RE-HEARING REFUSED.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIII, Issue 186, 24 July 1923, Page 6

RE-HEARING REFUSED.

xSPAR WORTH-HARN DEN CASE. Mr. W. Hislop, counsel for applicant : This will now be a case for the police. The Magistrate: Oh! How do you mean? Mr, Hislop; Perjury. This was the ending of (i case at the Napier Magistrate’s Court 'this morning whe.q Walter Sparworth, furniture maker, applied for a re-hearing of the case in which judgment was given against him jn favour of Beatrice Harnden for £lO and costs on the ground that Sparworth had assaulted her. At the hearing of the case. Plaintiff said that she owed £1 on a pushcart from SparwQi’th, who. she alleged, came round to her place and assaulted her in an endeavour to get the pram. Sapworth denied this, and said that Hamden assaulted him.

When th© application was put in this morning Mr. Lusk, for the respondent (Harnden) said that all ho had received was the application. Mr. Hislop (for Sparworth) : An affidavit has been filed. Mr. Lusk: I have not seen it. Mr. Hislop; It’s all right. The Magistrate (Mr. R. W. Dyer. S.M.) then read tho affidavit.

Mr. Lusk: That is ridiculous, I think that 1 am entitled to a little respect from members of the profession. Sir. Hislop: My dear fellow ——

Air. Lusk: Don’t “my dear fellow” me. I have a written statement from a girl in Wairoa Mr. Lusk: Which I must object to.

Mr. Hislop: 1 have to outline my case. And I have to do it to show that I have certain evidence which will alter the ease. This girl will gay that she never received any money from Harnden, who said that she had paid the girl £2 a week for five weeks while she was getting over the injuries alleged to have been received in' the assault. The Magistrate: Can you produce this girl to show -that she was never paid anything by Harnden? Mr. Hislop: Yes; Harnden has denied that she has over assaulted anybody. We can call evidence to show that she is a woman with a violent temper, and that she has assaulted several people. She said previously that she threw only one stone. We can show that she put up a regular barrage of stones. I'he Magistrate: Can you call evidence to show that the assault was not committed ?

Mr. Hislop: The whole case depends upon the credibility of Hamden’s evidence. Mr. Lusk: And the father’s.

Mr. Hislop: He’s as blind as a bat. We have discovered that since, and we can show that Harnden cannot be believed.

“A re-hearing is very rarely granted because there is a danger in doing so. It is merely offering a premium for perjury,” said the Magistrate. “Your Worship found that there had been an assault in this case,” said Mr. Lusk. “Before you can grant a rehearing, you must be satisfied that your former judgment was wrong. You have not one tittle of evidence before you at present, and it would not make any difference whether one or a dozen stones were thrown. It would be a totally new procedure if you were to grant a re-hearing without having before you the evidence upon whiefe the application is based.” Mr. Dj’er said that even with the assumption that the applicant could secure evidence from the girl in Wairoa and several people in Napier it was not a case for re-hearing. If there were a re-hearing, it would be merely a question of whether he would believe one side of the other. The application would be dismissed.