A LEGAL DECISION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 30, 10 June 1913, Page 5

A LEGAL DECISION.

EIGHT OR WRONG. [Per Press Association.] Wanganui, June 10. Mr Justice Sim gave judgment h 3 case in which the plaintiff was Constable David Burnett Murray, and fiie , defendants, Leonard Grenwel Heid, Stipendiary Magistrate of Car terton, and Elizabeth Bowe, of Car Sertoli. The action was a motion fo; i writ of mandamus, commanding Mi lleid- to hear ,and determine an infor nation charging the defendant, Eliza both Bowe; with an offence under Sec tion 41, of the Gaming Act, 1908 namely,: with disposing of a horse ir in art union. When the case was call I'd on before the Magistrate, the defendant Bowe pleaded not guilty, hei counsel haying obtained from the informant an admission that no notice in writing of his, intention to prosecute defendant bad been given to her and thereupon contended"that such notice was necessary, under Section 74, of the Gaming Act, 1908, and that tlu information should be dismissed on this ground. The- Magistrate held that this objection was fatal, and without hearing any evidence, dis missed the information. His Honor, ir giving judgment, said it was clear thai the decision of the Magistrate was wrong. The provisions of Section 7-' were enacted for the protection of persons acting in pursuance, or in tending pursuance, of powers conferred by the Act, and not for the pro tection of persons charged with having violated the provisions of the Act The only question was whether tm decision of the Magistrate was an erroneous one on the merits, or amounted in effect to a refusal tf hear and determine the case. If thi decision was on the merits, then however wrong it might have been, it ?ould not be reviewed by a proeest if mandamus. The motion for. mandamus would be dismissed on the ground that the Magistrate did not decline jurisdiction in the sense of refusing to hear the case, or in the sense of deciding against the complain-, ant on a point preliminary to hearing of the merits, but that he decided in effect on a defence riiade by the respondent. No costs were allowed;