INMATE OF ROTO-ROA HOME

Taranaki Daily News, 8 August 1930, Page 13

INMATE OF ROTO-ROA HOME

APPLICATION FOR RELEASE. CASE FURTHER ADJOURNED. Allegations, that he bad been improperly committed by hie brother to Roto-roa Home for Inebriates were made before Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court at Auckland a week ago by Cecil Hazlett, a farmer of North Taieri, near Dunedin. The case was then adjourned until Tuesday for the production of certain affidavits from Dunedin. The proceedings were advanced to some extent on Tuesday, but a further adjournment was granted as the Crown did not have certain papers asked for by Mr. Sullivan on behalf of Hazlett.

Mr. Sullivan sought a-writ of Habeas Corpus against Staff-Captain Buttiinore, manager of the Salvation Army Home at Roto-roa, and Mr. Hubble appeared to oppose the writ on behalf of the staff-captain and of Edgar' Hazlett, of Dunedin, on whcee complaint the order of committal was made.

Mr. Sullivan eaid the chief point was whether his client received a hearing or not when he was first arraigned. The affidavit of the magistrate, Mr. Bartholomew, of Dunedin, had been filed, but Mr. Sullivan described it as “in parts delightfully vague.” Counsel wanted to know who issued the warrant for arrest, what policeman executed the warrant, and when and where the magistrate stated that in view of representations made to him he decided to issue the warrant instead of a summons and to have the hearing at defendant’s residence, and accordingly arrangements were made with the police. Mr. Sullivan submitted that the court did not make arrangements, but issued orders. He questioned whether the warrant was executed before the trial, if a trial took place. Edgar Hazlett in his affidavit said his brother Cecil had frequently threatened to take his life if an application for his detention wae made, and so he was afraid 'to give him notice of the application beforehand. Dr. Evane’ affidavit said that at the hearing Cecil Hazlett was in a very bad state of health caused by taking excessive quantities of alcoholic liquor. There was no evidence at this time that the warrant had been executed. His Honour asked what had been omitted from the proceedings. Mr. Sullivan said, first, complaint should have been made and a summons should have been issued mentioning the time and place.

His Honour said that on the face of it it looked as though they went out of their way, whether rightly or wrongly, to go out to the man because it was difficult for him to come in.

Mr. Sullivan: And then they charged his estate £5O for doing it. Mr. Hubble: That is an unfair remark, in keeping with some of the other remarks that have been made. Mr. Sullivan said the brother had said it would be unsafe to give Cecil Hazlett notice, but such prior notice was essential to the justice of the proceedings. Mr. Hubble said he had had. some difficulty in suppressing his indignation at some of the statements Mr. Sullivan had made. Everything Mr. Sullivan had asked for had been granted except the name of the person by whom the warrant had been issued. The position wan perfectly clear and they had the affidavits of all those chiefly concerned. The warrant was not kept by the court, but was in the possession of the police. For Mr. Sullivan to state that he did not really know what took place was farcical in view of the ample evidence before the court. It was quite clear that the medical witnesses and the brothers were acting in the best interests of a man who was addicted to drink. Mr. Sullivan: We can show that he is a sober, decent man. His Honour: You are stating a conclusion that is not in accordance with some of the affidavits before me. Mr. Hubble referred to the fact that Hazlett had twice been away on leave from the island and had returned voluntarily. After further discussion regarding the production o.f the original warrant his Honour said it seemed the matter was not yet ripe for hearing. He would adjourn it finally until August 18. Hazlett was released on bail as before.