SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14002, 7 September 1907, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

•CRIMINAL SITTING. Fit id ay, September 0. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) THEFT. 'William Andrew Andersrai, 17.years of age, ■was brought before the court for sentence on a charge ' of having stolen a number of articles on the 28th August last belonging to Edward It'Au'.ey. Mr Mncassey, speaking on behalf of the youth, said Anderson had previously borne a good character, and if ho was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called on his father would enter into a bond for his future good behaviour. The whole of the stolen property'had been recovered, and tho costs of the prosecution only amounted to £3 9s. His Honor, in view of tho circumstances, admitted Anderson to probation for nine months, he to pay the costs of the prosecution (JE3 9s). * ,

IN CHAMBERS. Probate was granted in the estates of the following deceased persons:—William Broclrie (Mr.Haggitt), .Win. Sanders (Mr Cook), Sarah Morgan (Mr. Adams), Phillips, Price Wilkinson (Mr Cooke), Story Somerville (Mr Allan), John Blakeley (Mt Duncan), Samuel Tippett (Mr Brodrick), Helen Slieppard (Ifr Gilkison), Alfred Ralph (Mr Bedford). rMary Jane Prosscr (Jlr Cook), John . McCarthy (Mr Barton), George Alexander Keefer Derbydiiro (Mt Creagh). v " Lotters' of administration wero granted in re Elizabeth , Pringle, deceased (Mr Cook); re George Albert Po&tco, deceased (Mr Cook); and Alice Maude Crow (Mr Haggitt). In the matter of a deed poll made by Peter Batkman, James Millar, and Mary Jane Robertson (Mr Stephens). Petition for sale of land)— Accordingly as prayed. Arthur v. Minister of Railways (Mr James). Summons for Special jury.—To be tried by a common jury of four.

He Thomas' Parker, deceased (Mr Thompson).—Motion to confirm registrar's reports re recommendation.—Boport confirmed. . R» Francis Henderson, deceased (Mr Wocdhonse).—Motion to confirm registrar's report ro recommendation—Confirmed; remuneration accordingly. lie AVilliam Coatsworth, deceased (Mr Bedford).—Petition for leave to carry on farm.— Order as prayed. Simpson v. Inglia (Jlr W. C. MacGregor).— Motion to confirm registrar's report.—Report approved; ,cost 9 out of income. Ro Sarah Lillian Millar, deceased (Mr Solomon).—Petition for leave to sell land.— Accordingly, Be Peter M'Donald,'deceased (Mr Hjorring). Petition by executors for directions.—Order as prayed; notices as suggested.

, IN BANCO. A LICENSING CASE.

Motion to quash a conviction against John White, hotelkeeper, Oamaru, for having sold liquor in a prohibited district. The conviction had been made on a charge laid under sootion 33 of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act of 1595, and read as follows:— '"With respect to 'every.district the electors whereof have duly determined in means preseribed .by the Licensing Act,that no licenses be granted therein/and so long as, pursuant to such determination,', no licenses are in force therein, the following provisions shall apply: It shall not be 'lawful for any person whatsoever," etc. ■ . ;

Jl.l- E. P. Lea' (Osmarii) appeared for 1 appellant, and Mr if. MacGregc-r f,or respondent. Mr Lee said the application was made on four_ grounds. The first ground-that the conviction as it stocd disclosed no offence— wis, he understood, admitted. The point was that, both the'information and the conviction Charged them with selling after the electors had that- no licenses ■ should-be issued, there being no licenses in force pursuant to such determination. It was perfectly legal io sell after the electors had so determined until the license expired. ll<, understood his learned friend proposed to get over the difficulty by an amendment of tho conviction, but he contended that could not be done. It was not necessarily nn olTcnce io do what was set out in the conviction.

His Honor expressed the opinion that the objection was ft very thin one. Mr MacGregor said if the objection was considered fatal he was going to submit that it Mvas a, case in which the court could amend the conviction,-

t Mt Lee repeated that the conviction disclosed no offence, and submitted, on -tho face of the conviction, it was no offence to sell under the circumstances set out. In all of these cases there were two essential elements—determination by the electors which took place tvt the general election, and selling when noJieeneo was in force. In many cases a license might go on after such determination until, the license expired, and supposing by the next vote the electois restoicd license it would be a. district in which determination had been come to and yet there was license.

His' Honor said Mr Lee admitted that the electors had determined on no-license, and it ho made lhafc admission, admission was made with respect to the facts of wlfich everyone was aware. It followed the admission that the electors had determined in Kov-ember on no-license—that no license' cculd *bo .in existence. The admission carried with it all the rest.

Mr MacG-regor admitted that there should lllVfi ljcen something else in the conviction. His Honor said Mt Lee's admission carried with it on admission that no licenses were in existence at tho time, but the magistrate should have properly drawn up a conviction in tho way it should have been drawn up. Mr Lee contended that the conviction could not be amended, and that it was not specific. Another point that the conviction wrongly mado_ 'tho payment of costs to Griffiths, the informant. Mir MacGregor contended that the court bad power to make an amendment, and that there had been sufficient evidence at the hearing to justify its being made. As' to whether these proceedings came within either section 272 or the Justice of the Peace Act or- section 2 of the act of 1332 it was curious that the question seemed to have remained in doubt until this time of day. There did not seem to be any essential difference, as far as one could see, between the two sections. Yet there must have been some reason for . the new act of 1892. If the court could not' make an amendment in the conviction it could not make any amendment at all.

His Honor said it was admitted, and there could not be any doubt! that the conviction was bad. 'The only question was whether the court had now the power to amend the conviction. If it had power the conviction should certainly be amended. He waa a-fraid, however, that the power to amend did "not exist. Unless power to amend could be found explicitly stated in some statute no power to amend existed. If power to amend did exist ft must, be found either in section 272 of the Justice of the Peace Act or the acts to adjust technical difficulties. The second section of the latter act and section 272 of the Justice of the Peace Act were, so far as the present case was concerned, practically identical. Each of them was also substantially -.'a re-enactment oi an earlier provision contained in section 30 of "lie Appeal for Justice Act, 18G7." The law, therefore, now existing to amend convictions was really in tho same position as it was when the act of 18G7 was passed, and that act had received an interpretation by the lato Mr Justice Chapman ..in lieg.na v. Beetham. His Honor read the interpretation, and said it seemed to him the attention of the Legislature should be directed to the point, because it was most unfortunate, if any conviction whioh on the facts before the magistrate would be justified, could be set aside on a point which was purely fechnical. However, if a conviction on the face of it was bad it must be set aside, unless there was a statute to amend it, and tbe statute to amend did not extend to a case where a conviction had been filed in the court and there was a.' motion by rule nisi to quash it. The conviction, therefore, must bo quashed, as it was bad on the face of it.