MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 18 May 1901, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day, Satueday.

(Before R. S. Hawkins, S.M.)

The Magistrate’ delivered the following: judgment in the case of Police v Hutohi- ■ son :

This is a prosecution for the offence of keeping a brothel, an offence defined •in the Indictable Offences summary Procedure Act.

It is necessary to note that this excludes the general term of a “ disorderly house” known to the English Common Law and that the prosecution must confine themselves to the defined offence of keeping a brothel. That is an offence as clearly defined as that of theft or of mischief or any other crime or misdeameanor.

The evidence must be governed by tho same rules in the one case as in the other and the proof be equally conclusive The prosecution attempted and in spite of the expressed ruling of the Court persisted in endeavouring to get in as evid- • ence statments from constables that the house was “reputed to be a brothel." They might just as well on a specific charge of theft or mischief offer evidence against accused on his trial that he was a reputed thief or a notoriously mischievous person. That is practically an attempt to attack on trial the character of the accused, which cannot be done unless; the accused offers evidence as to /

his own good character. I therefore entirely put aside all such matters.

The rest of tho evidence consists of general statements by constables that they have often seen men, principally sailors, going in and out at night chiefly between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m., that they were often drunk and that it appeared that they got drink in the defendant’s house, that the girl in defendant’s house was a “reputed” prostitute, which is not evidence that she was a pros icute; that there had been some windows broken since the date charged in tho information in the dofendanl’s house and in a Chinaman’s house, which fact simply indicates disorder in the same way that tho presence of drunken men indicates disorder ; but there are two. ro more public houses with entrances close, to defendant’s house as was proved in a recent charge in this Court, and, except for the evidence of Sergeant Shirley and Constable Porteous there |is nothing to prove that disorder in the streets arose from defendant’s house or anything done in it, and even if there had been, disorder alone would not prove tho offence now charged. There remains to be considered the evidence of Police Sergeant Shirley and that of Police Constable Porteous. Ido not at all suggest that these officers have intentionally made any false statement. I am quite ready to believe in their good faith.

They both made statements of certain admissions in conversation which they say defendant made in their hearing. Police Sergeant Shirley’s recollection proved at least to bo vague by the alterations, additions and amendments he made in the statements, in the course of his evidence. Police Constable Porteoua said that he was in the street, and overheard certain words used by the defendant, who was inside her house, the door being closed, aod that he went to the Police Station and wrote the words down, after defendant had been talking fjr 20 minutes. Now the words he wrote down could not have taken half a minute to utter.

I have some little experience in writing down evidence horn the lips of witnesses in this Court where I can cheek their progress until I have taken down their very words. I should bo very sorry to trust my memory and to go away homo and write down the words spoken by a witness in the course of a2O minutes examination.

The accused denied that she had ever spoken the works reported by the officers.

In the case of Police Constable Porteous, there was a witness who could have confirmed or denied the Constable’s statement, a man who came out of the accused’s house at the time, a resident of Greymouth, and the Constable gave his name to the Inspector.

This witness was not called by the prosecution. I have come to the conclusion that this is not evidence upon which I am justified in convicting the accused. Apart from the alleged admissions of accused and disorder the origin of which is not traced to her. there is nothing but repute and suspicion. I cannot convict a person of a misdemeanor on repute and susp : cion.

Ponding the delivery of some authoritative decision by a superior Court I must hold that to supporta conviction proof by credible testimony must bo given of overt acts of prostitution within tho house. The charge was dismissed.