MAGISRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 552, 6 July 1909, Page 7

MAGISRATE'S COURT.

- : UZ (B9^ : fe\W;|G. •'."■ ■-Zizz'iZt-FJin^ ;'' A:ohargo.of petty theft-was"preferred against a resOMtably-dressed: man;;named- 'David John i Lloyd,; yest^rdayitfprning.:i'.!;:i;-;::'^ ; ,:, ; ,-; ;vCMef-Detectiv6- , Brob^rgSsta : ted;-that ,on June-26::.de{endanK'who';,,wasV-a",: picture ■ canvasser,": -called;at;a : hbnse..and. ! l stole. a;; Watch' and wrist, strap, ..6d.,/ ; 'the.::jjroperty:: of .Annie: 1 Boshf. ■■.••''He"'3ia'd beenJpreviotisljr,,convicted ;at! ! up, for "sen- 1 tehcb.when. called upon. V'.;';•::-;• ; ,-~'ZiZ :Mri: Meridith .stated::on ..behalf -of defendant", that'he >was:an epileptic;, He;asked-his Wbr-: : ship -to take 1 this;,into 11 atcduht-.and deal leh-- .: Z~ V,.'■■;;. o -; ; J'^His Worship imposed ; a \conviotion, and fine ]<rt}4os: : {•.:-.' ; : A - '-'', r V:; :'VsLIffIPINQi,qN';TBaB;WHAEF ; .\7 : Twowharf labiure'rs, Neil tamont and James M'Cart eoußht' solitude ;and sleep at night on the-Tarahaki-Sfreet:.'Wharf, ahd, ; in conse-.; quence, \vere;.called,; bn c to answer a' charge; a}..': being roguesf and vagabonds: *-' ;;. -'..-(;;; Station-Scrgt. Daroy.Blatedthat Lamoht had not boen beforei'the-:Court:,previously,'and M'Carthy, (under thoihaine of Ryan) had boen oonvioted three ,'but not since.; - ~; His Worship consented to deal leniently/;with; them, and imposed 'convictions-ahd orders lb\ come up' for. sonfenco when-called, upon.''.'.- ; ; '.''■'■ -';;:':. :; ; INSpBIIiETY;'' '. \-:-:'ZZt'. ' - Three first offending inobriates,' who. failed; to answer tb their bail,' were ; convicted'':ahd' fined IDs.,-in default 2t hours in gaol.- Another was fined 55., with a similar -.'default, and yet' another was remanded'.Ho -July' 0, for medical treatment. Norman Campbell pleaded guilty to a charge of driinkennoss, and- also to committing a breach of it prohibition order. His Worship remarked that defeifdnnt was . i\ fit. sub-' ject for rnkntoh, and ordered him 'there for one vear. On the second charge, accused was convicted and discharged.' .-. MAINTENANCE .CASES. -. An application made by Rita Dorothy M. Paton; for the remission and reduction of arrears on a maihtenance order: was dismissed, Viuocmt John PJfleld, ohargod with failing to.

comply with a maintenance order, tho arrears on which amounted to .£93 7s. 6d., was con-\-icied and sentenced, to four months' imprisonment. . OTHER CASES. Prohibition orders, to extend over a poriod of one year* were issued afjainst Charles Church, Henry Joseph Poarman, Thos. Francis Coyne, and Fanny Coyne. A young man named Thomas Malono pleaded guilty to a chargo of committing an,indecent net. He was convicted and fined JE3, in default 14 tlnys in gaol, seven days being allowed in which to pay the fine. For riding a bicycle without a light, a boy about 18 years of age was convicted and ordered to pay Court costs, 7s. RESERVED JUDGMENT. APPLICATION FOR RE-HEARING / REFUSED.,' Reserved judgment was dslivered by Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M., in tho case Lano v. Carey, in tfhich William Carey applied for a rehearing. Tho defendant Carey, his Worship said, liad been convicted on Juno 20 of assault on Lane, and had been fined 10s. Ho now applied under Section 120 of the Justices of tho Peace Act, •190S, for a rehearing, on the ground, that the conviction was against the weight of evidence, ahd that fresh' evidence had been discovered, which was not available before the trial. Two other reasons were given in the application, but they: were plainly arguments in support of a plea for mitigation of penalty. ' The application was opposed on the ground that the Court bad no power to grant a rehearing in the case of a conviotion undor an information for an indictable offence, although triable summarily. "Section 120 of the Justices of the Peace Aot, 1908," said his Worship, "is identical with Section 115 of the Act of 1882, and enacts that anyJustice before whom any information or complaint has been heard may, in his discretion, grant a rehearing of such information or complaint upon such terms as to him seem fit." The present information came under Section 192 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1908, which corresponded with Section 15 of the Indictable I Offeuoos Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1834,' now ! incorporated and consolidated in the Act of 1908. There was no doubt that tho offence complained of was an indictable one, although it had been dealt with summarily, and the question was whether the power to grant a rehearing; conferred oh Justices by thfc Act of 1882 was applicable to every offence which might bo dealt with under that Act. The matter had been considered by Mr'. Hutchison, 9.M., in Rex v. Sioberg (2'Mag. Ct. Rep., p. 27). There the applicant for a rehearing had been convicted of theft, an indictable offence, but there' was 'nothing to show whether he had been proceeded against by information, or was under ■arrest and ohareod in the usual way'. Aftor discussing the matter at considerable length, Mr. .Hutohison came to the conclusion that the sec-> tion did not give him power to grant arehear-\| ing where the offence was an indictable one, I though dealt with summarily. No : sufficient argument had been brought forward to lead his Worship to the conclusion that Mr. Hutchison's deolsfoh was unsound. Following it, the pressnt application must be dismissed, Costs Is. were allowed against-the applicant. 'Mr. Weston appeared in support of the application, Mr. Buddie opposing on behalf of Lane. :' '„• ..- v \ ..- '