LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 477, 8 April 1909, Page 11

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAI|; " ■ J ' THE ,'OHINEMURr CASE' ': ; RIGHT-,TO SET UP COMMISSION:;;; "Upon of the Court 'of., Appeal being resumed yesterday, the hearing of argument with regard to tho case of;Ohiri'cmUri Licensing Committee'versus thp/Attornoy:General- and Mr. Justice Sim./(tiie commissioner 'appointed to inquire. iliV-an 'allegation o'f; bribery made dgainst' certain members of.V.thc -committeo), was' continued. ■Mr. Skorrett, K.C., with them Mr. 51/ Luckio, appeared for the plaintiffs, and; Mr. Chapman/- K.C.J and' Mr. D. 51. FintUay.;for;.tho defendants/.: '■■':'- Mi , .. Chapman advanced further argument »n behalf of defendants^-.He.siibmitted that, wherever a .commission-/.could' be issued, ivhetlier under any other power, the Governor iva's'a'uth'orised .to .'issue, it. 'By that he meant that','.if.there was lawful power..in., New Zealand, to issue a commission, that authorised the Governor to issue it in the name of the King. He next contended .thilt\'the? alleged offenco, in question was "not a crime within the Crimes Act.' Although numbers'-of a. licensing committee held an office and were obliged to nct.iti a judicial manner, it did not make their office:a judicial office. Arbitrators and iiand Board' commissioners were in the same position—they'had- to act in a judicial manner/but held'only, an administrative-office. ■Mr. Justice Edwards: Is there a'-thority that-anyone might lawfully bribe an arbitrator? 'I '.. . ?fr. Chapman: It is not a orime to do soin ]\ew Zealand.-

, "Resuming, counsel contended that none but the' Grown, could appoint judicial offi-

Mr. Justice. Williams':' 'Is not'the test, whether under a statute.or under any other duties attached to the .office:and not the morle of appointment to the' office? ■ Mr. Chapman, in reply, reiterated his contention;; as to].: the 'definition of judicial office. He- proceeded to argue that the commission--was authorised by the Statute because lfcwas a commission to report upon a question": arising: out of Hho administration of the Govornment-iiot the administration of what was sometimes called "tho Government" viz., the Civil Service, but every branch of the Government. His submission was that the terms in the Act must be taken as comprehensively as possible, further,- the commission related to the necessity or ."expediency, of proposed legislation. It,;was J sufficiorit to. show that legislation was-.proposed if it were in the mind of. the Governor,- and ; the fact of the commission showed, that ;it was. The Court could not inquire into'the intentionof the Governor as to putting a Bill before .Parliament. .It was incapable of proof that feet™ ™ S '°° proposed legislation on the sub- . appeal; ;.;; \ .;-'■ claim for new trial. Applioa|i6n was made for a new trial of was tried at Wanganui on May/fll .190/, on a charge of perjury, and upon being found guilty, was sentenced to 18 mohths imprisonment, which lio duly E&rvctl. >.J . ' . .The fnfts in this case Were, briefly, that • the charge arose out of a civil action in which Hughes was plaintiff, and G. Spriggens .was the defendant. During the course of (he proceedings Hughes denied that a signature on a second transfer of shares was his.' Subsequently] indicted for,perjury Ho denied that he had [signed tlie second transfer, although he admitted having signed aKormer . On. both sides a number df experts iivhindwritmg were caM ' A verdict of guilty was returned. : 'On the * at .™ e verdict'was 'against the Tnew trlaf ° Ce ' S applied for mv'iTw-'* was instructed by Mr. nf Wn V f . W T ? ngan " l) on behalf ot Hughes. He said that the application was brought only to clear Hughei's name. Mr Justico Cooper, in reply to Mr. Wilford, did.not,'think this Court could grant J^Au the • £roU ? d that f«»h evidence wtfs forthcoming, but the Governor Could CIO j'SO. ■ ■ Mr. Justice..: Edwards: Supposing on the gull" 3 ' * he : jUry again *> und ' Hughes Mr. Justice , Cooper: Should the ..Court again sentence him? ' Mr Wilfqrd: I submit that even if the Court had the power to do so it would not uO SO, I >rS r ß ;u n l l st r rf Coop l r - : l There is an old Fren <* precedent under-which a person'wrongfully ""Phoned, pipped and branded, is ordered (Laughterf mwhi PP ed . f 2v' lufI u f. tico !' Ch «Pman inquired of Mr. WilcZirt i] lT m T si "g »o' fresh evidence could be taken, he was prepared to argue evidence! * g ™ si the -^^»! ■Jlfr I S' f ? r i, repliNl in the affirmative, adding that <& course it would first have to be decided -whether the Court had iuns diction to hear Aha matter. dic/L T ll^ If * ho Court has, jurisdiction I think tour case is arguable. " ' ' fe s fe S: J *"* th 6 calon n nf a ;^ aS $ eC ! M > upon the-appli-cation of Mr. Wilford, to postpone tho hearmg of argument until after the vacation -EFFEOT;,OP A VERDICT. »n An ?i OlCStitl & P o '"* was involved in the case of Rex v Robert' Garr, which was then considered. In hs statement of the case, Mr.- Justice Edwards pointed out that prii soner was tried before him at-Auckland on ud attempt te murder one James Mewett, agamst the form o the statute in such case ™t a "? P r and.there wasvalso a count that-with intent to maim, disfigure,Sγ f? harm to one hoSil w?/ , 1° T nded .' nnd did actua i hodl y harm to Mewett. against the form of , the statute in such case*made' and provided." 'The defence, set tip'was ..that-prisoner was 60 intoxicated as t»; bCunaware of what hi was domg, nifapable of forming any in-'-tent, His Honour directed the jury that in! order to justify them in finding the guilty upon either of the counts, they muse be satisfied that tho intent as'charced had* been proved, but that intent/ was usually'tot be inferred from acts. tHo further--directecj the jury that mtoxicatio|i was 'no defence to , a criminal charge, unless-it deprived the son charged of consciousness of it his act; and rendered him inca'pablo of jorming a criminal intent. ' Also his Honour ytold the jury that the ovidoiice did not appear to show that prisoner ,was in such a condition* of intoxication. If the iyry thought I hat 'prisonor was incapable of fo'fnijinjz an intent they might still 'nnd4im igmlty. of. causing actual bodily harm under saicn circumstances that, jf death had "Seen' caused, he would liavo b(»*>n guilty of"innnslaipShter. A verdict to that effect wife re-turn-pd by the jury, which further ..found that'prisoner was incapable of formfen- a .n intent. Sentence had been, postponed pending decision of the Court of Appear'-"as to Ti-IK-ther,his direction was right or wrc-h^. . *or the Crown Mr. Myers said that, in Oldei to:uphold the conviction, it wasfnecessary to distinguish the caso from that of tlio Qucon v, Loonoy, decided ..in lgf)7 I n iiooncy s case prisoner was charged only with wounding.- with -intent to do qrievmis "hodily harm.• fh e jurj'.found a verdict of'wounding without intent, and it was held that there was no section in the Criminal Code- which created wounding without intent ail Offence. In tho present'case the charge was milch wider The finding of the jury amounted to a verdict that the , prisoner 'was-guilty* of doing actual hiidilf harm to do grievous ootlily harm,'and that such offence was exactly what Section 201 of the Crimes Act was upended to. meet. Decision on the point was reserved