Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

UNUSUAL PLEA

FORMER ACQUITTAL,

PETROL RECEIVING CHARGE. iPer Press Association. — Copyright .j WELLINGTON, This Day. When two charges of receiving stolen petrol were read in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, counsel entered the unusual plea of autrefois acquit (formerly acquitted), contending that accused had already been dealt with by another magistrate, who, it was submitted, had no jurisdiction to bring in the verdict of “dismissed without prejudice,” which he had given. Accused was Charles Horace Bouncey, a milk roundsman, and he was charged *with receiving four gallons of petrol, valued at 6/. the property of the Atlantic Union Oil Company, from Charles Leonard K£y, on February 4, 1*934, and ten gallons, valued at 15/, on March 25, 1934. Mr G. Neal, who appeared for accused, said Bouncey had* already been charged with the offences before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M. He had been charged with receiving 260 gallons of petrol over a period up to August, 1934, and the magistrate had dismissed the information without prejudice. The information was laid under part of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1927, and it was contended that the verdict was equivalent to one of not guilty, and that Part 5 was a complete code in itself. Under Part 5, the only jurisdiction was to convict or acquit, and Section 265 provided that no person should be tried or punished twice for the second offence.

The Magistrate, Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M.; “All the machinery of the Justice of the Peace clearly must be read as a whole.” Mr Neal: “I don’t think there can be any doubt that the two charges in this case did clearly come under the other charges. The only answer is whether or not the magistrate who heard the prior charge under Part 5 had bower to dismiss without prejudice.

Mr Mosley: “I think the whole Act must be read as a body, and I think personally that he had ample jurisdiction under Section 73.”

The magistrate then proceeded with the hearing of the charges, and after evidence had been given, dismissed them, remarking that accused should get the benefit of the very considerable doubt that existed.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NA19350725.2.105

Bibliographic details

Northern Advocate, 25 July 1935, Page 9

Word Count
359

UNUSUAL PLEA Northern Advocate, 25 July 1935, Page 9

UNUSUAL PLEA Northern Advocate, 25 July 1935, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert