COMMENT BY M.P.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 257, 27 September 1935, Page 10

COMMENT BY M.P.

FINDING BY COURT. REMARKS EXPANDED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Sept. 27. In a recent speech in Dunedin, Mr W. D. Ansell, M.P., criticised the decision of the Court where a woman who was found guilty of being intoxicated whilst in charge of a motor-car was fined,, but had her name suppressed. , Mr Ansell, in a statement to-day, remarked that he was correctly reported in Dunedin, but the telegraphed summary of his remarks published in other newspapers indicated that, in his criticism, he had inferred that the case had been heard before a Magistrate. “This,” continued Mr Ansell, “is not a correct interpretation of my remarks, as I knew, when making my statement, that the case was heard before two Justices of the Peace. I, therefore, made no reference whatever to a Magistrate. It is obvious that the Press Association message has unintentionally attributed to me a statement which inflicts an injustice upon the Magistrate of the district concerned, and it is my wish that this explanation should receive the same amount of publicity as the telegraphed message. “It is definitely my opinion that cases of this nature should be heard only before Magistrates, as they have the necessary training and experience which enables them to deal more equitably with the difficult questions often arising in such cases, where the evidence is frequently technically difficult, particularly on the point of degree of intoxication, where even medical views are sometimes conflicting. I have ascertained that, in certain districts, general instructions are given by the Stipendiary Magistrate that all fliese cases must be heard by a Magistrate, and that in the event of it being necessary to take a preliminary hearing it should be adjourned for a final decision by the Magistrate. If this procedure, which I approve, had been adopted in the case I referred to there could have been no grounds for my criticism,” Mr Ansell added.