MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLV, Issue 22, 26 January 1911, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr R. S. Florance, S.M.) At this morning's sitting of the Magistrate's Court, the following business was done : —

ALLEGED WILFUL DAMAGE

Harry May and Harold Dunckley were charged with, on 25th December last, damaging a paling fence, the property of William Carr, the extent of the damage being £1. Mr S. P. McNab defended both men ; who pleaded not guilty. Mr McNab complained of the police methods. One of his clients had been summoned to give evidence against himself. He objected to the methods of the police all through the case. Dunckley had not been personally served, although the police said he had

Sergeant Han ( son said t-iat the man was summoned as a witness against the other defendant.

His Worship said that the police very often did these acts through ignorance. -

Sergeant Hanson said it was so in this case.

- Mr McNab said that if the sergeant gave instructions to issue the summons as a witness to Dunckley he did not know his business.

His Worship said that he was not going to say right off whether it was proper ■or improper, but counsel should not address the, sergeant in that-manner.

Mr McNab: I only wished to object to my client being summoned fco give evidence against himself. It is most improper, and is intimidation.

His Worship: I am not prepared to say noV whether-it is intimidation or not.

Sergeant Hanson then outlined the case for the prosecution. Edward Martin said that, on December 25th last, he heard someone lifting the gates off, and he went out to look for them. This was .-about five o'clock in the morning. He found his gate, and reinstated it.,He had a cup of tea, and on coming out he saw May and someone he did not know pulling Carr's palings off. The witness went by them in the garden, and told them they would hear about it another day. The witness called Mr Carr up. He knew Dunckley's dog. It was with the young fellows. They off when he went for Mr Carr. He saw them when he was looking for his gate. He would not swear to Dunckley. He was positive about May:

To Mr McNab: He could not say that Dunckley was there. It was daylight. They turned their backs towards him. He had no "set" on May, and was not looking for a job from Carr.

William Carr deposed as to Martin coming to him between four and five in the morning, and telling him that some boys were pulling down the fence and taking the gate away. He got up and found the gate gone and some palings pulled off the fence.' Martin did not mention the names of the boys, but said that Dunckley's dog was there. He saw a boy in the grass, and thought it was one of the Dunckleys. He did not see May. Martin said he would swear to the boys who did it.

To Mr McNab: May worked for him, and still worked for him. He was a respectable young man. Mr McNab submitted that there was no case to answer against Durickley, and asked for liis dismissal. l His Worship said that there was a suspicion about Dunekley, but the information would be dismissed against him.

Charles Marple said that May lived with him. On Christmas Eve May walked home a portion of the way. The witness stopped to speak to a friendy and May went on home. When the witness got home May was there. This was a few minutes after tea. May went to bed before the rest of the family. He slept in the next room to the witness. May did not go out all night till about 1Q.30 a.m. the following morning. To Sergeant Hanson: He saw May in bed about midnight, and saw him again in bed about six o'clock next morning. If May left the house during the night they must have heard him.

Re-examined: His brother-in-law and his own son were sleeping in the room with May. . Harry May's story was the same as Marple's. He denied leaving the house at all during the night. He was in the house from ten o'clock on Christmas Eve till seven o'clock next morning. Young Marple and Longman slept in the room with him. Marple was in bed before him. They spoke together. Martin swore a deliberate lie when he said he saw him that morning at the fence. Mr McNab said it was a trumpedup charge. He submitted that there was no case to answer. He did not think it necessary to put the defendant to the expense of witnesses when there was no case to answer.

His Worship aaid there were suspicions against May, but the evidence was absolutely banished. There was a doubt, .arid the defendant should get the benefit of the doubt.

Mr McNab said that if Ms Worship had a doxibt he would ask for an adjournment to call these witnesses.

His Worship said that as a general principle it was inadvisable to adjourn in a case like this 3 where the door might be let open for the fabrication of evidence. He would give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the case.