THE WHATAWHATA RAFFLE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2261, 6 January 1887, Page 2

THE WHATAWHATA RAFFLE.

Important Decision. It will be remembered that Messrs Wright, Moore, Ferguson and Shepherd were some time since charged with raffling a horse, contrary to the Provisions of the Gaining and Lotteries Acts, and that the justices allowed the informant to withdraw the information after it had been partially heard. Mr Hay appeared for the accused, and applied for a dismissal, which was not granted. Fresh informations were subsequently laid. (1) against Mr Loane, a recalcitrant witness, (2) against Messrs Shepherd, Moore and Ferguson, and (3) against Wright. Wright defended the information- through Mr Hay, his solicitor, who argued that, after a man had been placed in peril upon his trial once before a competent tribunal, he could not be tried again for the same offence. He quoted several cases in support of his argument, showing that the accused was on his trial the moment he pleaded to tho charge. He placed the reports of the cases at the disposal of the Court. Sergt. McGrath argued that the information was withdrawn for the purpose of laying a fresh one, and was permitted by the Bench under sec. GO of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1882. His Worship, the Resident Magistrate, deferred judgment, which he delivered yesterday morning, to the following effect: — After having gone carefully through the authorities submitted and others, he thought that the principal question was whether or not there had been an adjudication before tho magistrates. Section (JO utated that an information might be withdrawn before the adjudication. The cases before him, and more especially Tuniiicliff v. Tedii and Bradshaw v. Vaughton, went to show that an adjudication had taken place, and that the prisoner had been previously placed in danger of being convicted on this charge. It did not matter that the offences were separately charged on this occasion if they were practically the same. The other objection raised by Mr Hay as to the accused not having authorised the throwing of dice was sufficient tn upsot the information, but he did n:>t docid' , upon that point. The case must be dismissed. This decision will also apply to tho case against Moore, Shepherd, and Ferguson.