Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

AN APPMt

ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATIONS The Chief Justice'(Sir Robert Stout) presided over a sitting of the Supreme Court yesterday, nnd heard a general appeal against a decision of Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., in respect to tho anti-shouting regulations, a case in which James/O'Hanlon, head barman of tho Royal Oak Hotel, was the appellant. Mi. P. S. K. Macassey, of tho Crown Law Office, appeared for the Crown, and Mr. C. P. Slcerrett, K.C., with him 3lr. M. Myers, appeared for the appellant. In outlining the case, Mr. Macassey said that on November 8 last, which was a Saturday night, Constables Corcoran and Phillips visited the bar of the Royal Oak Hotel. There were very few people in the bar at the time. There were two men in the bar who had two empty glasses in front of them. One of them called for "the same again." One man placed a shilling on the counter and the other 2s. One man ordered a long shandy, and the other a. long beer. The barman hauded back the shilling to the man who put it down, and tendered to the othor man Is. 2d. Nothing was said to the barman at the time, but on the following Monday morning the two constables, with Sergeant Willcocks, paid another visit to the same bar. The constables pointed out O'Hanlon to the sergeant as the man who,had committed the breach of the regulations. Tho matter was entirely one of identification. The evidence tendered was on tho same lines as that given in the Magistrate's Court. Constable Corcoran was. closely examined by Mr. Myers. The constable admitted that ho had mado a mistake in identification in another case in respect to a barmaid employed at the Empire \Hotcl. His Honour stopped Mr. Myers from .examining witness respecting the Empirn Hotel, as it was not relevant. Both Mr. Myers and Mr. Skerrett protested against this. ' His Honour remarked that he could not see how it was relevant. ,* Mr. Myers then commenced to examine witness on' the instructions he had received. His Honour ruled this out as being irrelevant. Mr. Myers said he merely desired to protest against the "unfair methods" adopted by the policc. lu outlining the case for the defence Mr. Myers said it would bo shown that O'Hanlon was not in the bar at the time of the constable's visit, and that tho policemcn had 1 made a mistake— an honest mistake, uo doubt. Counsel pointed out that the Magistrate heard tho Royal Oak case before he took the- Empire Hotel ease in which the policc had made a mistake. O'Hanlon, in his evidence, stated that he was not in the bar at 7 p.m. on the date in.question. ' To l Mr. Macassey: If the alleged treating had taken place it could have been done only by one of two persons, either by witness or by another bar employee, who was not unlike witness. He (witness) was sure that, he had not broken the regulations. Other employees supported O'Flanlon's testimony. At s'p.m. His Honour adjourned the ease to 10 a.m. on Monday, when counsel will address the Court. DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS. In the Divorce Court yesterday, in the case of Card v. Card,and Robert Scott, His Honour Mr. Justice Herdman, after hearing counsel, ordered that the co-respondent should pay tho costs of tho petitioner and the respondent on the highest scale, with allowances of £15 15s. each for an extra — day. The co-respondent was also ordered to pay witnesses' expenses and disbursements, to be fixed by tho Registrar. _ The £500 damages awarded bv the. jury is to be paid into Court, and remain there,.' until petitioner applied for its ultimate disposition. The costs, on' the motion, for amending tho petition, and consequential costs were ordered to be paid by petitioner. Tho question of the custody of the children was held over, and will be the subject of a further application. WANGANUI SESSION SIX YEARS FOR ARSON. By Telettraph—Proßß Association. Wanganui, February 15. To-day Mr. Justice Edwards sentenced John Benjamin Clarke to six years' imprisonment for arson at Stratford. The evidence disclosed that prisoner is an Australian spieler. Catherine Milne was sentenced to five years' reformative treatment for attempted murder and attempted suicide.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19180216.2.62

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 123, 16 February 1918, Page 12

Word count
Tapeke kupu
707

SUPREME COURT. Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 123, 16 February 1918, Page 12

SUPREME COURT. Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 123, 16 February 1918, Page 12

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert