ORDER CANCELLED.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 162, 11 July 1925, Page 15

ORDER CANCELLED.

FOR COMMITTAL TO PAKATOA. WOMAN REPUDIATES SIGNATURE. A BREEZE IN COURT. A breeze occurred in the Police Court yesterday afternoon during the hearing of a case in which application had been made by the relatives of a middle-aged woman to have her consigned to the Pakatoa Inebriates' Island. Last week the woman defended the application, but before the case had concluded she consented to go to the island. The day afterwards, her solicitor, Mr. J. J. Sullivan, who was unaware that his client had been arrested on warrant aud that the matter had been before the court, succeeded in his application for a rehearing of tlie case. This took place yesterday afternoon before Mr. J. W. Poynton," S.M. Mr. Allan Moody appeared for the brother of the woman, who made the complaint. Mr. Sullivan submitted that spite and conspiracy were associated with the application to have his client committed, and that she had been urged into signing the committal order under a misapprehension about the terms of her detention on the island. She was not fully aware of her position, and would not consent to committal. Mr. Poynton: Oh, she signed the papers and was committed; what can be done now? Mr. Sullivan: I respectfully submit, sir, that you had no jurisdiction even in committing the woman after she signed. Section 7 of the Reformative Institutions Act states that a person cannot be committed unless he or she has four previous convictions for drunkenness against her, and even if he or she did consent to go. Mr. Poynton: But tlie woman consented to go. It is now upon you to show that her signature was obtained by fraud." Mr. Sullivan: I never mentioned anything about fraud. This is a rehearing, and I take it the proceedings will be started de novo. Under which section did your Worship commit the woman? Mr. Poynton: Under section .7. Mr. Sullivan: Well, your Worship has no jurisdiction. The woman must have had four convictions, and must be certified by two doctors. Mr. Poynton: If you are going to raise all sorts of technicalities. I will cancel the whole proceedings and a fresh information will be laid. Mr. Sullivan: I am not raising technicalities at all; I am simply quoting to your Worship the Statutes. That is all. Have you considered the Amending Act of 1018, Section 5. Mr. Poynton: She consented to go in the first place. Mr. Sullivan: Well, sir. when 9hc was arrested this woman asked that I should be communicated with by telephone, but this was not done. I have a witness to prove that. I did not know that she had been arrested until the day after she had been committed. Mr. Poynton: Well, the order is cancelled. Accused repudiates her signature. The case can be taken by another magistrate.- I will not have any more to do with it. A fresh application was then made by complainant, and the case was then taken upstairs before Mr. -W. R. McKean, S.M. •Mr. Moody stated that for some years past the woman had been addicted to drink, and had been a source of annoyance to her relatives. A warrant had been taken out and she was arrested. One doctor examined her, and certified that she was a fit subject for the Inebriates' Island. Mr. Sullivan: It might be just as well if we knew under which section these proceedings are being taken, for it might shorten the proceedings. After Mr. Moody had quoted the particular sectionMr. Sullivan then said, "How. is my friend going to succeed, then. She has never in her life been before the court for drunkenness, whereas the Act says specifically that before she can be committed she must have had four previous convictions and be certified by two doctors. This appears to mc to be an excellent case for a jury for a malicious prosecution. Apart from the law two doctors must certify. Can my friend bring them here to'do'that?" The Magistrate: What have you got to say to that, Mr. Moody? Mr. Moody: It seems to mc. sir, that the only way out of the difficulty would be to withdraw the application and make one for a prohibition order. I agree with my friend that the Act does require four convictions and two doctors to certify. I will ask leave to withdraw the proceedings. Mr. McKean: That is the best procedure. Mr. Sullivan: I will ask for costs. I am here to meet all the evidence. Mr. McKean: I cannot allow costs without hearing evidence. I will refer the matter of costs to Mr. Poynton. Mr; Poynton considered the question of costs in private, but refused to allow costs to respondent.