LICENSING CASE.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12730, 13 April 1904, Page 4

LICENSING CASE.

Tlie hearing of the ease against Campbell Wvlio. licensee of the Victoria lUeL wa. continued before Mr H. W. Brabant. c?. M.. yesterday. In the information it was alleged that the de-f-mdaut had committed two breaches of the Licensing Ad by (1) selling honor Id James Burt. a person al-:i-vly in a. dale cf intoxication, and tlij with pi-vm.’ 1 Hug drunkenness on his Jicen.-:-d p i-• .on March ICiii. , After tii-. -d.l.mc (i f so V; -ral wit- 1 in s- had hj. mi non the previous day. hi'pedm Ma.-doiv.dl proposed to 1 put in the d. j,o-ition.s of the defendant in comic- tica with a charge of theft alleged to have been committed bv a man in tin- Victoria Hotel. ’Mr ITesswell. who appeared for the defendant, objected. In>pedor M;u-;bneil ecnlendod that under the JnMhvs of the Peace Act any stalwueiu made by an accused person at any time was admissible as • ■videnev again*-! him. and doubly so when Hie dati-uu-m had been made upon oath. After some argument His Worship agreed to b't the ease Maud over till the fodouing morning for further consideration of Hie point. On resuming yesterday, Mr Ocsswcll said he had been unable to find any cases directly bearing on the objection he had raised. He submitted, however, that as an culinary matter of law the deposit-ons could not- be admitted. The police could not call the defendant to give evidence against himself, and y 1 the Inspector sought to put in his depositions in another case, in which he was only a witness, not a party. If that wore allowed, then any evidence given by him in any other case v.onkl be admissible, without counsel being able to exercise any right of cross-exami-nation. Had the defendant be°n an accused person at the hearing of Hie previous case there was no doubt- his depositions could now be put in againj-t him. but at that time he was only a witness in a case to which he was nob a party. At the request of Inspector Macdonel) the case was adjourned till 3 p.m. to enable him to consult the Crown Solicitor (Mr H. A. Cornford). On resuming the Inspector said lie had consulted the Crown Solicitor, and he referred to three cases which had been quoted by that gentleman, in support of the .admissibility of the depositions. His Worship said the statement of the case as submitted to Mr Cornford might not precisely agree with the circumstances before the court.

It was eventually decided to adjourn tlie case till Monday next to permitof Mr Cornford's attendance to argue the question at issue.