A LEGAL TANGLE

Hokitika Guardian, 22 January 1926, Page 4

A LEGAL TANGLE

CHARGE DISAIISSF.D. HAMILTON. Jan. 20. A curious position arose in the Hamilton .Magistrate’s Court to-day. A voting man. Roy Charles Dorn, las! week was remanded on a charge ol aitempting to murder Muriel TotzlnfT. As the police were not ready to proceed with the preliminary hearing owing lo the girl still being in a critical condition, it was considered expedient that Dorn should be brought before the Auckland Court, where a fourth remand will lie asked lor, but as bo had been remanded to appear at Hamilton also it was necessary to as!; for remand in the local Court. When this remand was applied for to-day Air Wvvern Wilson. K.AL. said that unless the man was before him he could not deal " itli him.

Senior-Sergeant Sweeney said the police considered that by causing accused to appear before iho Auckland Court the trouble and expense of bringing Dorn to Hamilton would be avoided.

His Worship asked to see the information.

Senior-Sergeant Sweeney said he thought this was at Ngarunwahia, where accused first was charged and where ultimately the case would probably have to he heard.

His Worship said that ns accused was not present and the information was not produced the case must end there so far as he was concerned, therefore he dismissed fhe. charge for want of prosecution.

Dorn’s position is not affected by the dismissal as be was to appear before the Auckland Court to-day on the same charge, where a remand would be applied for and doubtless granted. In any ease it would be quite competent for the police, were Dorn’s release ordered, to re-arrest him on the same charge, as dismissal for want of prosecution is not equivalent to acquittal which in an indictable offence can only be made by a jury.