CRUISHANK V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

SOWAH, J.: In this appeal the appellant elected to argue the third ground of appeal, namely, that the district magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case, because title to land was in issue. On this point the magistrate stated that he was not impressed with the argument of counsel that his jurisdiction was ousted on the grounds that there was not enough evidence before him to that effect.

It is significant to note that nowhere in the record was the argument of counsel noted. It does not appear that after the close of the case for the prosecution, counsel made any submission, nor does it appear that counsel made submission after the close of the case for the defence, and yet the magistrate made reference to such submission.

In my view it was incumbent upon the magistrate to record whatever submission counsel made in the case, and I need hardly say that failure to record the submission by counsel vitiates the proceedings and makes the record incomplete.

I have had the opportunity of re…