SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1930, 1 May 1880, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN BANCO. Thussdap, Apeil 29. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.J His Honor gat in banco at 11 a.m. PATTBBSON (APPELLANT) T JOHN PBATX (kebpondbnt). This was a case on appeal from the Resident Magistrate at Ashburton. The appellant was on the premises of a person named Barrett one night, and was thereupon given into the custody of the respondent. On being brought before the Resident Magistrate, the appellant stated that he had mistaken the house for a place called “ the Lean-to,” and that he was at the time of his arrest getting into his cart on the public road. The Resident Magistrate sentenced the appellant to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The appellant now stated a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court, as to whether the conviction was good, the appellant being off the premises and on the public road. Mr Harper, instructed by Messrs Branson and Purnell for the appellant, Mr Joynt for the respondent.

His Honor said he could not understand how a man could be convicted under the Vagrant Act for knocking twice at a man’s door. The appellant stated that he was mistaken in the place, and was getting into his cart on the public road. Mr Harper cited cases to show that it was necessary to sustain the conviction for evidence to have been led to show the criminal intent of the appellant. [Hayes v. Stephenson, 3 L.T. New Series, p. 296; Kenkin and another, appellants v. Jenkins, respondent, 32 L. J., M. 0., 140 ; Addison, on Torts. Mr Joynt, for the respondent, submitted that it would be a very unfortunate thing for the community if it was to be held that persona found on premises must be shown to be there for an unlawful purpose. Now there were a number of loafers who went into ou‘ ■ houses, stables, &0., to sleep, and were arrested for being illegally on the premises. Now where was the unlawful purpose, as quoted in the cases cited by Mr Harper ? His Honor said that these cases must be looked at in the light of the necessity of the person giving a lawful excuse. Mr Joynt contended that the appellant continued to knock at the door of the house after he had been warned. Any person going like the appellant to a house without first ascertaining that it was the right one, did so at his own risk. Again, the law here held that the burden of proof lay on the person accused that he had a lawful excuse, not on the Crown to prove that the person was intending to commit a criminal act. His Honor said that he did not like to say too much as to magistrates’ cases sent up, because they might not bo stated in such a way as to bring out all the facts. But as this case came before him it seemed to him a monstrous thing that a man, having left the premises and getting into his cart on the public road, should have been arrested. It did not matter if the appellant was going to commit an immoral act, the conviction was altogether wrong. The conviction would be quashed. PATTEN T SI'ILBAITH. This was an argument on a special case, stated for the opinion of the Court, Mr Joynt for plaintiff, Mr George Harper (instructed by Duncan and Ootterill), for defendant. Mr Joynt having shortly opened the case, Mr Harper said, as he thought when instructed ho should be unable to argue the case. Bis Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff. B M. ACT AND EE P. GUINNESS. Mr George Harper applied for a rule nisi, calling upon Frank Guinness, Resident Magistrate for Ashburton, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue directing him to issue a warrant of distress in the case of Jameson v Field. His Honor granted the rule nisi. ADJOUBNMENTS. The following cases stood over—Cleave v King, McLean v Ostler. The Court then rose.