CONVICTIONS QUASHED.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17329, 18 November 1916, Page 3

CONVICTIONS QUASHED.

APPEAL IN ATSTRSH OUTING ‘ OASES. t [P KJI Pr*ss Association.] AYIuLLINGTOX. November 17. Mr Justice* Edwards gave judgment on a motion to quash the conviction ot Joan Lang, barmaid at the Clarendon ' Hotel, on charges of selling liquor and allowing “treating” on October 30. . His Honor remarked that the two i informations on which tho defendant : had been convicted by the Magistrate were in slightly different form. On the first information tho Magistrate in- ’ flioted a fine of LG, and on the second defendant was convicted and discharg- ' cd. Looking at the two convictions alone it would appear that deiendunt hacj, been twice convicted lor ono offence. Tho affidavits, however, showed that there had been two olfences at dit- !, ferent times. In tho circumstances of i jth.CjcasoAt was inevitable.-ilia \ th®,,evidence on both charges must 'be fthe same, and tljoy woro Jiearcl togotlnr. but no formal arrangement was made ' for so doing. Tho mistake ’ was a natural one to make, but tho consent- of both parties should be formally given and recorded by the Magistrate. Counsel admitted that tho second conviction could not stand, but neither conviction could bo supported on account of the 7 uncertainty of tbo charges that wore 1 maclo. In such a ease the charge must be certain and particular as regards the time of the.alleged offence, and a serious principle of criminal law had been neglected. When the Magistrate made : the fine of £5 counsel for tho defendant applied to have it increased so that-there might be the right of appeal. The Magistrate refused to do this, on the ground that some Judges of the Supreme Court had expressed their aver--3 sion to such procedure. It was plain that in this regard the Magistrate was in error, The matter was , ono on which there could not bo a common pronouncement. ft could not amount to a ruling of the Court. Logically there should be a right of appeal in all cases of importance, especially where loss of employment followed on fine. The Mag- * ist-rate had acted under .vm erroneous impression when lie refused.to give the ! opportunity of having the whole- mat- \ ter inquired into in the Supreme *. .Court. His Honor finally ruled that he ought 1 not to allow amendment of the records, and tho convictions must, there- - fore, be quashed. 9 __