SUPREME COURT.-IN BANCO.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1159, 4 July 1885, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.-IN BANCO.

Thttesday, 2nd July. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) BE JAMES BABCLAX. Motion to quash conviction by tho Eesident Magistrate at Lawrence. Mr J. F. M. Fraaer appeared in support of the motion. It appears that James Barclay is a publican at Lawrence, and that on the 18 th of May last was convicted by the R.M. at Lawrence of having failed to admit a policeman into his premises at 20 minutes to 1 a.m. on the 10th May last, and he was accordingly fined £5 and 13s costs, or, in defar't, one month's hard labor. The grounds upon which the motion was made were stated in the notice of motion, and are, shortly, as follow — viz., the conviction did not state (1) that the premises were within a licensing district; (2) that delay was made in admitting a policeman ; or (3 and 4) that any demand for admission was made in pursuance of section 185 of " The Licensing Act, 1881," or otherwise ; (5) what the costs | were that defendant had to pay ; (6) to whom such costs bad to be paid ; the conviction further orders the accused to pay costs which were properly his own, and which were already paid.

Learned counsel argued at length upon the grounds stated above, and contended, in the course of argument, that where a certain act was more punishable in summary jurisdiction, which act might be lawful if performed under certain circumstances, those circumstances must be negatived on the conviction (ex part ; Hawkin?, 2 B. and C, 3L, and Paley on Convictions, 217 and 231). Farther, that section 315 of the Justices of the Peace Act wa9 imperative as to stating in a conviction the amount of fe^s payable, and that the offence alleged against the accused could not be made until after a constable had demanded to cuter •'under section 185 of the 'Licensing Act 1881.' "

His Honoe said that a constable requiring admission need not make a formal demand of admission, stating the act or the section under which ho demanded admission. Tho conviction, however, was certainly bad. It did not show that the accused had been guilty of the statutory offence created by section 185 of "The Licensing Act, 1881," and was certainly bad on that ground. It was also bad because it did not specify to whom the costs were to be paid. s!he first ground, however, was sufficient, and the conviction would be quashed. Leaved counsel could not get costs against the Resident Magistrate, and it was unreasonable that he should have them against the constable, who did not appear and had nothing to do with drawing up the conviction. Accused might try to get his fine back, but there was always a difficulty in getting back money from the Government. Mr Fraser stated that he did not press the question of costs. — " Daily Times."