PRIVATE PROSECUTION

Evening Star, Issue 21640, 8 February 1934, Page 8

PRIVATE PROSECUTION

HAMMERLY VERSUS MAGISTRATE ALL INFORMATIONS DISMISSED The Police Court was occupied Ibis morning with the hearing of four informations laid by John Frederick Hammorly, alleging breaches of the motor regulations against Henry Wilfred Bundle, stipendiary magistrate at Dunedin, Messrs J. J. Marlow, J. O. Willis, and T. D. B. Paterson, J.P.s, being on tho bench. Hammerly, who conducted his own case, indulged in considerable shouting across the court, and frequently submitted that ho bad been impeded in bis efforts to obtain witnesses. After his witnesses had been heard, and counsel for tho defendant had addressed the court, the Bench dismissed all the informations. Tho informations against the defendant were that lie turned a vehicle, a private motor car, which he was driving at tho time, for tho purpose of altering its direction of travel except at the intersection of a street; that he turned a motor car to the right in Princes street without haying given the proper or a conspicuous signal to traffic approaching from the rear of his intention to do so; that he drove a private motor car in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, might have been dangerous to the public; that he turned such car to the right or off side of Princes street before going round the intersection of the street with Dowling street. On behalf of the defendant, who did not appear, Mr J. B. Callan entered a plea of not guilty. Before proceedings commenced, the informant asked whether the court was aware that another information had been laid this morning, and that the clerk had informed him that it could not be taken. Tho Bench intimated that there were four informations before the court, and those were all that would be taken. The informant outlined his case, and stated that at 2.30 p.m. on Saturday, December 30, tho defendant was driving a three-seater car along Princes street towards the Stock Exchange. He was in the view of informant, who was also accompanied by two witnesses. While standing there he saw Mr Bundle stop just opposite Craig and Co.’s mercer shop. He then started his car in slow motion, and turned to the right, committing the four breaches contained in the information. It was a hot day, and the tar was soft, the car leaving marks which were there on Sunday morning. He took the measurements, and subsequently got a tape measure, and in a constable’s presence took tho measurements. Evidence on these line.s was given by the informant, who said that he drew the attention of Daniel O’Brien and Roderick Bornie, the men who were with him at the time, to tho fact that it was Mr Bundle who had violated the traffic regulations. The witness said tho clerk of the court (Mr Reynolds) tried to influence him not to lay the informations, and eventually he had communicated with Mr Ansell, ALP., complaining of the “ hold-up.” The Bench: If you were laying a i charge against the department _ this would be in order, but you are laying a charge against a particular person, 1 Air Callan said he thought he knew what was running in Air Hanimerly’s mind. Supposing ho succeeded in getting Air Bundle convicted he wished to forearm himself in the matter of expenses, and ho could then discuss these matters, but he was a long way from getting Air Bundle convicted. The" Witness said that a photograph of the intersection had been taken. Tho defendant turned 57ft Gin to tho north side of the intersection instead of going round it. Air Callan asked witness if by intersection ho meant a point. Witness; Not necessarily. Mr Callan asked the witness if it was from a point half the width across Princes street and half the width across Dowling street that he took his measurements. Witness; Yes. Mr Callan: What is at the other end?—The wheel marks of defendant’s car. “ How did you know they were the wheel marks of Air Bundle’s car? ” asked Air Callan. Witness: I saw them put there. In reply to a further question witness said Tie taped the distance in the evening of the date in question. Witness told counsel that he would absolutely say that he could detect the wheel marks of Air Bundle’s car five hours after the happening. ‘‘Did you make a mark?_ asked counsel, to which witness replied : “ I did, in the soft tar.” Witness said ho first used a tape about 7 o’clock on the night in question. , „ ■ Mr Callan: Who assisted you?—Nobody, . And you measured Irom the centre mark to your own heel mark?—And Air Bundle’s car mark. Maurice Burton Taylor, a photographer, gave evidence as to _ having taken a photograph of the locality subsequent to the date m question. Daniel O’Brien, labourer., said that ho and Roderick Bernic were standing at the corner when Hammerly came along. It was a hot day and the car left a mark on the asphalt. When Air Callan was conducting his cross-examination of the witness Hammeriy interjected several times. Air Callan (to the bench) : I will not have Mr Hammerly saying things to the witness while I am cross-examin-ing. 1 suggest that he sit down. Hainmerlv (who had been standing dose to Mr Callan al! the time) : It’s all right, Callan, it’s all right. I won’t hit you. Air Callan: I am less afraid of that than of your speaking to tho witness. Hammerly then produced a plan of the vicinity with the course allegedly taken bv Air Bundle marked on it. Air Callan immediately protested against this, and Hammerly agreed to make a fresh plan witlout a car trackon it. Roderick Bornie also gave evidence. Hainmcrly announced that lie proposed to call a constable whose name he did not know. The bench pointed cut that the constable could not be called unless his name were known. Hammerly: The police refused to give me his name. You’ve no idea how

the Westinghouse brakes have been put on me. It’s paralysing—it’s astounding. . , The bench administered a sharp rebuke to Hammerly for failing to address Mr Callan and court officials in the proper manner. Hammerly then called the names of several witnesses, who did not appear. He finished by declaring that he intended to call Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. , , , After Mr Bartholomew had been summoned and sworn he addressed the bench as follows:—" Before 1 am asked questions I suggest to your Worships that it is an abuse of the processes of the court that 1 should be brought here. I know absolutely nothing of the case, and was several hundreds of miles, away at the time. The bench concurred. Mr Bartholomew: I take it that I may retire. . Hammerly: And glad to be out of it, too. The informant again asked for an adjournment to enable him to call the constable and his other witness, Neave. Mr Callan said he opposed any adjournment. The informant: So would I if I were sitting in your chair. Mr Callan: I am addressing the bench, or propose to. Hammerly: So am I. 1 take second seat to you, Callan! Mr Callan: “ I seriously say that this is becoming farcical, and there is no possible reason why we shouldn’t get finished with the case.” He suggested that Mr Hammerly should call his next witness or tell them when ho was going to close the case. The informant: I still must ask for an adjournment. Mr Marlow said that the bench had decided they would not adjourn. The informant continued to press for the appearance of the two witnesses already mentioned, and shouted remarks as to their whereabouts across the court to various officials in the court. Mr Callan stated that there was no evidence to support the first charge, and he submitted that it must be dismissed. Not a tittle of suggestion that anyone was in any danger had arisen from the evidence. The informant had failed to justify the indignity he had submitted defendant to, and counsel submitted that the informations should be dismissed on their own inherent weakness. The informant addressed the court and concluded by saying; “Don’t be gulled by Callan and don’t be gulled bv J. F. Hammerly—l appeal to God for justice, and if 1 don’t get it in this court I will go to another one.” Mr Marlow said that the Bench had gone into the matter carefully, and they upheld the contention of defendant’s counsel that there was no evidence of an offence in regard to any of the four clauses. All four informations would be dismissed. “ Yes, 1 thank you, and I’ll appeal to the Supremo Court,” was the informant’s parting shot.