ASSAULT CHARGE REHEARD

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23974, 15 June 1943, Page 3

ASSAULT CHARGE REHEARD

“ PREVIOUS ACQUITTAL ” ‘ PLEA UPHELD The right of the police to have a rehearing of a charge, previously dismissed, against Jack Vance, postman, of • assaulting Moses Frank Cate, on December 11. was debated before Mr E. C. Lewey, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. When Vance pleaded “previous acquittal,” Mr J. K. Moloney (representing him) said that Vance was entitled to make this plea, as the information had been dismissed dn its merits In January, the charge being identical. He was entitled to know the precise nature of the alleged fresh evidence, the affidavit presented being in general and not specific terms, Sub-Inspector J. F. H. Macnamara said that the case against Vance was dismissed on January 21. *Sipce the case fresh evidence had come from Detective Watt and Detective Smith. To Mr Mploney, Sub-Inspector Macnamara said that he did not propose calling a Mrs Newton. Mr Moloney: This is most irregular and improper. Mrs Newton was a witness for the police, and they are bound by her - answers. Sub-Inspector Macnamara (after consultation with some officials) said that he had been misinformed. The information came to the detectives* before the case, not afterwards. Evidence was called by the police from William Francis Lapsely, butcher, who worked next door to Cate; Frederick Baxter Price, chemist, and Detectives Watt and Smith. The Magistrate said that the evidence of the two detectives was helpful, but not conclusive, and the fight might have been between any two men. He did not feel disposed to go on the merits at all. He upheld the submission that the evidence now adduced could have been produced at the first hearing. Had the full nature of the present evidence been before him at the time of the application for a rehearing, no rehearing would have been granted. Therefore he 'accepted the plea of previous acquittal.