COURT DISMISSES HAZLETT APPEAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19197, 10 October 1930, Page 7

COURT DISMISSES HAZLETT APPEAL.

COUNSEL SEEKS LEAVE TO GO TO PRIVY COUNCIL Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, October 10. Judgment in the case of Hazlett v. Buttimore was delivered b}' the Court of Appeal. The judgment was that the appeal be dismissed. The judgment of the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, Mr Justice Blair and Mr Justice Kennedy was delivered by Sir Michael Myers. As to the first contention raised by counsel for Hazlett at the hearing, namely, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint at the appellant’s house, or anywhere else than in a duly constituted Courthouse, his Honor said: “In our opinion the Magistrate in this case was entitled, if he thought fit under section 9 (the Reformatory Institutions Act, 1909), to proceed to the appellant’® house and (in the absence of any objection) to hold an inquiry there. That being our view on the matter, it follows that the appellant fails on this branch of the case. “We think it desirable, however, to say that the jurisdiction to hear a complaint under section 9 at the house of an alleged inebriate is one that should be sparingly and cautiously exercised. The course should only be followed by a Magistrate, in our opinion, in exceptional circumstances, having regard to such factors as the physical and mental condition of the alleged inebriate and the risk, unless that course is followed, of doing injury to himself and others. In the present case there is evidence that such risk existed. It seems also to have been the view of the medical men that at the time when the complaint was made and on the following day, when it was heard, appellant’s physical condition was such that it would have been dangerous to his health to remove him from his home to the Magistrate’s Court at Dunedin for the hearing of the complaint. The Magistrate, therefore, had reasonable grounds for the action he took in going to appellant’s home to hear the complaint.” As to counsel’s second point, that Hazlett did not have a fair opportunity Of being heard, the Court held that ♦he various statutory requirements Were in fact complied with, and that Hazlett did have a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. In a concurring judgment, Mr Justice Herdman held that prompt action was necessary in appellant’s own interests, but although the proceedings were hastened it did not follow that the essentials of justice were not qbserved. On the contrary, consideration of the evidence satisfied him that there was no irregularity about the proceedings, and that the Magistrate acted within his powers. The appeal was dismissed with costs on the middle scale as from a distance. Counsel for Hazlett made formal application for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council, but the hearing of the application was adjourned to a later date for argument.