REHEARING REFUSED.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 59, 11 March 1926, Page 7

REHEARING REFUSED.

IN THE A. W. COPLEY CASE. MR. POYNTON GIVES JUDGMENT. SECURITY FOR APPEAL FIXLD. What has become to be known as <ht Alexander Wallace Copley rehearing case was dealt with in the Police Court this morning by Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., when lie delivered his reserved judgment on Mr. J. J. Sullivan's application for a rehearing. On Friday of last week Alexander Wallace Copley was tried on a charge of being an idle and d'sorderly person, who habitually consorted with reputed thieves, and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. On Monday. Mr. J. J. Sullivan, his counsel, applied for a rehearing on the following grounds:—(l) That the Court admitted evidence of an occurrence that took place more than six months before the conviction, such evidence being improperly admitted; (2) that inflammatory and excessive language was used at the trial, the accused being termed a '"criminal parasite"; (3) that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, as it was necessary to show, an.l it was not shown, that the accused knew that those associated with him were reputed thieves: (4)that even if the evidence was admissible, it was impossible to show at the trial that the association with one person six months betore the trial, was on legitimate business as e.uld be proved on fresh evidence. His Worship said it did not appear to him that the evidence of the act done six months before the trial was inadinissable. After quoting authorities Mr. Poytnon said: "Even if there was no evidence of the association in rune there would be in the circmstam-es of this case, a prima fata ens* agunst accused. Regarding the inflammatory language, it J nrl no efi'oet on the ease. It was used after the conviction — not before. And it did not. of eoiiivc " aided his Worship, "influence the Court in coining to a conclusion to convict accused.'" As to the insufficiency of the evidence regarding the accused's knowledge of tlie nature of tli2 case. Mr. Poynton said ho felt there was abundant proof in the evidence g!ven. The last,ground— that the association with the man on March 2 could be proved to be for legitimate purposes—was characteristed by the magistrate as l>eing really an application for a new trial, or rehearing, on the grounds of fresh evidence, but it was of no avail. His Worship's reasons were: (1) That even if proved it is not of such overwhelming- weight that it would presumably affect the verdicts given in the previous case. No order for a new I rial, or rehearing would be made unless the new evidence would have t':at result. Hero it could not: (2) tins was precisely the sort of case where a "frameup" with manufactured evidence would be expected and even encouraged." 'The application is refused," said his Wohship. "But the accused will not U , prejudiced by such refusal. lie has still time to lodge a general appeal and has a chance of success."' Security for appeal was fixed at twelva guineas, i =