APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 1 October 1930, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

HAZLETT APPEAL

ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL

DECISION DESERVED. [By Telegraph, Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September 30. In the Hazlett case in the Appeal Court, continuing Mr Sullivan, said that the Magistrate did not comply with the procedure laid down by the Justices of the Peace Act. Further, he said, although the Magistrate, gave Hazlett an opportunity of answering the charge, lie did not give him a fair one. According to the Act, there should have been, (1) the charge; (2) the notice and (3) the hearing. In the case, the second requirement, the notice was missing. The Magistrate also had no legal right to sit in the Taieri, and still less to constitute his court in Ilazlett’s bedroom. If he were sitting as a Magistrate, he should have acted in conformity with the principles of the Magistrate’s Court. If he were, sitting as a Justice he could sit anywhere in a duly established court, but not outside, one.

Mr Johnstone, for the respondent, said the judgment of the court below should be upheld for the very reasonings -set forth in the judgment itself. He contended that the sole question for decision by the Magistrate was whether or not Hazlett was an habitual inebriate and. having found him to be such, the Magistrate, was entitled to send him to the : Island/. Further-' more, all steps required by tile Justices of the Pence Act had [ been .carried out by the Magistrate, ht the hearing. He clearly had jurisdiction and nothing had been done which deprived him of that jurisdiction. Decision was reserved.

CATHEDRAL SQUARE CASE.. % 1 WELLINGTON, October 1. A further stage in the now well known Christchurch. Cathedral Square Case, came before the Court of Appeal to-day in the appeal of the Christchurch City Corporation from the judg- ; nient; of. Mr J fist ice Herdmah, • tleliv4 lered in this case in May of. last'year,/; h In March 1929 the Attorneyi-Geiiefal. on t ths • appliestioil ..of , George Gould .of 1 ChrjstciiufcH, ’.a; merthaht,;; isgiiCd;;; As writ ajgaihs^fj%, prcji v Cprpori; atibn, the Council ' to 1 remove i; tilief • existing tramway shelter and building situated ,:n-Cathedral Square, and. prevent the. Council ,from proceeding with the, eree-; .jtipn on the Square of a ; building which was to comprise shelter,! ..public lav-; atories and other Conveniences.

The matter came- on for hearing in the following May, when Justice Herdman held the land. .on, which the present shelter stood, and on which the pi-oposed building wag to be .erected, was vested in the City,.Council fenvuse,, of the inhabitants of The City of Christqfrtn'eltfttM ift. publid'TrdServe oftly, and; jCb'nspqHeiitly the 'Council wergf'Jofc entitled to place erections thereon. Judgment,, accordingly- entered ip. rfayour of the Attorney-General, with a condition" that'-'' the injunctlonr : were not to be issued without a further order of’the Court. *' ■ *"' ' It was Imped the litigants would he able to settle the dispute between them, but they are- unable to do so and .in:..July last.the.Corporation obtained ieave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the whole of Justice Herdman’s judgment. It is this appeal, which is now being heard. On the bench are the Chief Justice, (Sir M, Myers) and Justices Blair, Smith and Kennedy, For appellants—Messrs J. O’Shea, A. T. Donnelly and Lioughnan and for the respondents,—-Messrs M. J. Gresson, D. E. Wanklyn. ji. In opening the ease for the appellants Mr O’Shea, produced'two plans, one made in 1868 and the other in 1879, which lie contended showed that the whole of Cathedral Square, other than that part occupied by the Cathedral itself, was a street. These plans had only recently been discovered in the Lands Office Wellington. He urged that as the whole question was one of a public nature and' interest any evidence relevant to the issue should be admitted, even though it was not produced in the court below. Mr Gresson said that while he did not want to prevent any evidence bearing on the issue from being produced, lie, nevertheless, thought that the plans should have been submitted to Mr Freeman, the respondent’s expert, for examination, though he realised that in the circumstances that would, have been very difficult. The court provisionally admitted the plans, reserving leave to Mr Gresson to argue the question of their admissability at a later date. Continuing Mr O’Shea said the case required an answer of the court to two questions. . (1) Was the land to the west of the western boundary of the Cathedral. the. site of a street. (2) If it were a street had Christchurch Council the power to erect the proposed buildings on.it, or retain the building at present there. The latter point was not raised in the Court below. The Council contended, said Mr O’Snea that everything outside the c-urtailage of the Cathedral was a street, including the portion known as Godley block. The Court then proceeded to examine the numerous plans submitted in evidence in the, Court below and peruse the various statutory enactments material to the past history of the Square. At this stage the Court adjourned till Friday morning.