SUBPOENA NOT OBEYED

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27502, 9 November 1954, Page 6

SUBPOENA NOT OBEYED

MR WATTS’S ACTION IN LIBEL CASE DISCUSSION BY JUDGE AND COUNSEL (New Zealand Frees Association) NAPIER, November 8. Because the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr J. T. Watts) is on an election campaign in the South Island and failed to respond to a subpoena to appear as a.witness.in the Napier Supreme Court this morning, an action brought by Peerless Bakery, Ltd., of Waipawa, against Bert William Johansen, solicitor, and Mayor of Waipawa, for alledged libel, and claiming £l5O damages, was adjourned to a date to be decided within the next 10 days. Mr R. E. Harding, of Wellington, who appeared for Peerless Bakery, Ltd., when the action was called before Mr Justice Shetland this morning, said that the damages claimed—£lso—were small, for reasons which would become obvious later. "However,” said Mr Harding, "I am rather embarrassed this morning because of the absence of Jack Thomas Waits, who is an essential witness, and who was subpoenaed to appear' here this morning. He has not appeared The subpoena was served on him on Monday night last, and, though he is a member of our profession, he has not taken the usual course of ringing us or telling us. that it would be awkward for him to attend or to suggest any adjustment of " date for the hearing. “In fact,” said Mr Harding, "we have heard nothing from the day he was served in Christchurch, except that he told our agents that he considered that he resided more than 200 miles from

Napier.” Counsel said that Mr Watts had been living in a Ministerial residence in Wellington for the last four or five years, and absented himself from Wellington only on Government business and holidays. “The distance! between Napier and Wellington by rail is 196 miles and 26 chains,” said counsel.

Memorandum io Registrar i “Mr Watts was communicated with < by counsel in Wellington, and appears . to have elected to write to the Registrar a memorandum in which he 1 says he is prepared to give evidence on his own-terms,” he added. His Honour said that in his memorandum Mr Watts said his home was in Christchurch and that he was not tendered expenses to attend at Napier. At this stage Jack Thomas Watts was formally called; but did not appear, Mr Harding said that he was entitled to ask why the witness should not be attached. He was a witness, who had been subpoenaed. “My impression is that witness must attend when subpoenaed, but that he need not testify unless paid conduct money,” he said. Mr Dowling said that this application for an adjoumament was the first he had heard of the matter. He had taken particular care before bringing his witnesses to i the Court and nad learned from Mr Harding's agents that the case would proceed today whether Mr Watts was present or not. Mr Harding said he did )not expect Mr Watts—an officer of the Court—to treat the Court in this manner. "He could have been here in an hour and away again the same day,” he said. Judge's View His Honour said it was obvious that counsel tor the defence was ready to proceed.. He adjourned the Case, reserving the question of costs until the case was heard. He said that Mr Watts had caused to be sent to the Registrar a memorandum in which he pointed to what he considered to be irregularities in the service of the subpoena and the difficulties facing him in answering that subpoena. The memorandum, provided copies were sent to both parties, as he understood was done, was a proper proceeding. “I do not believe that a man living in Christchurch should be called to attend a 'Court in Napier and -be left to his own devices in getting there,” his Honour said. 1 “I always understood that travelling expenses and at least one day’s expenses should be tendered with a subpoena. This was not done in this case, and-1 am hot prepared to hold that any steps should be taken in regard to contempt or matters of that sort against this or any other witness called on to come a considerable distance when the proper legal expenses are not tendered.”