LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1724, 15 April 1913, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL , PHASES OF A CRIME TRIAL. COURT OF APPEAL, INTERESTING CROWN CASE. "My object in staling these matters is, if possibly, to get the opinion of the Judges as to whether or not these practices of the police aro propel'." This was the comment of Mr. Justice Edwards in tho Court of Appeal yesterdny morning during the hearing of a Crown case reserved by his Honour in connection with a criminal trial, which took placa in Auckland in. December last, viz., H.M. tlio King v. Charles Darker and Edward Bailey. On the bench for tho hearing yesterday were the. Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice, Williams, Mr. Justice Denuiston, Air. Justice Edwords, Mr. Justice Cooper, anil Air. Justice Chapman. Tlie Attorney-General (the Hon. A. L. Herdman) appeared for the Crown. The prisoners wero not represented, but during the course of his address the AttorneyGeneral mentioned that he would endeavour to put tho case from tho prisoners' point of view as well as from that of tlio Crown. A general verdict of guilty had been returned against both prisoners on a charge of stealing .£l7 10s. in money from the person of Alexander Eastgate on November 28. Eastgate and the prisoners were all carters in regular employment in Auckland, and were all well known, to one another. Tho affair took place. after they had been frequenting hotels together oa tho afternoon of the date mentioned. It came out in evidence at the hearing that the prisoner Barker had been subjected to a lengthy questioning by the police officers attar he had been taken in custody, but counsel for the prisoners did not object to the polico evidence regarding statements made' by prisoner at tho time referred to. His Honour, however, placed this evidence before the Court of Appeal. In addressing the jury for tlio Crown at tho trial in Auckland the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. J. A. Tole, K.C.) made the following observations, or observations to tlio same effect: "You are sworn to give your verdict , according to tlio evidence. Eastgate has. sworn that" the prisoners robbed him, and lio has not been contradicted. You must believe him." The evidence had shown that tho only persons who could contradict Eastgate wero the prisoners, but his Honour passed by the observations of tho Crown Prosecutor, because lie thought it inadvisablo to call the attention of the jury to them. When, however, in tho courso of the next few. sentences, Mr. Tolo repeated the same observations, his Honour said: "It seems to me, Mr. Tole, that you are infringing the statute." Mr. Tole replied: "Oh, no, your Honour. I have made no comment." His Honour said, "It seems to mo that you have." Mr. Tolo said, "Oh, 110. I have .said the same thing hundreds, of times. I am bound to tell you, gentlemen, that Easteate's evidence lias not been contradicted. On the prisoners being brought up for. sentence on December 7, Air. 1 W. Hnckett, who appeared for tho prisoner Bailey, asked his Honour to reserve for the consideration of tho Court of Appeal the question: Whether or not tho observations of the Crown Prosecutor were an infringement of Section 123 of tho Crimes Act, ■ .1908? . 1 His Honour consented to reserve this question, and also decided to submit other questions for the determination of the Court. These other questions were as follow:— If the observations of the Crown Prosecu- •' tor fell short of being an infringement of Section 423, was the Crown Prosecu- • tor justified in repeiitinp''awl ' emphasising them in'tho circumstances stated? | Was tho evidence of Police Sergeant Eraser •' admissible in the circumstances? ". If sucli evidence was technically admissible, was the police sergeant justified in questioning the prisoner Barker in . the manner shown' by' his evidence and the evidence of Police Constable .Murdock? Was the evidence of Police Constable Murdock admissible in the circumstances? If tho evidence of Police Constable Murdock was technically admissible, was the constable justified in cross-examin-ing tho prisoner Barker in tlie manner shown in his evidence? 1 lit his statement of the case for tho Court of Appeal, liis Honour, in. referring to the Crown Prosecutor's observations said: "There can be no doubt that.what was, said by tho Crown Prosecutor did pointedly call tho attention of the jury to the fact that the prisoners had not given evidence. That this was the intention, the ready understanding by the Crown Prosecutor of tte objection which I felt, but did not in words express, seems to put beyond a doubt." Argument on the case occupied the attention of the Court until noon yesterday. The Chief Justice then intimated that the Court wo lid take time to consider the matter. POWER OF CORPORATIONS. TO HOLD LAND. IMPORTANT HUTT CASE. An important question as to the power of corporations to hold land was involved in a case before the Ccmrt of Appeal yesterday, when the bench was oocupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice, Denniston, Mr. Justifo Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justico Chapman. ' • The point arose in a claim for possession, which qame on for hearing in the ' Supreme Court last November, and which wis removed into the Court of Appeal for argument by order of tlie Chief Justice. The plaintiff in the action was the Lower Hutt Corporation, and tho defendants were Edmond Hayes, retired builder, Patrick Casey, retired publican, and Frank Meyriclc, baker, all of Lower Hutt. Air. C. H. Treadwell appeared for tho corporation, while Air. T, Alartin appeared for the defendants. In tho statement of claim it was alleged tin.', by virtu 0 of a certificate of title issued under tho Land Transfer Act on November 13, 1911, the Lower Hutt Corporation was tho owner in feo simple of certain land (part of Section 25) in the Hutt districts Tho defendants, Hayes and Casey, were now in possession of that land, and 011 a portion of it they had erected a shop and dwelling, now occupied by the defendant, Meyrick. Tho defendants refused to deliver up the lands, N and tho corporation, therefore, claimed possession and £100 mesno profits.. By way of defence, Hayes, Casey, and Aleyrick "denied the corporation's title to the land, and also denied liability for "mesno" profits. Defendants said that if the corporation proved the certificate of title then the land . comprised therein would consist of certain streets shown on tlio subdivisional plan . of what was known as the Martin Estate, and marked on tho deposited plan in 1878. These streets had never been taken over by the local authority, nor had any-right of user arisen. Defendants (Hayes, Casey, and Alcyrick) also alleged that tho action was not now being brought in tlio interests of the iatepayers, but rather for tho purposes of tho Hutt Bowling and Tennis Club, to wluiso land tho roads would give access. Another case—the Lower Hutt Borouga Council , v. Aliriama Heketa—involved similar points, and it was agreed that both actions should bo heard together. After Mr. Treadwell had railed evidence at the hearing in tlio Supremo Court, Air. Alartin submitted lengthy argument in favour of a nonsuit. He staled, however, that his clients would prefer to have tho question finally settled. His Honour then said that as the question appeared to bo of considerable importance, the better course would probably bo for All-. Martin to call what evidence 110 had,' and the question of removing the action into tho Court of Appeal could then be considered. Air. Treadwell intimated that ho would be qnito agreeable to such ;i course. Evidence for the defem-e was accordingly tendered, after which hij.Munotjr luuiw an urdiT removing the cati! into the Court

of Appeal for argument. It camc on yesterday afternoon. Argument-was still ill progress Inst evening when the Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-dav.