A GORE SENSATION.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 974, 21 August 1903, Page 2

A GORE SENSATION.

SLY-GROG CASES AND A DETERMINED MAGISTRATE,

OBJECTED TO BY. DEFENCE

Per Press Association*

INVERCARGILL, last night

Proceedings in the Gore Court today were somewhat unusual. On the previous day, when a series of grogselling prosecutions in no-license districts began, it was noticed that the Inverqargill Magistrate, Mr S. B. McCarthy, took the Bench, the reason 1 assigned being that Mr Cruickshanks, the S.M. for the district,- was required as a witness. Mr Neavc, for the defence, asked -for an adjournment, but Mr McCarthy refused. Resuming to-day in the case against Holland for selling liquor in his hotel, Mr Neave said he objected to the present constitution of the Bench. 1-Ie was aware Mr Cruickshanks had gone to Invercargill that morning to take Mr McCarthy’s Court, and he contended that Mr McCarthy’s recent remarks in the Fortrose case that in future if persons were convicted of slygrog selling in a no-license district! he would order imprisonment for a first offence, showed that lie was: biassed in the exercise of his judicial functions, and likely to he carried away by political feeling. He suggested that the police calling Mr Cruickshanks by letter to give evidence was merely a dodge to secure Mr McCarthy as the Magistrate and was an unwarrantable interference with the ordinary judicial business of the Court, and bore only one interpretation, that the police desir r ed to have Mr McCarthy to hear the case. Mr Seddon had said that Mr Cruickshanks was one v of the ablest Stipendiary Magistrates in the colony ; yet they were deprived of his services at the whim and freak of the pcilice. In face of Mr McCarthy’s predetermination to inflict imprisonment, accused persons were not getting the benefit of the judicial mind to which they were entitled.

Inspector Mitchell said that the Fortrose case was under the Act of 1881, while this prosecution ‘was under the Act of 1895. Mr Cruickshaiiks was a material witness, and if necessary he would adjourn the cases for his evidence.

Mr McCarthy said that he had received a subpoena to produce the Gazette containing his appointment. This he looked on as a discreditable attempt to interfere with the course of justice, and he would refuse 'an adjournment. Mr Neave then said that he had applied to the Chief 'Justice for a writ of prolvib'ii'tion against Mr McCarthy adjudicating. The Magistrate said that he would go on until he was stopped hy; the Supreme Court. On resuming after luncheon, the Magistrate said that he had teen shown a telegram stating that proceedings were being commenced for a writ of prohibition, and it would he indecent for him to go on until the motion was disposed of by the Chief Justice. Therefore he adjourned the hearing until to-morrow, afternoon.