SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 130, 19 February 1918, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

APPEAL CASE

ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATIONS

Before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Etout), who presided over a sitting of tho Supreme Court yesterday, further argument was heard in a general appeal against a decision of Mr. S. E. M'Oarthy, S.M., in a case touching' the anti-Bhouting regulations. The appellant was James O'ilanlon, head barman of the Royal Oak Hotel.

Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Crown, and Mr. 0. P. Skerrett, K. 0., appeared for the appellant.

Addressing the Court, Mr. Skerrett contended that it could not divest itself of the responsibility of considering and weighing the evidence and paricularly of considering tho reason of tho decision of tho Magistrate which induced liini to exclude the possibility of mistake on the part of the constables. .It waß not a question of credibility, but whether the Court was justified in excluding the question of probability of error on the part of tho constables. Until the identity of the defendant was established the onus of proof did not enter into the question. The opportunities of the police for' observation were very slight, and while they made notes of other eircumstunccß they made no noteß of the appearance of the alleged offender. These constables were young men, new to the Police Force, whose faculties for observation had obviously hot been trained. It was an important consideration that on the same day as the alleged offence these same two constables made a mistake regarding tho •identity of a barmaid in another case. Continuing, Mr. Skerrett said that speaking anite frankly there was a very general feeling among the legal profession that in regard to the Court presvlo'd over by the Magistrate from whom this appeal was brought there was far too Ereat a. tendency to believe the police evidence as conclusive, and it was futile to attempt a : defence contradictory of any such evidence. The most plausible explanation of the error on the part of the police was that they saw two different men, one at 7 o'clock in the evening and the other at 730 o'clock, and that tho last man (the defendant) remained fixed in their minfl. Mr. Macassev submitted.that the identification was limited to two men, and it was not. possible for the police to havo made a mistake. . , His. Honour reserved his decision.

• ALLEGED LIBEL

SOLDIERS BENEFIT. Mention was made in the Supreme Oourt yesterday morning before His Honour the Ohief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) of the claim for £250 for alleged libel preferred by Charles John Ward against -the "John Bull" Newspaper Proprietary. Mr A. .IV. Blair appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Dunn for tho defendant. Mr Blair intimated that the plaintiff was a contractor who manufactured boots used by Now Zealand troops. In an issue of "John Bull" of June 16 last the defendant published a statement that Oharleß John Ward (the plaintiff), boot contractor, was making tens of thousands of pairs of military boots for the Defence Department in promises owned by a German (naming the alleged German concerned). Counsel Mded that (he defendant now admitted that the statement was not juall. fled, and he had agreed to pay a certain sum to some soldiers' chanty and all costs of the action. Mr. Blair, therefore, asked leave to withdraw the action. Mr. Dunn said he was prepared to admit on behalf of the defendant that, ari unfortunate error was made m the paragraph referred to, and to express regret Sat such error was made, It was difficult to say remarked Hi Honour, whether a s atement that si man was connected witn a German to fte extent of be n ? his tcnTnt was libellous. "I do not know he continued, "whether we have, got to ?w« state of affairs yet. There is a big benefit to the extent of m

SPEED LIMIT

APPEALS ALLOWED.

A reserved judgment of Mr. Justico flhnoman regarding two appeals against colons 1 registered iu. the **&£*£ Court' concerning motorists who had ex ™$prt the sneed limit was read by the Iteglrtrar of tta Supreme Court yesterd l V n tho first case the Auto Motor Club appealed against the conviotion of ihonias In-is for driving a motor-car beyond the sSeod limit allowed by tho Petone Borough C S U a« was ET M Myers, and Mr. R. O. K"k appears for the Petone Borough. It was held by tho Justices who had entered the conviction that the. allowance approximately of 5| minutes) in which a car is allowed to pass through tho borough on the Hutt Road is not an unReasonable limit. His r Honour he d that there was quite enough to show that the limit was unreasonably sweeping in its eftcct, including, as it did. streets where there was, practically speaking, no traffic boyond the ordinary visits of tradesmen 8 The appeal was allowed with £6 6b. The appellant in the second case was Kenneth M'Bean Stewart, He appealed against a decision in which it was held that he had committed a breach of the Grey town Borough by-law. His Honour pointed out that there was no essential difference between the two cases, but perhass the objection was more accentuated in tho case of Greytown. Thcro tho speed limit was 12 miles an hour without modification. By raising the limit to 20 miles an hour a wayfarer might be enabled to gain three minutes in passing through by the main street. Thc~application of this speed limit to all streets at all times rendered the by-law unreasonable. The appeal was allowed with £6 6s. costs.

PALMERSTON NORTH SESSIONS

By Telegraph —Preen Association. Palmerston Northi February 16. The Supreme Court opened to-day before Mr. Justice Edwards, Alfred Larkin pleaded guilty to a charge of false pretences, and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard, labour, end ordered to-undergo three years' reformative treatment.