RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Press, Volume XVI, Issue 2165, 26 March 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Chbistchuech—March 25. [Before H. J. Tancred, G. Packe, T. W. Maude, J. Oilivier, J. T. Brown, and A. Duncan, Esqs., J.P's.J. • Dbuskbnness af_», Furious Brr»iNG-~ Jobn Grice was "charged with drunkenness, but as it was his first offence the Bench dismissed the case with a caution. On tbe second charge the Bench fined defendant 10s and ordered him to pay the expenses of a witness (5») and the .tabling of hie horse for the night. THE QTTEEK, ON THE r-r_OB__AT_OIT OF ATJGHJS-US DOYLE, AGAINST A-. J. BAPHABL; In this case the following information had been laid:— "The information and com plaint of Augustus Doyle Christchurch taken this 22nd dssy of March in the year of our Lord 1870 before the undersigned Esquire one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in -and for the said colony who saith that Alfred Isaac Raphael of Christchurch on the 21st day of March instant at Christchurch aforesaid falsely wickedly and corruptly did commit wilful and corrupt perjury in the testimony which he gave upon oath before the Registrar of the Supreme Court for the district of Canterbury in the colony aforesaid at a meeting of creditors of Augustus and Theodore Doyle of Christchurch aforesaid contrary to the statute in that case made and provided. Sworn before mc tha day and year first above mentioned at Christchurch in the said colony.—(Signed) RiCHDi Westekba, J.P." Mr Harper said that within the last fe*r minutes he had been consul ted by the com-: plainact,and,had advised him to withdraw the information, as there was not the slightest

ground for ooch _ charge. The complainant had been entirely mistaken, and had acted through ignorance. Mr Garrick, who appeared for the defendant, said that" he was prepared to show that the complainant was not mistaken, inasmuch as previous to laying the information ho had consulted a solicitor, who had advised him precisely as his learned friend had done. The information was so vague that it was impossible to determine tbo nature of the offence charged.. Mr Harper said that the complainant alluded to a dishonored bill, but he seemed not to know that the holder of such a bill might recover against any of the parties whose names were put to it, or might pass it to another party to do bo. The information was laid under the supposition that Mr Raphael, in swearing that he had nd security for the debt he proved, committed perjury, ho holding at the same time a dishonored bill which the complainant believed to be'legal security. He begged to withdraw the information. Mr Tanored—You cannot withdraw the information. Mr Garrick—Do not offer any evidence in support of it, audit will then be dismissed. Mr Harper-r-Ido not offer any evidence in support of the information. Mr Garrick said that he felt bound to offer a few remarks on. the case. In the first place the prosecutor before he laid, the, information had received legal that. there was no case against Mr. Raphael, The. facts of the case were these :-—Mr Raphael Had proved against the estate of Doyle Bros for £90, ho being at the time the holder of a dishonored bill for £1? of "one TBeeby, epdprsed b'yTJoyle, and in his affidavit of proof-he swore that he , held no security., That, did not constitute : perjury,.'for the authorities clearly laid down that the ! holder of a bill of exchange or promissory not© might prove against eaoh and every of the parties whose names were attached thereto until he had recovered 20s in the pound. Then, too, the information did not set out the nature of the offence —it was a mere general charge, and immediately after it was laid there appeared paragraphs in a local paper to the effect that an information for perjury had been laid against Mr Raphael. The information did not set out the nature of the offence, and yet upon that r a; person was called to answer one of the most serious charges that could be brought against a man. If this were allowed, there was, not a bank manager in the country but would be liable to a similar charge. He complained that the justice who had issued the summons had not taken sufficient care"'to inquire into the evidence upon which the information was laid before he granted the __mmo_i_, for if he had done- bo, and had; in the least acquainted with the nature of bills of exchange or promissory notes, he would never have 'issued it, and he (Mr Garriok)' thought it right to ask for an expression of opinion from the Bench on the case. . r

Mr Tancred said he was informed that informations for perjury were always-laid in the form pf that, now before the Bench.. :

Mr Garrick said that he had; before him the printed form, and there :w_a A bls^l;.j&jrifiMing : in the nature of the offence... What Jie complained of was that no specific charge appeared on the face of the information . there was nothing to show a man,what he was called upon! to answer. He; was aware that there .need be no written informatiohv j He also wished again to state that the complainant, Doyle had, previous- to his laying the information, been advised by. a legal gentleman now present, that there wasjßO case of perjury, as well as by his learnod;friend, who was employed to conduct the prosecution. Mr Harper said that he had not been em|ployed by Mr Doyle to conduct'thCproiecur

tion. -. -. . ; \ , .., ,'.,..,,.:■. ■ ■ [ Mr Tancred said he thought the information before the Court wai Sofl-cient. Of course he could not say that'tlje sun_p_pnß> had been issued on sufficient grounds as he knew nothing bf the evidence. <■■ Mr Garrick Would affirm that if the justice who issued the summons had taken the . evidence, as he ought tohaye done, the sum* j moris' would never have been issued. ( . Mr. OlljLvier—rYpuT think ,thpn that the in*. formation ought to have alleged that Mr. Raphael hejd a valuable security ? ' Mr Garrick—-There is not any security : mentioned. He would venture to assert that ;if the information bad been laid before the Resident ; Magistrate./ who <wafci most careful, ;. he would not. have; issued the summons, and I the gentleman who did issue it ought to have! inquired into the evidence before he did so. Mr Inspector Pender said that the com-; plainant -came'-to the Police; Depot, and wished the police to lay the charge. He (Mr Pender) told complainant that-there we.c no. grounds for a charge of perjury,;bj}tjap..ogsiplainant persisted,,he . told him. that he had better go to the Resident Magistrate's Court.; Mr Westenra did inquire, into the matter, but ! as complainant persisted that Mr Raphael had committed perjury, the summons was. eventually, issued..- L : Mr Tancred—l conceive that if a Justice of the P_a6e' is satisfied that a crime has been committed he is quite justified in issuing a summons, or even a warrant. ,_. I/fcnpyjr; that! should do so. .<••'.. Mr Garrick—l am quite sure that your Worship would not have done so had you been told :of the ; ,promissory; note. \. What I complain of is that the gentleman who issued I the summons .did so without, exorcising duej caution.. If the Government chooses to ap- i point inexperienced persons as magistrates, it is hard Jhatoth-r persons should suffer from their inexperience. The law throws quite sufficient shield around magistrates' to allow - them to act fearlessly, but I do say that in the present case the gentleman who granted the summons ought, if he felt himself to be inexperienced, to have paused and consulted-with a brother ; Justice more experienced than himself before he did an act which might be productive of the most serious consequences to a third party. Mr Tancred —I presume the justice who issued the,summons did it on .his > own -responsibility. T think that this explanation baa shown that thera was no ground &r the charge. We dismiss the case.