SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2831, 24 July 1916, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

JUDGMENTS DELIVERED

ONE OF FAR-REACHING EFFECT,

Eeserved judgments were .delivered by His Honour Sir Robert Stout (Chief Justice) on Saturday.

Odb of His Honour's judgments was on the appeal ef Emily Thomas, a married woman, of Wellington, against the decision of t.he Magistrate, Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M. The appellant had been convicted of keeping a house of ill-famo contrary to the pj-ovisions of tho Wei-' lington City-By-law, 1908, and she hadbeen adjudged-to pay a fine of .£lO and 7s. Court costs.

A CONVICTION QUASHED. In delivering his judgment-in the above o&se, Hia Honour «iid: "This ,is an. appeal against the conviction, of the appellant, for that she did keep a house; of ill-fame contrary to the provisions of' tho by-laws of tho City • of' Wellington. There aro six by-laws grouped together, under the heading, 'Respecting the Keeping of Disorderly Houses or Brothels 'and Indeoenti Behaviour.' The particular bylaw of this group which is relied on. is No.-988,-which reads: 'No person shall keep, or act, or behave, as master or mistress of. or conduct or aot, or assist in tho conduct or. management of any brothel, or disorderly house, or house of ill-famo situate within the City.' The charga," continued His Honour, "is that tho appellant 'did keep' a house of illfame. The facts as found by the Magistrate were that she kept a shop and ad-, mitted to the rooms behind the shop some men for the purposes of prostitution. _ No woman save herself was on the premises, and the question therefore is: C?n she under this by-lawv.be convicted of keeping a house of ill-fame?" His Honour then, went on to quote a case in which the Court had to deal 'with a similar question, and in that case it .was held that a person was not guilty of ! keeping a brothel if only one woman lived in the house. In the caso quoted there was a definition of the word ''brothel'' in the statute, viz., "any house, room, or set of rooms or place of any kind whatever, kept for -the purposes of prostitution." "There is no definition of 'house of illfams' in this by-law," ?aid His Honour, "but I am of the opinion that its definition cannot be wider than the definition of /brothel in Section 13 of the Indictablo Offences Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1894. -The definition is the same as. is' given in Stephens's 'Digest,-' and is the common definition for brothel. I am notaware of ,any other definition that can be given to a house of ill-fame. In tact," ho continued, "the phrases in this by-law, viz., 'brothel,' 'disorderly house,' and' house of ill-fame,' mean the same thing. • • • There being no definition in this by-law, this Court cannot extend the meaning that has universally been given to the meaning of.such a term. If this is so, then there is a long lino of cases showing that a woman doing what appellant did is not keeping a brothel." His Honour then proceeded to quote cases in support of_ his contention. "If the Legislature hod intended to mako such acta illegal," Sir Robert Stout said' in conclusion, "the Co'nit had so, 1 far back as-190S pointed out what the; law was, and there has been no statute yet passed lo meet what some think is a blot on our law in dealing with such cases." .

The appeal was allowed, and tli'B conviction quashed. No order was made as to costs. ' ' ■ Mr. J. J.M'Gratli appealed for tie appellant at the hearing, and Mr. P. S. K. ATacassey for the Sulicitor-General. REPAIRS TO A TAXI-CAB. . Judgment was also given in .the appeal case, Michael Kearney, of Wellington, taxi proprietor, appellant, and Cyril Sylvester. Headland, of Wellington, engineer, respondent. This was an appeal frtiiu a. decision of' the Magistrate, who, ;in. a. caso brought by Headland against Kearney for the repair and overliau! of a taxi-cab, gave judgment in favour of Headland for m 2s. The Magistrate also gave judgment for Headland on a oounter-claim by Keajney for i£9S 16s. It was from this decision that Kearney appealed on a question of fact, on the ground that tho Magistrate ou?ht to have found that the repairs were not properly dona. His Honour, in his judgment; said that. there was direct conflict of testimony between the parties, and he could sea nothing in the case that would lead him to believe the appellant in. preference to the respondent. The apneal was therefore dismissed, with Gs.~ costs. At the hearing, Mt. P. Levi, with him Mr. P. W. Jackson, appeared for Kearney, and Mr. J. J. M'Grath represented Headland in support of the judgment-. DUES PAYABLE BY MATT, STEAMERS. Reserved judgment was delivered in a test case taken to decide the right of the Wellington Harbour Board to levy harbour improvement 1 rates on Union Company steamers carrying San Francisco mails. Briefly outlined, the case was as follows: —The Harbours Act of 1303 provides for the exemption from harbour dues of vessels carrying mails, under contract with the PostmasterGeneral, but the Harbour Board claimed to levy the harbour improvement rate under a by-law passed under He Amending Act of 1910. In delivering judgment on Saturday, His Honrfur ruled that the by-law is ultra vires,' and also that the vessels should be exempt. He also said that, in his opinion, the by-law is bad, because it levied the charge upon ships, whereas it was really du9 on gjods only; Mr. T. S. Weston appeared for the Harbour Board, and Mr. P. Levi for the defendant company.