LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 865, 11 July 1910, Page 11

LAW REPORTS.

AN APPEAL CASE. MAGISTRATE'S NOTES CRITICISED. "A SHORT JUDGMENT—IT IS TO THE POINT." Aα appeal in the case of Martha Pirani v. Frederick Pirani, of the Feilding "Star," was to have been heard by Mr. Justice Coopor, in Banco, on Saturday morning. Before Mr. W. R, Haselden, S.M., Mrs. Pirani took proceedings against her husband, in March last, at the Wellington Magistrate's Court, suing lor maintenance contributions amounting to £91 10s. At tlio hearing of the case, it was pointed out that the parties were married at Napier, on May 23, 1879. In July, 1002, they agreed to live apart, Pirani agreeing to pay £2 7s. (afterwards £2 los.) per week in support of his wife. The payments were made up to December 19, 1908, but Mrs. Pirani alleged that, since- that date, up till February last, her husband had paid only £70 15s. Claim was therefore made for £91 10s., the balance alleged to be due. The magistrate's reserved judgment: in the case was given in these words: I think a valid claim- has been proved, whereby the- defendant undertook to pay to tho plaintiff the sum sued for. I think the plaintiff lias fulfilled her part, of the contract and is entitled to recover. Disagreeing with the correctness of this decision on the facts and law, an appeal was brought in the Supreme Court, and when the case came up on Saturday morning, Mr. A. Blair appeared for the appellant, Pirani, and Mr. A. Gray for tho respondent wife. Mr. Biair remarked at the outset that the magistrate's notes of evidence and judgment were embarrassing to both parties. There had been a very considerable defence on the facts, but not a word of this appeared in tho magistrate's notes of evidence. Moreover, his Honour would have great difficulty in understanding the exhibits relating to the ease, because no attempt had been made to put them in order or identify them.

Mr. Gray: The whole file of letters was put in and they wore in chronological order.

Mr. Blair pointed out that a most important omission in the magistrate's notes had been made in regard to the first portion of Pirani's evidence. Ho had outlined the whole ol tho Dransaction relevant to the proceedings since tho agreement to separate, and this evidenco did not appear in the notes which y.-oro to guido his Honour in considering tho appeal. Pirani had asserted on oath that various suggestions had been made for a deed of separation, which were never agreed to by him, ami that he would not agree to a separation because ho considered that his wife had deserted him. Ho took proceedings against his wife, but thoy wero not gone on with because of a technical flaw in the preliminaries. Mr. Gray: I don't admit that.

Mr. Blair said that tho magistrate's notes of Pirani's examination-in-chief occupied only six lines, and tho examination had lasted over an hour.

Mr. Gray: I think tllcy set out the substance of the. evidence. My notes wero contained in loss than a page of paper, and Mrs. Pirani's evidence was not loiia.

His Honour remarked that, in an appeal on tho fncts, tho magistrate's notes must be considered. He could not say whether Mr. Haselden's notes were reasonable notes or not.

Mr. Blair said that there was a statutory duty cast upon the magistrate, when a case involved more than £50, to take as full and complete notes of tho evidence as were taken by a judge of the Supreme Court. His Honour referred to the refusal that_ had once been made by a London magistrate to take full notes. Hβ declared that as he had 50 or 60 cases to deal with per day, it was a physical impossibility to take notes.

Mr. Gray: And he was very indignant whon a mandamus was issued calling upon him to supply notes. His Honour: The Act allows that notes may be supplemented by oral evidence, or that the oaso may be reheard entirely. Mr. Blair: It would , bo impossible for your Honour to come to a conclusion on this matter, without rehearing tho case. My application is either that_ tho case bo referred back to the magistrate to take proper notes, or that your Honour rehear the case. Personally, I think- it would bo a saving of oxpenso if your Honour would rehear the case. It is unfortunate that a judge of tho Supremo Court should bs asked to do work which the magistrate should really havo dono.

His Honour: A magistrate it, no more bound than a judgo to take a note of all tho evidence given in a case. Ho only takes a note of relevant matters. You say that relevant matters havo been omitted from theso notes; it is very hard to point out what has been omitted.

Mr. Gray: So far as I know, no application has been made to tho magistrate to supplement his notes. Mr. Blair: But that is impossible. We do not know what he has found. Look at his judgment; Mr. Haselden has dismissed tho caso in a line.

His Honour: He gives a short judgment —it is to the point. (Laughter.) His Honour added that if Mr. Gray would agree, lie would bo prepared to undertake a rehearing of tho parties.

Mr. Gray: I don't think there is any necessity.

Mr. Blair: If ho is content so fai as his cvidejifiu is concerned, wo don't mind, but wo say that there is practically not a single point of our case in the notes at all.

His Honour: You say that there is no agreement.

Mr. Blair: Our evidence explains tho letters. Wo contend that the material is (|uito inadequate. The caso which yom Honour is asked to try is not tho ease- that the magistrate tried. If necessary, Mr. I'irani and Mr. Neavo (who conducted tho defence before the magistrate) could give evidence to that effect.

His Honour remarked that< he could not, _at the present stage, order a rehearing, except by consent. Ho had not yet road tlio letters, and he might find that there was sufficient written matter linon which to decide the appoal. If ho found, however, that, thoro was no proof in the letters of an agreement, he might require more evidence.

Mr. Gray: There are some matters which I think ought to havo been included in the magistrate's notes which do not appear. .Mr. Blair: I thought that Mr. Grav was with-me.

Mr. Gray: I certainly think that tho liififfistratc was skimping. His Honour: If tho letters are sufficient .to prove a valid agreement to separate, and a weekly allowance- so long as that separation shall continue, that will establish the rights of tho parties. On tho other hand, if matters Hi connection with any alleged agreement require- explanation, tho Court may have to take other evidence in order to enable it to interpret the letters, f It was subsequently discovered thnt tho letters and other records had not been sent forward from tho Magistrate's Court. His Honour intimated that he would give instructions to havo all necessary papers supplied to him, and that thn appeal would bo considered urohabLv a fortnight hence.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) THEFT OF OPIUM. • At the Magistrate's Court on Saturday, 'William Walter Burgess was charged with the theft on July 7 of 68 ounces of opium, valued at £19 sa. 4d., the, property of Alexander Young (Young's Chemical Works).

Tho accused was convicted on June 25 last of 'Stealing 36 ounces of opium, valued at £10, from Young's Chemical Works in Little Taranaki Street, and was fined £».

Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for accused, who pleaded guilty. Chief Detective Broberg asked for a. remand of sentence until Tuesday next, as ho wished to make further inquiries.

Mr. Jackson said that accused had bo?n very foolish in reputing the offence, a-nd did not object to the short remand.

Accused was accordingly remanded until Tuesday.

INSOBRIETY. For drunkenness four first offending inebriates were- convicted and fined os., with the'Sption of 24 hours' imprisonment. John Henry Brookes, with several previous conviction's against him for insobriety, was sontouoed to on© month's imprisonment.