CRUELTY TO A CHILD.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1695, 24 August 1904, Page 29

CRUELTY TO A CHILD.

EKETAHUNA appeal. DECISION UPHELD. On Monday tho Chief Justice and Mr Justice Cooper gave judgment on a general appeal by Margarec Tnompson, Stirling, near Eketaliuna, against a decision of Mr W. P. James, S-M., convicting the appellant of an offence under'the Children's Protection Act, 1890, and imposing a sentence of one month’s imprisonment, which sentence was increased to a month and a day at the request of the appellant’s counsel, to enable an appeal to be brought. The Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said it was true that the appellant came to Court in obedience to a summons, but, when in Court, she agreed to the charge being tried summarily, though there was no proper information in writing, and the charge was heard, and evidence led on that footing. It was, therefore.‘too late for her now on appeal to say that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to- hear and determine the case summarily, as the Magistrate had power to hear the charge summarily had there been an information in writing in proper form. The other point of importance was Whether the appellant had the custody, control or charge of this child. In his opinion she had, and on neither ground -could the conviction be disturbed. The appeal must he dismissed, with £5 5s costs. . Mr Justice Cooper, in concurring, said he had formed a cleai opinion that the Magistrate was acting within his jurisdiction in convicting. The matter was throughout treated as a charge of an offence . determinable summarily, the appellant having agreed to the Magistrate proceeding with it in his summary jurisdiction, and the case having been heard upon its merits, and the appellant, by her solicitor, having cross--examined the witnesses for the prosecution, and examined witnesses for the defence, and taken her chance of an acquittal by the Magistrate upon the merits. No objection was made during the hearing to the form of the information, or to the absence of a written information under section 44 of the act of 1882, and the appellant could not now contest the judgment of the Magistrate. Dr J. G. Findlay appeared for the appellant, and Mr M. Myers for the respondent.