PROHIBITED BY JUSTICES.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 162, 10 June 1929, Page 2

PROHIBITED BY JUSTICES.

CASE TAKEN BEFORE JUDGE. ECHO OF ASSAULT ACTION. AUCKLAND, June 8. “It is a serious and unwarranted infringement of a man’s liberty for justices to issue a prohibition order without authority. Anyone with a knowledge of 4he law would infer that the man had been convicted of drunkenness three times in the past six months.” Thus counsel for John Laurenson, a Te Teko billiards saloon proprietor, supported an application to quash a prohibition order before Mr Justico Kennedy in the Supreme Court to-day. The order was made by two justices, George Alexander Brabant and William Mandeno Smallfield, in the Whakatane Magistrate’s Court on April 5. When Laurenson appeared before the justices he was convicted and discharged for drunkenness and was fined £5 for assault, said Mr Fleming. On their own initiative, and without any application or consent, the justices added to the drunkenness penalty a prohibition order operable for a year. Taken by surprise, the solicitor wno was representing Laurenson was unaware that the justices had no authority to issue the order. Learning later, that the justices had exceeded their jurisdiction Laurenson applied for a rehearing of the drunkenness charge, but the justices refused unless the assault charge was also reheard. Because of the heavy penalty that could be inflicted for assault, the solicitor did not want tho assault case reopened. Tho justices then claimed that tho entry made in the criminal record book was incorrect, in that the prohibition order should not have been attached to the drunkenness penalty, but instead to tho fine for assault, and altered the record accordingly. The justices had had the opportunity of rectifying their error, but they refused to take it, and counsel asked for costs against them. Opposing the application on behalf of tho justices, Mr Hubble declared that Laurenson in a drunken condition had seriously assaulted the barman of the Te Teko Hotel by kicking him. Counsel claimed that if the justices had not prohibited Laurenson they would have inflicted a much more severe penalty for assault. When in liquor, Laurenson apparently retained sufficient presence of mind to look after himself, but sought to injure others. Counsel claimed that a dangerous precedent would be established if the justices were ordered to pay costs for a technical error of this nature. His Honour remarked that the only question that required consideration was that of costs. He reserved his decision.