INCIDENT IN COURT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22320, 18 January 1936, Page 17

INCIDENT IN COURT

WARNING TO COUNSEL ATTITUDE TO INSPECTOR [from oub own correspondent] TE AWAMUTU, Friday During the hearing of a traffic prosecution at the Te Awamutu Magistrate's Court on Thursday Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., had occasion to rebuke counsel for the defence, Mr. S. S. Preston, for his attitude toward,the traffic inspector. The case being heard was that of the Waikato County Council (Inspector 11. Metcalfe) against Martin J. Hilder and Sons, Otorohanga, for operating a motor vehicle on the Te AwamutuBarton's Corner main highway on November 19 with an excess load. Mr. Preston suggested the figures given by the inspector in Court and thos& given to the driver of the vehicle at the time differed. In his experience he had come across several instances of this sort, although not all identical. The inspector at once protested that counsel was casting aspersions on him and not substantiating them with evidence.

The magistrate said it was not a fair attitude. Drivers of vehicles had the right to get figures checked when weighed, but rarely did they do so. Then, when the case came into Court, the inspector was attacked —but not in evidence. It was usually done by counsel, and he was not going to tolerate it. Counsel said he was carrying out instructions, and in his own experience there was ground for such a suggestion. The Magistrate: It is not your duty to cast aspersions unless you are prepared to prove them. Mr. Preston suggested the inspector should issue certificates.

The magistrate Haid he was not going to interfere with the system. If counsel had a sensible suggestion doubtless the inspector's employers would bo glad to consider it. Later, Mr. Levien said he wanted it. to bo understood that in future if any counsel attacked a party unjustifiably according to the evidence he would deal with counsel in a manner that would put a slop to it once and for all. Mr. Preston assured the Court he meant no offence. He was only raising a general question of policy. It. was not a personal attack on the inspector, and he asked the magistrate to accept anything he had said in that way. The defendant was convicted and fined £3..