COURT OF APPEAL

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 77, 27 September 1918, Page 7

COURT OF APPEAL

AN UNUSUAL CASE

A case.of ~a most unusual nature-came" before the Court of Appeal to-day. The Chief Justice (Sir Eobert Stout) and Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim were on the Bench. On 17th April, 1918, a Punjabi named Nunda was charged with having wrongfully opened two letters not his own property. The trial took place before two Justices of the Peace at Te Awamutu, and at the close of the hearing the accused pleaded guilty, and was, in the ordinary way, committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. When tlje accused was brought before Mr. Justice Stringer at Auckland for sentence, counsel on his behalf stated that the accused did not' understand English, and that in pleading guilty he did not understand the nature of the charge brought against him, nor had he intended to admit the commission of any offence. It was also pointed out that the only evidence given at the hearing was that of witnesses called for the Crown, and the depositions appeared to establish clearly ths guilt of the accused. The latter was not represented by counsel at the first hearing, nor did he cross-examine the witnesses •or make any statement on his own. behalf. Attached to the depositions which came before the Judge of the Supreme Court was a certificate signed by the Justices stating that the evidence of the witnesses, except two, was given in | the Punjabi language, duly interpreted, [but it was contended that the certificate did not state that the evidence of the English-speaking witnesses was . interpreted. . It was held by counsel to-day that Nunda should be released and "have a new trial on account of the irregularity which had taken place. Mr. K. A. Singer (Auckland) appeared for tl^ prisoner, and the Solicitor-Guneral (Sir John Salmond, K.C.) represented I .the Crown,

Having heard counsel, the Court decided that it had no power as a Court of Appeal to hear any motion for retrial of a case of the sort. It should be a recommendation to Aha jury that there should-be a distinct proceeding' to set aside the commitment, ■