ROTO ROA INMATE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1043, 6 August 1930, Page 10

ROTO ROA INMATE

DUNEDIN FARMER SEEKS HABEAS CORPUS HEARING DELAYED The absence o£ certain details in affidavits forwarded from Dunedin further delayed the hearing in the j Supreme Court yesterday afternoon of an application for a writ of habeas corpus by the North Taieri, Dunedin, i farmer, Cecil Hazlett, who claims to ; have been committed to the Roto Ron Island inebriates' borne without a proper hearing of his case. To permit the production of the original warrant, or evidence of its issue and execution, Mr. Justice Smith adjourned the case until August 18 The principal issue was whether the present applicant had had a proper hearing of his case before committal to the home, according to Mr. J. J. Sullivan, counsel for Hazlett. He described the affidavit filed by Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., of Dunedin, who made the order for committal as "de lightfully vague in parts.” The magistrate had stated that in view of the representations made to him. he decided to issue a warrant instead of a summons and to have the hearing at the defendant's residence. “Accordingly, arrangements were made with the police.” Counsel strongly criticised tha procedure adopted, stating that the courts did not make “arrangements with the police,” but made orders, which the police carried out. He proceeded to support his contention that the present applicant had not been notified of the hearing, by referring to the affidavit of a brother, Edgar Hazlett, who had stated that his brother Cecil had frequently threatened to take his life, and he, therefore, feared to give him notice of the application. Counsel also quoted the affidavit of Dr. Evans, who : had stated that at the hearing Cecil I Hazlett was in a very bad state of : health caused through taking excesj sive quantities of alcoholic liquor. WENT OUT TO MAN On the face of it. in his Honour’s 1 opinion, the authorities went out of their way, rightly or wrongly, to go out to the man because he was unable j to come to court. ! “And then charged up £SO which I the unfortunate man had to pay,” retorted Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Hubble, who opposed the application, remonstrated that the remark was “unfair and in keeping with some of the other remarks." Mr. Hubble confessed he had had some difficulty in suppressing indignation at some of the statements mada by opposing counsel. He claimed that the full facts were now before the court, except the name of the person tip whom the warrant was issued an 1 that of the person who executed it Counsel added that the W'arrant was not kept by the court, but was in the possession of the police. He claimed that Mr. Sullivan’s assertion that he did not know what happened was farcical, in view of the ample evidence before the court. It w-as clear that the doctors and the brothers had been actuated by the motive of saving the man from himself. Mr. Sullivan: We can show he is a sober, decent man. “You are stating a conclusion that is not in accordance with some of the affidavits before me,” observed h;s Honour. In adjourning the case until August 18. his Honour released applicant on bail.