HEARING BY JUSTICES

Wairarapa Times-Age, 20 December 1938, Page 14

HEARING BY JUSTICES

OBJECTED TO BY COUNSEL IN AUCKLAND CASE. CHARGE AGAINST WOMAN. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, December 19. Several dramatic interludes between the Bench and counsel, who complained of the practice of permitting justices of the peace to hear cases involving fine points of law, developed during the hearing of a prosecution against Margaret Wilson, widow, aged 53, on three charges of unlawfully using instruments on two girls between November T 9 and 25. Messrs S. Leah and C. E. Phillips, J.’sP. were on the bench, and Mr Goldstine represented accused. DetectiveSergeant McHugh prosecuted. Evidence was given by 10 witnesses called by the police. They included one of the girls, a young man, three doctors, a nurse and two detectives. The young man, a friend of one girl,said he took her to accused’s home on November 19 as the result of an arrangement he had made with accused to' perform an illegal operation for £2O. He paid accused £l5 and later accompanied the girl and accused’s daughter in a taxi to another house. While medical evidence was being given as to the result of the examinations made on the girl at the hospital, Mr McHugh was called to the bench. The words of the conversation were inaudible, and Mr Goldstine objected on the grounds that any private conversation between the Bench and the prosecutor should be heard. Mr McHugh: “You are too suspicious, Mr Goldstine. I was asked where the second girl came into the case and I was giving the information.”

Mr Goldstine: “One cannot help taking exception- to private conversations. The sooner we have magistrates to take these cases the better. I am going to ask that this case be not proceeded with unless before a magistrate. I make that, application as an officer of this court.” Further assurances were given by the justices and Mr McHugh that there had been no private discussions, and Mr Goldstine accepted them, allowing the case to continue. At a later stage counsel objected to a witness allegedly reading his evidence from notes. Mr Phillips said counsel raised no objection when the doctors referred to notes earlier in the case. “With all due respect to the Bench I say you gentlemen cannot appreciate the difference between relevant and irrevelant evidence,” said Mr Goldstine. “Expert witnesses such as doctors are permitted to read from notes, but ordinary witnesses can only refresh their memories from them and cannot read from them. The detective is now reading the notes while I am talking. “It is unfortunate that I must repeat my earlier objection, but this is a case of a serious type and I say advisedly that such hearings should be. taken before magistrates, who are trained to appreciate the law,” counsel continued. 1 “It is very difficult for counsel to make 1 an objection to men who cannot ap- ' preciate the difference between rele- ’ vant and irrelevant evidence.” Mr McHugh said he was astounded at Mr Goldstine’s attitude and Mr Leah I also objected to counsel’s remarks, . saying that some justices had had a ’ longer association with the Bench than counsel had had With the legal profession. Mr McHugh said the case could be ■ carried no further at present. The second girl involved in the case would be ; called as a witness, but she would be physically unable to do so for some . time and a further remand would be : required. A remand for a month by consent was granted, but bail, which was opposed by Mr McHugh, was refused.