"JUSTICES' JUSTICE."

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 169, 30 July 1901, Page 4

"JUSTICES' JUSTICE."

A CASE TAKEN TO THE SUPREME

COURT

TWO J.P.s CALLED UPON

The action of two Justices of the Peace in connection with a school attendance was heard in the Police Court last week is to form the subject of an interesting case in the Supreme Court. The Police Court case which gives rile to the action in the higher Court was one against George Pannill for a breach of the School Attendance Act, heard at the Police Court last Thursday. The point is that the "Justices convicted the defendant without allowing evidence to be called for the defence." At the Supreme Court, in chambers, this morning, before Mr Justice Conolly, Mr J. R. Reed made an application in re the School Attendance Act„ 1894, and the Justices of the Peace Act, ISB2, in the case Small v. Pannill, for rule nisi calling on the two Justices who hard the case to appear at the Supreme Court and show cause why prohibition of their decision should not issue. Mr Reed spoke as to the circuxn. stances of the Polic Court case, which are set forth in the affidavit filed'by him as solicitor for Pannill. The affidavit also sets forth that George Pannill, of Lucas' Creek, was charged on the information of J. E. Small, Truant Officer, with a breach of the School Attendance Act, viz., not sending his child reg-ularly to school. The hearing of the case took place at the Police Court on Thursday last before Napian Wm. Pollard and John Callnan, Justices of the Peace.. Pannill pleaded not guilty. Mr Small gave evidence, and Mr Reed (counsel for Pannill) cross-examined him and sat down, whereupon the Justices convicted Pannill and fined him 8/. M_ Reed pointed out to the Justices that they could not convict until they had heard the defendant's casej and they thereupon informed him that they would grant him costs against his client. He respectfully pointed out that this was not what he wanted', and again impressed upon them that it was necessary they should hear the defendant's case. They then informed him that they were prepared to hear what he had to say on the matter Mr Reed's affidavit proceeds:-— "I addressed the Court and submitted that there was no evidence to support the charge, and that it ought to be dismissed without calling on the defendant The said Justices then conferred together and announced that they would convict the defendant and he would be fined eight shillings. I then informed the Justices that the defendant was prepared to call evidence in answer to the charge, and strongly remonstrated at the defendant being convicted without having a__ opportunity of giving evidence in defence. The Justices then stated that' they were satisfied with the evidence they had already heard and would not hear any more. I said: 'Do Your Worships decline, to hear any evidence for the defence?'.and one of the Justices, the said Napian William Pollard, said, Yes.' The conviction of the said Geo Pannill has been duly recorded in the records book of the' Court and signed by N. W. Pollard and John Call* nan."

Mr Reed appended to his affidavtf extracts from the "Star" and "Herald"* commenting on Uhe action of _ &

returnable to-morrow week, August i have £° JUStICeS wiU accordingly have to appear at the sitting- of the _oPsho m we C° Urt l? banco onThaTd^. answer t n 7 _>for their decision te answer to Mr Reed's affidavit