MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1232, 14 September 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) HAMMERED AT. PERSISTENT APPEAL BY COUNSEL. HIS WORSHIP ACQUIESCES.

James Stellin and John William Collins appeared ( n remind on a charge of having Tisscl threatening behaviour in Customhouse Quay on September 9, whereby a breach of the peace had been occasioned. Collins had pleaded guilty at the former hearing. Stellin had pleaded not guilty, and yesterday he was defended by Mr. T. M. Wilford. ■ Constable Scott gave evidence that blows had been exchanged, and Henry Morrison further deposed that a fight had occurred. Mr. Wilford prefaced his case by stating that Collins had been the aggressor. He had used vile language to Stellin, and Stellin had resented it, and then walked away. C)llins had followed him, thrown things at him, and had generally "aggravated" him'. Evidence given by Stellin and Richard Lewis Woodhouse to the effect that Collins had been the aggressor, and that Stellin had endeavoured tn avoid him. His Worship remarked that from the wholo of the evidence it seemed to him that Stellin could have avoided Collins if ho had wished to do so, instead of getting to grips with him. Both w-juld be convicted, but. as Stellin had Veen "aggravated" he would be fined lightly. Mr. Wilford: Surely your Worship is not going to enter a conviction against Stellin on that evidence? The magistrate: That's what I have done. - Mr. Wilford: Well, it sounds extraordinary to me! Will yoa fine him sufficiently to allow of an appeal? Tho magistrate: You can appeal on law. Mr. Wilford: There is no point of law. . The magistrate: Well, I won't alter it. His Worship went on to repeat that Stellin ought to- have avoided Collins, but Mr. Wilford hereupon • contended that thero was no evidence to show that Stellin struck a blow. Tho magistrate: There is evidence that SMlir struck a blow! Mr. Wilfird: Not one tittle! The magistrate: Constable Scott's. Mr. Wilford: The Crown's own witness could not prove that. Let me appeal .to you, ?ir, that the decision stems to mo to bo absolutely out of all resson. Wh«t are you proing to lay down ns provocation for which.a man can defend himself?" The magistrate: I say that there was provocation, but that Stellin could have got out of the way. Mr. Wilford: I ask your Worship to let us appeal.' Tho magistrate: You can get a re-hear-ing. Mr. Wilford: I don't want a re-hearing. It would come, before yourself. Give us a chance of going before the Supreme Court and allowing a Judge to review tho' matter. If your Worship has done right, surely you are not afraid of a Juflsro reviewing the case. The magistrate: Certainly not. At length his Worship said: "Very well., ns you have appealed so strongly I will 'fix tho fine so as to give you an opportunity. Defendant will be fined £5 Is., in default 21 hours' imprisonment. Collins was fined £1 in default seven days' imprisonment'. INTERESTING INTRODUCTION OK MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN CRIME CHARGE. Edward Rosenberg was charged with having received from a youth 175 bicycle tubes, the property of the Dunlop Rubber Company, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. Detective-Sergeant M'llveney prosecuted and Mr. T. 31. Wilford represented the accused. In evidence, Maurice Leslie Graham, who is in charge of the Dunlop Rubber Company's Wellington warehouse, said that when_ stock-taking in July last, ho 'had discovered a shortage of'about 41)0 tubes. Rosenberg had called on him later and had then admitted that ho had a number of tho missing tubes in his possession. ' . A youth who had previously been convicted in the Jnvenilo Court for stealing the goods stated that, in consequence of a conversation with Rosenberg, and at Rosenberg's suggestion, ho and another boy (both of whom were employed by Messrs. Dnnlop as messengers) had stolen tho tubes and had sold them to him (Rosenberg). For three bundles of 50 each they got £X, and for a bundle of 25 they got 10s. : They had halved tho money. The other boy corroborated this evidence. Evidence was then called in Rosenberg's behalf. Dr. 31' Loan stated that he had attended Rosenberg after an accident on Good Friday. Ho had found Rosenberg suffering from a fracture of tho base of the skull. It was quite possible that a man who had had such an injury might suffer temporary aberration of intellect, and his mental perspective might bo altered. Rosenberg had had peculiar turns. Harold Webb White, law clerk, gave evidence respecting the accident to Rosenberg. The witness was riding a motorbicycle. Rosenberg was in a trailer. There was a sudden breakage, and tho trailer, in- turning over, struck Rosenberg at the base of the skull, as a result of which he was unconscious for eight days. Accused was much altered since, and had lapses of forgetfulness. C. M. Luke, M.L.C., stated in evidence that Rosenberg had served his apprenticeship with his firm, and had been industrious, steady, truthful, and* honest, and far above the average as a mechanic. At the conclusion of his apprenticeship they made him foreman of that branch of the business. Dishonesty was the last thing that ho would be expected of accused. John William Readc, importer, who had had dealings with Rosenberg before and after the accident, said that he had latterly been forgetful and unsatisfactory. When asked to plead, Rosenberg answered, Not guilty." Mr. Wilford here' remarked that he had advised his client to make that plea in order to have the medical and other evidence considered when the case was before the Supreme Court, but there was no doubt that Rosenberg had received the goods. Rosenberg was then committed for trial. OTHER CASES. For breach of a prohibition order, Marv Joyce was sent to Pakatoa Island for a year, John Shannon was fined .£3, William Stevens was fined j>3, and Patrick Daly was fined £2.