RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1315, 26 October 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, October 24rd, 1883. (Before W.JEL Revets, ' Esq., R.M.) DICKENSON V. CARD. An information charging defendant with making an illegal entry into certain premises at Boatman's, which plaintiff claimed to be in possession of under bill of sale. The evidence for the prosecution was given by us iniull on Wednesday last. Upon the xslose of the case for the prosecution Mr Jones proceeded to address the Court upon the law ami facts relied upon fur the' defence. Headdressed himself mainly to two points. Firstly, if the prosecutor : ased his claim to the property at common law it was absolutely essential, in order to establish an indictment for forcible entry that he should prova-that the entry had been effected by a {decided breach of the peace. On the other hand, if the prosecutor claimed und£r the statute law it was absolutely essential i that he should set out in the information the exact nature of the title under i^hich he claimed to be possessed of ihe I property. Now the prosecution/had fajled'in both these essentials. Theevidence had showu that the entry had been effected Jieaqeably, no one being present at the time but defendant, who used no more force in gaioing admittance than was necessary. He held that no indictment for forcible entiy could lie at common law unless accompanied by proof «»f a decided breach of: the peace, and cited innumerable authorities in support of the contention. If on the other hand, prosecutor clamed under statute, it was incumbent upon him to set out in the information the exact nature of his title to the property. This, however, he had not done. To set up a mere possessory title, as -prosecutor had done, was not enough undferihe statute law. The information, if laid^uder the statute, should state that the prosecutor either held the property in perpetuity or for an unexpired term, and in both of these respects it was faulty. There was nothing upon the face of the information to disclose whether prosecutor claimed under his common law right or under his statutory right. He (Mr Jones) would, however, deal with the subject, first from the common law aspect, and then" ask the Court for a ruling, reserving the right to afterwards argue upon the information as laid under statute. Mr Jones then addressed the Court, his contention being that if laid at common law tlit) information was not sustainable, ami concluded an able address of nearly an hour's duratiini by citing a number of authorities in support of his argument, and asked the Court to dismiss the information. His Worship ruled with Mr Jonea that

the evidence had failed to sustain an indictment at common law. He was, how- s ever, of opinion that the evidence had " y disclosed an indictable offence of some . nature, and that being so the Court would not be justified in dismissing the charge. ( Mr Jones would accept the ruling of • the Court a3 disposing of the information l from the common law aspect, and he ] would therefore now address himself t<> \ the charge as if laid under statute. He ( proceeded to argue that the information if laid under the statue law was radically s bad, inasmuch as it did not set out the '' nature of the title under which prosecutor ] claimed the property. Hd urged more- . over that as the property was situated on ( a Government reserve there was practically no title to set out, or certainly no other then a possessory title, which, of itself, was insufficient to sustain the information. Mr Haselden replied at soinn length to the arguments of Mr Jones His Worship said he had now heard the case fully, and counsel on bo h sides had the fullest opportunity of referring to the law. As he had already indicated, the failure of the prosecution to prove that a breach of the peace had been eommitt -d disposed of the information as laid at common law. Under the statute the ; prosecutor had failed to show that he had j a legal possession of the property. The ; information would therefore have to bo dismissed. j