DECISION OF THE FULL COURT.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 65, 7 June 1912, Page 15

DECISION OF THE FULL COURT.

Tho N.S.W. Full Court (the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Gordon, and Mr. Juslioo Forguaon) on May 23 delivered iidgiueut iv the application on behalf of Harry E. Holland, the wetlknovn Socialist leader, to make absolute a rule nisi tor a writ of prohibition directed to Captain Charles Henry William Coulter and Arthur N. Harnett, S.M., to restrain them from proceeding upon a conviction whereby Holland was lined £100, or three | months' imprisonment. Tho offence alleged was that Holland proven ted his son Roy from attending drill as a cadet under the Defence Act. The Chief Justice, in delivering judgment, said that the appellant had been chaigeil with having prevented his son, who 'was liable to sei vo as a eudot .under tho Commonwealth Defence Act. Urn Homo- was of the opinion that the boy's book, referred to in argument, was prin a facie evidence, inasmuch as it had boor proved that it was the book of tho appellant's son. Tho liability to military training was sot out in section 125 of the Act. Thero was clear and nnmistakahlc evidence that tho fath-T of the boy had a conscientious obje ition to the principlo of compulsory training. His Honor did not think that the decision of a magistrate, on a statutory prohibition or otherwise, could he upset on tho mere groMid that it had not be-on. shown in < vidence that a person, was a British subject. Tho lad in the hoik had b»«ui described as a senior <■:■ :. , ami, coupled with the evidence ol offior—leaving out the general si menu—his Honor was of tho opin. • that tho charge against the defendn; at 'he lower court was .established Thei there w.'is the que-, ion that thmagistrate was in error in not allowing the defendant te make an unsworn statement. His Honor did not think the magistrate had made a mistake in this resiKM't, but an error had been mad > by the magistrate in imposing a fine of £100, instead of a fine of £10. OouM it, however, be said that a prohibition should !>e granted because- of an error, not in tho actual trial, but in tee passing of a sentence,thereby alloying an offender te escape justice? Ho -vas of opinion that ti.e court had power, under section 132 of the Justices Act, to cure tho error, which was an error in law. The court remitted the case to the magistrate under section 1-12 of tho Justices Act for the purpose of imposing the sentence prescribe:l by law. No cost;; were allowed. Mr. Justice Ferguson disagreed with thei;- Honors in holding that tho magistrate had committed an error in law in th*- sentence.