him on his feet, and he collapsed. After that, he sent him down some things, amongst them a bed sheet, and gave instructions that Sambung should be taken over to the married quarters. Apparently he gave these instructions some time in the morn ing, noticed later that the boy had not gone, and came down again and found him there a second time. Finally the boy was removed to the mar ried quarters and he was in such a state that he was carried on a canvas stretcher to a dinghy and taken in the dinghy to these quarters, and some sacks were got and he was again laid down on his face, because he could not stand in any other position. The accused came some time after wards and asked Singori why he was not in one of the beds, and was told that Sambung said the bed was too hot and he could not stand it. The accused says that practically up to this time the skin was not even broken, that it was puffy and that was all. The evidence of all the others is that it was not only broken, but it was in a hor rible lacerated condition. However, when the accused saw this wretched native in the married quarters, he sent down some ointment, some Zam- Buk and olive oil, and gave instructions that this was to be applied, and he says he sent down a bed sheet. The accused also says that he went down again. He was making very frequent visits by this time. After the ointment had been sent the accused made one of the visits and says he found Singori, one of the boys, rubbing too hard, as if he were rubbing the ointment in and not just placing it on, and that he explained to him how it should be put on. He says that he noticed a break in the skin, not this hideous mass of raw flesh all ever the buttocks, but a break in the skin, and he wishes people to believe that the condition of the boy’s buttocks must have hap pened solely by reason of some rough application.

Such a story is unbelievable.

COMMENT: Larkin had only the roughest ideas of bush medicine. The fact that Sambung stood the irritation of seawater does not point to exten sive laceration.

The boy was left at that labour house all Tues day afternoon and Tuesday night. Singori and another boy attended him, and then on the Wed nesday morning Mr. Townsend, the District Officer of Manus, arrived on the scene with a schooner, to make a labour inspection of the plantation. The accused and the District Officer were together some hours, and the accused never made mention of this boy lying on his face with his body all lacerated. The District Officer asked him if he had a boy from Pak there (which was the name of Mr. Edgell’s plantation from which Sambung had come) and he had to say yes. The District Officer was taken by the accused to the married quarters and there saw the boy and saw his condition. The accused says the boy was asked some questions by the District Officer, and that the accused was told by him that he would re ceive a summons in a few days, and that he, the District Officer, was going to take the boy back to Lorengau in his schooner. The accused said, “Can he not remain with me here?” He was told “No.” The boy was taken and put aboard the schooner in the afternoon with Mr. Townsend and a white engineer on board, and three or four native boys to look after him.

It was a six hours’ journey to Lorengau, and they got there in the afternoon or evening. The boy was taken to the hospital, examined and attended to by the Medical Assistant, a very ex perienced medical assistant. He was with him from about eight to ten; and shortly afterwards the medical assistant, Mr. Lambert, got a message to say the boy was dead.

COMMENT: It will be seen that the evidence given was that the only part of Sambung’s body which was lacerated was the buttocks. As to the reference to the native “lying on his face with his body all lacerated,” it does not seem justified.

Concealing Sambung from the District Officer

would be reprehensible, but there seems to be no evidence that concealment was attempted. Re moving him seems to have served little purpose, except a bad one, as he was exposed to the weather while on shipboard, and possibly, almost certainly, to complications.

I have stated what the evidence was as to the state of the boy’s body after the flogging. Mr Lambert says when he examined the boy he was really in a dying condition. His left buttock was very shrivelled and discoloured and evil-smelling, the whole area of the right buttock devoid of skin and bleeding, and that the left buttock was a mass of gangrene. The right buttock had no gangrene, but he says the boy was skinned and bleeding This is the state of the boy who, according to the accused in his evidence, after the flogging, was normal, I need not go into the symptoms described by Mr. Lambert; but he said the respiration was shal low, the pupils dilated, and other conditions which simply meant that the boy was dying. He did die.

It was suggested by counsel for the defence who was hard put to it to raise a defence, that it was not proved that death was caused by this flogging. To my mind, it was abundantly proved and there was no suggestion of any other cause of death. It was suggested that if he had not been taken in the pinnace to Lorengau he might have survived. The only possible chance he had of living was to be taken to Lorengau, where he would receive attention. If, as it was the case, it was necessary to take him in the pinnace, he had to be taken. He had to be taken in the pinnace or left to die where he was. The suggestion, also that death was due to other causes, also fails.

The cause of death was the flogging. The shock, gangrene, etc., are all attributable to the flogging and nothing else, and if ever a native was flogged to death this one was.

COMMENT: The native’s condition certainly was not improved on board ship. As his friends might apply compresses, his buttocks might have been scalded, or they might have tinkered with any injuries. The “evil-smelling gangrene” de scribed by the medical assistant definitely was due to infection, and not solely to traumatism (by blows)—infection POSSIBLY BY THE BACIL-

Lus Aerogenes Capsulatus, An Ex

Tremely Virulent Organism Which

CAN KILL IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IF DEATH WAS THE RESULT OF THE INFEC TION OF AN ABRASION, CAUSED BY THE

Thrashing—That Is, By Toxaemia—And

NOT BY SHOCK, LARKIN WOULD STILL BE

More Or Less Technically Guilty Of

“Murder”; But It Would Not Have

Been Treated In Regard To Punish

MENT AS ANYTHING MORE THAN AN AS

Sault. The Bacillus Mentioned Is A

Death-Dealing Organism From Which

The Strongest Surgeons Shrink In

Dread. This Point Is Most Important

AS IT AFFECTS THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED. Altogether, the ship journey did not improve the native’s condi tion; and there is no certain evidence as to Sam bung’s condition before he left Noru Island for the hospital at Lorengau. There is evidence that the District Officer spoke to Sambung and re ceived replies; yet, on arrival at Lorengau, Sam bung is said to have been in a dying condition.

No Evidence Was Taken From Mr.

TOWNSEND, BUT IT IS FELT THAT IT

Would Have Enlightened Everyone.

While the probability that the flogging caused death cannot be ignored, there is almost an equal possibility that death was due to some other cause.

Sambung may have been suffering from some acute infectious illness, producing delirium, which would account for the attack on Larkin. Further, the possibility that he received a brain injury in the fight with Larkin raises a doubt whether Lar kin was guilty at all of unlawful homicide. There is no evidence that Sambung’s skull was examined.

If Sambung died as the result of a brain injury received in the struggle with Larkin, it would have been properly assumed that death was acci dentally caused.

THE MORE THIS CASE IS EXAMINED, THE

Clearer It Becomes That The Medical

Evidence Was Incomplete And Incon-

Clusive. In Fairness To Larkin Sam-

Bung’S Body Should Have Been Sent

To Rabaul For Expert Examination In

The Medical Laboratories. The Incom

Pleteness Of The Medical Evidence

Alone, Raises The Most Serious Doubt

Concerning The Propriety Of The

Sentence (Ten Years’ Hard Labour)

Imposed Upon Larkin.

Dilatation of a native’s pupils is hard to dis cern because of their deep colour and lack of sharp division between the parts; and it might have been caused by a stimulating drug, like strychnine. The treatment given is not described in the evidence in detail; but if Sambung was suffering mainly from shock, blood-transfusion, in jection of saline solution, etc., might have been tried with benefit. The medical assistant stated in the Coroner’s Court that he dressed the wounds warm antiseptics and applied healing medi cines. He made no mention of his treatment, if any, for the “extreme shock” he refers to in the early part of his evidence. THE MEDICAL

Assistant In The Coroner’S Court

DID NOT GIVE ANY OPINION AS TO THE

Cause Of Death. Positive Evidence

Of The Exact Cause Of Samsung’S

Death Is Absent.

Larkin’s request to Mr. Townsend that he be allowed to keep Sambung at Noru was not un reasonable, and does not point to the fact that he or Mr. Townsend regarded Sambung as being in extremis. If Larkin had felt that Sambung was in a dying condition, would he not have made every effort to obtain the best medical assistance for him, as his liberty depended on Sambung’s life.

An Important Absence Is Sambung’S

Dying Depositions. Which Surely

Would Have Been Taken Had Mr.

Townsend Considered That Sambung

WOULD NOT LIVE. As Sambung and Mr.

Townsend were on the same ship for six hours, at least, and for two hours at Lorengau before death took place, the omission is inexplicable, except on the ground that Sambung was not regarded as likely to die.

At law, Larkin was guilty of “murder,” even if a skin abrasion caused by the thrashing had be come infected and death followed. BUT IS THE

Medical Evidence At All Positive As

To The Cause Of Death?

Judge’s summing-up, continued: Now, I have stated that, in my opinion, the first assault or the first fight was the fault of the accused. The boy may have been, as he says, cheeky. That is quite possible, although we had only the accused’s words for it. There is a possi bility that the boy was the attacker in that case, and as it is a possibility I am going to give the accused the benefit of that, but that is no excuse for what happened afterwards.

The flogging, unfortunately, was a considered act, done after the heat of the struggle, after the other party to the struggle had gone, and after Sambung had been brought back for reasons of revenge and punishment. The revenge or punish ment was brutal, cowardly, and deliberate. The act was one which is a disgrace to the white race and one of a type that discredits the Terri tory. These things when they happen do more harm that many cases of violence by natives, and I cannot treat it as other than a serious offence It has been pointed out to me that you served your country during the war. It may be that the hardships of active service have affected you to some extent. That I do not know, but, at any rate, we know that you have served your coun try, and because of that your sentence will be lighter than would otherwise be the case.

COMMENT: Reference to “a considered act (the flogging), done after the heat of the struggle” could, be opposed by medical evidence, which is, that a fractured bone (Larkin’s broken finger) would be followed by numbness, then by pain, increasing with the passage of time. Larkin’s low condition might aggravate the pain; and the bath would reveal injuries that had not been noticed in the heat of the battle.