RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1003, 24 November 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Tuesday, November 22nd, 1881. [Before J. H. Fisher, and A. Graham, Esqs., J.P.’s] Alexander McKay v. Mrs. Dunn. Assault on a little daughter of the complainant. Mr. McDougal appeared for the prosecution. Mr. Brassey for the defence, took exception to the information not being signed by complainant. It was necessary that the accused should know who his accuser is, and that the practice of the Court cannot be diverged from. He also took exception to the summons being signed in pencil by the attesting Justice, but on consideration that another case in which hewas engaged for the plaintiff, was similarly signed, and that Mr. Finn, who appeared for the defence, said he would not take exception to the poncil signature, he would waive his objection on that point. Mr. McDougall argued that it was not necessary to have the information signed, and no statutory proof of it could be found. The Bench held that as it had been the practice of the Court to have informations signed by the complainant, ' Mr. Brassey’s objection was upheld,

and the information was dismissed on the grounds stated. G. Walls v. W. Tarr. Insulting language, and threatening to shoot. Mr. Brassey for the complainant; Mr. Finn for the defendant. From the. evidence of the complainant it appeared that on the 16th of November, he was at the Hotel at Ormond, when the accused called him a robber, and said if he had a gun, he would shoot him, complainant. He repeated the words several times. By Mr. Finn : I did not knock complainant down. I merely pushed him away. Charles Sunstrum deposed to being at Buchanan’s Hotel on the occasion in question. He heard Tarr call Walls a thief and a robber, and threatened to shoot him if he had a gun. Walls did not provoke the accused. Tarr was drunk, but Walls was sober. Constable Currie deposed to Walls telling him of the language used when he applied for a summons. On the conclusion of the case, Mr. Finn sought for a dismissal of the case, on the ground that under the Justice of the Peace Act, only one offence can be included in one information, whereas in the present case the wording of the information contains three offences. Again, there was no evidence as to the offence having been committed in a public place. The Bench decided to go on with the case. Mr. Finn said that as the Bench was against him on these points he should not bring evidence for the defence. The Bench inflicted a fine of 20s and costs, or in default 7 days’ imprisonment. Mr. Finn gave notice to move to quash the conviction in the Supreme Court. McGarry v. Grady. Case struck out, Mr. Finn, acting for plaintiff, declined to go on with it, as nice points of law would arise, which required a legal mind to deal with. He made no reflection on the sitting Justices, who did their best in the interests of the public. Several cases were re-adjourned, owing to want of jurisdiction.