UNJUSTLY TREATED

Hokitika Guardian, 14 July 1928, Page 1

UNJUSTLY TREATED

ACTIONS OF AIAGXSTRATE.

'STRONG COMMENT BY JUDGE

FURTHER I’AItTICULAIt.S.

AUCKLAND, July 9,

An order against Mary Ellen Woodley and William Mel drum (Mr Holmden), for certiorari, in order to remove into the Supreme Court and there to quash an order made against John Charles Woodley, formerly solicitor, of Auckland (Mr Northcroft); for separation, maintenance and guardianship, on September 15 last,* at Hokitika, was made by Mr Justice* McGregor in a reserved judgment de'4 liverod in tlio Supreme Court this morning.

The defendants were the \vife of the plaintiff and the stipendiary magistrate at Hokitika. At the time when the order was made the plaintiff was a. prisoner in the Auckland prison and his wife was residing at Hokitika. The ground of the application for certiorari was, broadly, that the separation order was made, by the magistrate without jurisdiction, in that by the conduct of the magistrate the plaintiff was precluded from placing any evidence before the Court upon the hearing of the complaint. On September 2 the plaintiff made, written application for an adjournment of the hearing to permit of the taking of the evidence of himself and lour other witnesses m Auckland. The adjournmnet was refused, the application to take evidence, in Auckland dismissed, and the order against plaintiff made. On September 28 plaintiff made written application for a rehearing. This was refused. ADVISED BY MAGISTRATE.

When Woodley was served with Ills wife’s complaint lie asked to be sent to Hokitika. This was found by the Prisons Department to be impracticable. Woodley then applied to the visiting magistrate at tlio gaol, who advised him to instruct a solicitor to make the necessary application to have evidence taken at Auckland. The visiting magistrate assured AVootllev that no magistrate would in the circumstances hear the proceedings without giving him an opportunity of being heard When the application for rehearing-, was refused by Meldrum a letter was before him from the visiting magistrate to the gaol to Woodley’s solicitors, jin which was the statement: “11 trust that tlio fact, that Woodley was relying upon an assurance given by mo will be sufficient to enable you to obtain a rehearing.”

In delivering judgment bis Honor said: “It is quite clear that when the magistrate made the order lie knew the cause of the unavoidable absence of Woodley, and also that Woodley was anxious to place evidence before the Court. Instead of giving the plaintiff an opportunity of being heard, however, he chose to act on the evidence of Airs AV.oodley and her. witnesses alone,, and effectually prevented the plaintiff from being heard oti a matter which vitally affected not only his pocket, but the future life of himself and his family!’ VIOLATION OF JUSTICE.

“Tlie question is whether such an order so made should l>e allowed to stand. The broad, question to bo determined. is did Woodley have a fair opportunity of answering the charges against him, or, in other words, did Woodley have justice done to him when this order was made against; him? In my judgment both of these! questions must ho answered in the: negative. It appears to me tlmtj Woodley was unjustly treated.” In Ills statement of claim and 110-j tice of motion, the plaintiff claimed,! in addition to a writ of certiorari, ail] order prohibiting the defendants from] acting or talcing any further steps upon the order so made against him. "In jjiy judgment,” said his Honor, “the order made against the plaintiff l,y the defendant magistrate is contrary to the general law of the land and - also so vicious as to violate the fundamental principles of justice. Tt seems to me, accordingly, that the defendants must bo prohibited front acting or taking any further steps upon the order.” -*»| • • •• - J