PRICE ORDER CHARGE

Grey River Argus, 17 May 1943, Page 2

PRICE ORDER CHARGE

COUNSEL'S REPLY TO JUDGE.

GISBORNE, May 15.

With reference to the statement by Mr. Justice Hunter regarding the recent Price Tribunal prosecution in

Gisborne, counsel for the defendant, Mr. L. T. Burnard, stated to-day that His Honor’s comment was contradicted ny the facts and the Court records. When the case was first called there was no appearance of the prosecution. On the second occasion, the Price Tribunal sought a further adjournment, and this was granted on condition that the evidence of the defendant, who came from a distance, was taken. This evidence was given on oath, and was open to cross-examination. It formed the basis of a statement made by counsel when the case was called a third time, and the prosecution sought leave to withdraw the charge, and which statement was now disputed by Judge Hunter. There was an interval of something like a month between taking the defendent’s evidence and the final disposal of the case, so that the Price Tribunal must have been aware of the Circumstances alleged by defendant. Notwithstanding this, no attempt was made to refute defendant’s allegations. On the contrary, counsel for the Tribunal expressly stated m Court that he accepted defendants version.