R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 203, 7 August 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

YESTERDAY. (Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) Police v. Thomas Stowe, Destroying a machine. Prisoner gave himself up. On the application of the police the case was remanded till Saturday. John Bourke v. A. J. Thomas. Charged with embezzling monies belonging to the Gisborne Harbor Board, to the extent of £23 3s. 9d. Un the application of the police the case was remanded to Wednesday, the 13th inst. Bail, £lOO, and two sureties of £5O each. Greenwood v. E. ff. Ward and E. Ward. Mr. Rees for plaintiff and Mr. Brassey for defendant.

Mr. Brassey made a preliminary objection to the information, as he apprehended Mr. Diery was not a peace officer, he not having been sworn in as such. Various authorities were quoted. Mr. Rees said the argument would be good if the information had been a summary one. But it was not so, being a magisterial inquiry as to the irregularity of certain proceedings. The Court is bound to take any evidence offered. The obstruction of a sheriff’s officer is a misdemeanor, and the Court could not deal with it summarily. There were three classes of offences under the Act—common assaults, assault upon an officer of a Court of Justice, whether a peace officer or not, and an assault upon a peace officer. The first only can be dealt with summarily. The indictment may have to be amended, but that is the business of the Court.

Mr. Brassey—Did not wish to explicate his client if an offence had been committed, but he did not admit such. The information should have been laid under the statute referring to common assault. The case arose out of the issue of a warrant, and Mr. Ward had no business to be dealt with in the mode proposed. As a matter of fact the amount of the warrant was paid, and the only real offence consisted in setting a bad example. It appears all through the law that where a matter can be dealt with summarily it should be so dealt with.

Mr. Rees—The introduction of such an argument as a magistrate being liable to an action is very improper. Mr. Brassey did not put it forward as a threat, or in an way disrespectful to the Bench.

Mr. Rees —The Act quoted by my learned friend is virtually repealed. The sheriff’s authority was proved by Johnson. No information can be dismissed for lack of form.

The only contention in the case was as to the status of the person offended. The only pioteclion a sheriff’* officer has is that gran tod by the Court, His Worship—lf evidence proved that Direy was not a pome officer could the case go on under the section under which it had been laid ?

Mr. Rees—By al! means. Mr. Brassey contended that a deputy had not the powers of a principle. It’His Worship—The case is one of such gravity that I should like to be very clear on the point whether, the information being amended, the case could go on under the 35th section.

Mr. Rees—Only asked for a preliminary investigation into a charge.

Mr. Brassey contended that a sheriff was not a peace officerj and therefore a person appointed by him could not be considered as such,

His Worship was inclined to agree with Mr. Brassey, as to his contention of Diery not being a peace officer, but an offence by a Supreme Court officer could not be made light of, If the case cannot go on as at present laid it would be proper for Mr. Rees to report the question to the Supreme Court, Ha was cf opinion the case could not go on under the present information, Mr. Rees—The justice had no option as to hearing the case. Mr. Brassey objected to the contention as the charge was not properly laid. If the charge was a properone, let Ward be punished by all means. His Worship decided to hear the evidence. G. L. Greenwood—Sheriff of the district of Poverty Bay. Received a writ produced. Made out a warrant (produced) authorising L. G. Diery to carry out the writ, and handed it to Diery. Afterwards saw Direy, and in consequence of a statement he made I laid the present information. Mr. Brassey at this stage produced a case quoted by Mr. Rees, and started a fresh argument as to whether the case should go on or

Witness, cross-examined by Mr. Brassey— As Registrar I made out the warrant to myself as Sheriff. Laid the information on the 24th July, the offence being committed on the 21st. The summons was served on the 25th on E. ff. Ward, and on the 26th on E, Ward, The poundage was paid on the 25th. Mr. Nolan, who was acting in the case, told me about an hour previously to laying the information, that the warrant had been fully satisfied.

By Mr. Rees—My proceedings were simply taken in connection with the assault on my officer.

G. L. Direy—Received a warrant (produced) from Mr. Greenwood, which I took into Mr. E. ff. Ward’s private room at his office. Told him what I had come for, and that in order to avoid any scandal I proposed to put Mr. Cresswell in charge, Ward called for his brother (Mr. E. Ward) to put me out, which that gentleman did. Before being put out I produced the warrant, and showed it to E. ff. Ward. I remonstrated when being put out, saying he had better not behave in that way, but Ward continued to urge his brother to put me out. I resisted being put out. Egerton pulled me out of a chair by the left arm. I was instructed to do the thing quietly. I was evicted with sufficient force to prevent my staying there without fighting. I went over and reported the matter to Mr. Greenwood. Egerton Ward ejected me in E. ff. Ward’s presence. I don’t think Egerton Ward liked the job. By Mr. Brassey—l was not hurt, nor were my clothes torn. Ward sent down next morning and offered to reinstate me in possession. I took possession and appointed Cresswell to act as bailiff. I was in Ward’s office half-an-hour afterwards on other business.

By the Court—l have not been sworn as bailiff.

Mr. Rees applied to amend the information under sections 124 and 125 of the Justices of the Peace Act by striking out the words peace officer, and quoted other authorities in support of his application. He proposed to insert the words sheriff’s officer.

Mr. Brassey submitted this course could not be taken. The authorities quoted only applied to technical objections. What was asked for was not an amendment, but an alteration. Mr. Rees replied.

His Worship desired time to think over the point and adjourned till 2 o’clock, and on resuming decided to dismiss the case, making at the same time the recommendation that further proceedings should be taken.