CASE WITHDRAWN

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22352, 25 February 1936, Page 12

CASE WITHDRAWN

POLICE INSPECTOR PROCEEDINGS AT GISBORNE MAGISTRATE AND COUNSEL [by telegraph—own correspondent] GISBORNE, Monday The charge of wilful obscene exposure on Waikanne Beach against Henry Martin, police inspector, of Gisborne, was withdrawn to-day. Leave to withdraw was sought on January 31 bv Mr. Burnard, who acted on behalf of the woman who proceeded against defendant on a private information. He alleged that his witnesses had been interfered with under instructions from the Police Department. On that occasion, Mr. E. L. Walton, S.M., said in view of the allegations he would not grant the application then, but would report the matter to Wellington. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned. When the case was called to-day Mr. Burnard repeated his application for withdrawal. In doing so he undertook to make available, if called upon by any officer of the department, any information or evidence ho had in connection with the matter. Melbourne Case Quoted Mr. Wauchop, for defendant, said that, in response to a suggestion from the magistrate for any previous case that might help, he had secured from Wellington a copy of a Melbourne case. In that instance information had been laid under the Police Offences Act, and the polico officers acting in the case wished to withdraw. The justices of the peace held that they had no power to compel the case to go on, and that tho proper course would be to strike out the case for want of prosecution, otherwise the Court would be in the position of both prosecuting and judging. The Magistrate: Do you agree that tho case should bo withdrawn ? Mr. Wauchop: I do not wish to mak* any admission or consent. If my friend wishes to withdraw, I have no authority to prevent him doing so. Tho Magistrate: If you want the case to go on I will go on with it, in spite of the case you have quoted. Mr. Wauchop said he had to be careful with the matter, for if any irregularity occurred at this point his client might be faced with considerable costs. He had incurred much cost already. The magistrate said certain persons had been subpoenaed in the case and they had failed to appear. They had given their reasons. The Australian case did not deal with that aspect. Non-attendance of Witnesses Mr. Wauchop: It mentions that witnesses need not attend on summons from the Court unless that summons is issued on the authority of informant or defendant. The magistrate said the position in the present case was that parties asked for subpoenas and the Court acted on that. Witnesses had given reasons alleging certain things why they did not attend. Mr. Wauchop: They could be called at a subsequent adjournment to say why they had not attended. The Magistrate: If you desire the matter to go on I shall summon those persons to attend. Mr. Wauchop: I shall go as far as to say that I do not want the case adjourned any further. The magistrate said that with the consent of the Court the case would be withdrawn. Mr. Wauchop then asked for costs. Mr. Burnard suggested that the matter of costs might be reserved, so that the allegations he had made might be tested. Mr. Wauchop protested and said the decision on costs should be given immediately the withdrawal was agreed to. The Magistrate: I shall allow one guinea solicitor's fee.