MAGISTRATE’S JURISDICTION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6488, 7 April 1908, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S JURISDICTION

(Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M.) James Cameron for drunkenness was fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. Hall Carl Bowman, who pleaded guilty to assaulting Constable McGregor, while the latter was in the execution of his duty, was fined £5, with costs 7s, in default fourteen days’ imprisonment. James Climpson, brought up on remand for sentence for stealing a bicycle, valued £lO, the property of Fred Packnell, at the Lower Hutt, was sent to gaol for a month.

Catherine Gett pleaded not guilty to procuring liquor for a prohibited person. Mr P. Jackson appeared for the accused, and contended that she had had no opportunity of knowing that the person to whom she supplied liquor was prohibited. His Worship accepted this defence, and dismissed the charge.

William Alexander Speedy pleaded guilty to being the owner of sheep infected with lice, which were found in fidgety and Co.’s saleyards at Lower Hutt. He was fined £l, with costs_ 7s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment.

James Wilson for disobedience of an order for the support of a child in the Wellington Receiving Home was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended so long as the sum of 10s a week is paid off tho arrears. ALLEGED THEFT OP A WARRANT. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. ® s Worship gave his decision in the case against Mrs Annie Barrie who was charged that on April 2nd, 1908, she did commit theft of a Court record of the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, to wit, a distress warrant, issued in the case of Woolf Schwarts v. Annie Barrie, plaint number 419/08, on March 23rd, 1908, for tho sum of £l6 IQs 2d, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases, made and provided!

A-ter detailing tho facta of the case, his Worship said that Mr Wilford, on behalf of the accused, had brought forward tihroe defences. Tb© first was that the case had not.heen nreiperly before the Court, in that the defenoant had not been asked whether she desired to he dealt with summarily or to be tried by a jury. This defence could not be upheld, as the offence was a.n indictable one, the accused, therefore, having no election. The second defence was that tho warrant was being illegally executed, ns it was provided in the Magistrate’s Court Act, 1893, that only the person named in the warrant could execute it. On tj)is matter there was a New Zealand decision (McCutcheon v. Cameron). This case decided that if any person prevented a bailiff not named in the warrant from entering bis Or her premises, in order to execute the warrant, no , action for assault oould he brought. However, this did not apply to the present case, in which no question of assault was raised.

The third . defence, his Worship thouj&t, was imemost important. Thin was that no actual theft had been committed. _Mr Wilford had argued that the actions of the accused went to show that she did not intend permanently to deprive the Court of the warrant, and that, therefore, the definition of theft in section 218 of the Criminal Code did not apply. Ho had also argued that as the'hail iff had no authority to execute the warrant it was no offence to take it from, him. With this .contention his Worship could not agree. The whole of the • cirds and actions, of the accused had

So taken into account- TTicse clearly justified the opinion that even if Mr Scott had had authority to execute the warrant the accused would have acted in exactly the same manner. After she had been twice asked by Mr Scott for the warrant, and after she had twice refused to hand it over, the accused came to Mr Gordon at the Court, and when asked onco more for it, replied cither “I can’t® or “I shan’t.” If she used the words “ I can’t,” she was telling an untruth, as her subsequent delivery of the warrant to Mr Murphy at the office of Bell, Gully, Bell and Myers showed that she still had the warrant under her control. If she said, “I shan’t,” the words amounted to a third refusal to give up the document. _ As against those facts, the only thing the defence ooald show was that the warrant had been subsequently handed_ over to the plaintiff’s solicitors. This, however, did not convince his Worship that the intentions of the defendant had been to keep the warrant out of the hands of the Court bailiff, who intended to execute it. He, therefore, thought the prosecution had made out a prima facie ease.

defendant was, accordingly committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Mr P- Jackson, who appeared for the

defendant in the absence of Mr Wil- 1 ford, applied for bail, which was granted in the accused’s own recognisance of £4O, with two sureties of £2O each, or one of £4O.