Magistrates Court for Adelaide - Magistrates Court of South Australia - Adelaide - SA - Australia - News Article Locations on Waymarking.com

Magistrates' Court for Adelaide.
Deputation to the Premier.
On Friday morning the Mayor of Adelaide (Mr. O^ Willoox), Oatanoillor Smeaton, and the Town Clerk (Mr. T. Worsnop) waited Upon the Premier and asked that a Magistrates' Court should be established in the city. The Mayor stated that the City Council were Of opinion that many of the oases for breaches of the Corporation by-laws might be better and more fairly dealt with by having a Magistrates' Court than by having them tried at the Police Court as at present. The Corporation felt that they bad not received that amount of fairplay at the bands of the Police Magistrate that they ought to have received, though at the same time they did not wish to impute any motive* to the Bench. The Town Clerk read a list of cases dismissed from May 27 to December 6 laBt. In Donohue v. Kearney (chimney flue on fire) the dismissal was because the constable did not state that the ohimfiey was foul, although he stated that flames were seen two feet above the chimney top. In Stroud v. Young (horse at large) the P M. stated that as the defendant put the horse in a paddock and shut the gate be did not suffer the horse to be at large. In Shakespeare v. Lovell (selling If got bread), the ground of dismissal was the special Constable objected to take the loaves first offered as they were hot, and asked for bread not so new, which, when obtained, were found light. In Shakespeare v. Wagner, P.M. did not believe evidence of special constable. In Mettle v. Lewellvn, the constable could not state he saw the chimney was foul by looking up it, although the flames were three feet above the chimneypot, and the defendant threw b lamp in the fireplace and threatened to burn the house down. In Campbell v. Fritz (cows at large and offensive language) the P. M. believed the defendant in preference to the Park bands Ranger, and in s.— Adams v. Viant (standing with a truck in street longer than necessary) he gave the defendant the benefit of' the doubt. In Howell v. Stanley the P. M. found the oate had been dealt with, at the Town Hall and dismissed it. In Furze v. Pilkington (refusing to sell milk for analysis) Inspector Said, " Here is the money and held a shilling in his hand. P.M. did not consider it a proper tender. In Luoas v. Jjampiell (throwing stones into the Terrene Lake) the P. M. considered that Bylaw 82 did not apply. In Paweon v. Ackolbon (acting as proprietor of brothel) the P.M. ruled information should have be*n laid against the wife. In Campbell v. Ormond (depasturing Unlicensed horse) the P.M. ruled it must be shown defendant caused the horse to go into Parkland. Shakespeare- v. Hukley (unjust measure) was dismissed because informant could not state that he had seen him use the manure although it was at his stall in the Central Market. Applekamp v. Donohue (unregistered dog) was dismissed because City Solicitor had not shown that Hobson's-place was in the city of Adelaide. Councillor Smeaton observed that the multiplicity of dismissals shows that the Police Magistrate had been biased, though no doubt unconscionably. The evidence here presented pave them reason for some complaint besides, it was considered by the Corporation to be hardly fair to drag up to the Police Court persons who after all were charged with only trivial offences, and to allow them to be associated with drunkards, prostitutes, and other criminals. The Pbbhucb asked how the deputation proposed to constitute the Magistrate Court. The Town Tieck—We ask for a Court apart from the Police Court to try breaches of the Corporation Acts, to be constituted of any two Magistrals. The Premier—Who shall be -members of the City Council ? The Mayor—We think that Would be fair. The PsieuiEB-and exclude the Police Magistrate from the Magistrates Court? The Matos—We would be pleased to have the Police Magistrate to sit. The Pwchieb—Would you have a couple members of the Corporation who are Justices, so that they could overrate the Police Magistrate if necessary ? The Mate believed the Corporation Would be ready to admit any Justice outside the members of the Corporation, that would prevent the possibility of any undone influence. The Pbkuibb—And bow in' the selection to be made of the Justices to exit ? Councillor ShSAtom — You as Attorney- General world make the selection. The Premier considered that the deputation were making a very serious charge against r the at Police Magistrate. Bias was the greatest failing Second to positive dishonesty- that could be imputed against a Judge, and he would tell them straight that no such suggestion was justified. The Matob—We are very glad to bear it. The Pekmikb — How many information have you laid altogether during the period covered by the list you have presented? The Town Cleek—Well, towards eighty. There have been » any dismissals independent of these sixteen The PbkiIieb—But only in sixteen out of eighty you make complaints. Take No. 4. The Police Magistrate said he did not believe the evidence of the special constable. It did not follow that the evidence of even a special constable was to be taken as gospel, sad if the e Magistrate did not believe the evidence it was bits duty to dismiss the information. Then in another case it was stated that the Police Magistrate evidently believed the defendant in preference to the Park Lands Ranger. Surely- citizens had a right to have their word listened to quite as much at a Park Lands Ranger. The Ranger was an important official, but if they were to be told that the Ranger was not liable to mistake, and that when he was contradicted by a citizen the citizen's word was to be taken as naught, he could not agree with them. The Mate—If there are no further witnes.es I think the Mneietrate might give him the weight of the doubt. The Premier pointed out that, whether the ' Park Lands Ranger was the only witness or not the number of witnesses did not make ' any difference. It was a question of the j credibility of witnesses. Then in another case in which Sergeant Adams was informant, it ! seamed the Magistrate had the hard>hood t'> give defendant, the benefit of the doubt. That was the duty of the Me.KUtra.te. He would not go through all the cases. There was, however one case in which it was started that the information was dismissed because the Magistrate considered that the by-law did not apply. What was the Magistrate to do? To fine the defendant under a bylaw that was not in existence? Councillor Smeaton—What about the "hinmejs? The Prkuikb—Yes Have the Corporation in it the right to appeal ? Mr. Wobsjjop - Yes. The Premier Then why don't you test traces by appeal to the Loo.il Court when you are not satisfied ? Mr. Wokskof—We don't want to do that if we can help it. The Premikp.—You are appealing to me own—(laughter)—but I am not a Court of appeal, and it would be very bad if I were cause it in very advisable that the Executive and Judiciary 'braid not. interfere with each other. If it is suggested that there is dishonesty on the part of the Magistrate I would interfere very quickly, but you gentlemen are not justified in making the suggestion of bias.

Type of publication: Newspaper When was the article reported?: 01/05/1894 Publication: Evening Journal (Adelaide, SA : 1869 - 1912) Article Url: [Web Link] Is Registration Required?: no How widespread was the article reported?: national News Category: Society/People

Visit Instructions:
Give the date of your visit at the news location along with a description of what you learned or experienced.

Recent Visits/Logs:

Date Logged Log User Rating   03/13/2022 Patrick22 visited it 10/02/2019 themd visited it 08/28/2019 brisal5 visited it 05/13/2018 sir_spectre visited it 03/25/2018 CADS11 visited it 06/20/2017 GeckoJ visited it

View all visits/logs