UNUSUAL PLEA

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 241, 25 July 1935, Page 6

UNUSUAL PLEA

CHARGES OF RECEIVING FAIL. (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, July 24. When two charges of receiving stolen petrol were read in the Magistrate s Court to-day, counsel entered the unusual plea of “autrefois acquit,” contending that the accused had already been dealt with by another magistrate, who, it was submitted, had no jurisdiction to bring in the verdict of “dismissed without prejudice,” which be had given. The accused was Charles Horace Boncey, a milk roundsman, and he was charged with receiving four gallons of petrol, valued at 6s, the property of the Atlantic Oil Company, from Charles Leonard Key, on February 4, 1934, and 10 gallons, valued at 15s, on March 25, 1934. Mr G. Neal, who appeared for the accused, said had already been charged with the offences before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M. 'He had been charged with receiving 260 gallons of petrol over a period up to August, 1934, and the magistrate had dismissed the matter without prejudice. An information was laid under part 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1927, and it was contended that the verdict was equivalent to one of not guilty, and that part 5 was a complete code in itself. Under part 5 the only jurisdiction to convict or acquit, alid section 261 provided that no person should he tried or punished twice for the same offence.

The magistrate (Mr E. D. Mosley) : All the machinery of the Justices of the Peace Act clearly must be read as a whole.

Mr Neal: I don’t think there can be any doubt that the two charges in this case did clearly come under the other charges. The only question is as to whether or not the magistrate who heard the prior charge under part 5 had power to dismiss it without -prejudice. ’ The magistrate: I think the whole act must be read as a body, and I think personally that he had ample jurisdiction under section 73. The magistrate then proceeded with the hearing of the charges, and after evidence had been given lie dismissed them, remarking that the accused should get the benefit of the very considerable doubt that existed.