SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 198, 19 August 1904, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (Before Mr Justice Edwards.) TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. ALLEGED THREATENING AND THEFT. Frank Harrop, aged 15, defended by Mr Mahony, pleaded not guilty to breaking into the house of William Parker at Grey Lynn by daylight on July 14, and stealing £i in money and a cash-box. The facts alleged were that the accused, entering the house by a window, stole the money and cash-box, and subsequently, in order to obtain the reward, he told Parker that iie knew a boy who had "d scovered" the cash-box concealed in the Western Park. He then, it was alleged, asked a companion named Percy Bell to personate the tinder of the cash-box, and promised him half the reward. On the way to Parker'3 place Harrop, it was said, pointed out to Bell a spot in the park where the "find" was to take place. He then took Bell to Parker and introduced him as the boy who could point out where the box was concealed. Parker took them both to the Police Station. Evidence was given in support of th's version of the affair by Mr Parker, Mrs McDonald (his housekeper), and Percy Bell. Leonard Church (a small boy) said that while he was playing round a tree in the Western Park w'th his brother, he found the box covered over by grass. They took it to their parents, and it was finally handed to the police.

Sergeant Hendry described the interview with the boys at the Police Station, and said he concluded that they were not telling the truth. Subsequently Bell told n, different story, and. Htirrop was lockfd up. Detective Miller, who examined the window by which access to the premises was supposed to have been gained, said it would take, n tall man to enter .as described. The boy could not possibly reach up to do so. Mr Joseph Ryland Harrop, the lad's father, gave him an excellent character for honesty, and said that for some years past he had paid all the family accounts with perfect accuracy. He had been delicate from birth. Witness supplied hiru with what money he required, and he did not at this time show any signs of being flush with money. Mr Mahony, addressing the jury, contended there was no case for conviction. The evidence proved nothing more than that the accused told a lie. The Crown Prosecutor did not address the jury. Hi 9 Honor advised the jury to seriously consider the evidence of Detective Miller that the window in question was 9ft from the ground, w'tli no foothold below it. and could not therefore have been climbed into by this boy unaided. The marks of hoots on the wall below the window indicated that the entrance was probably made by that means, and it must therefore have been made by a taller person than the accused or with the aid of other persons. : The jury, without retiring, found the accused not gtrlty, and he was discharged. The Judge warned him to avoid bad company, and not concoct storiea in future. BOARDINGHOUSE DIFFICULTIES. The re-trial of Thomas Hermann, a Norwegian, on a charge of atsaul'ing and wounding with a knife an Aratapu boardingho"use-keeper's husband named Richard Berne, was begun this aitei noon. At the former trial the jury had disagreed. This is the last case on the calendar, and waiting jurymen have been released from further attendance. Sevcnil prisoners already convicted will be sentenced on Monday. The circumstances of the case against Hermann are that the accuser! visited the boardinghouse and asked for a bed. Mrs Berne, thinking him drunk, refused, and asked Him to leave. She summoned her husband to eject the man, and in the darkness of the kitchen a scuffle ensued, in which both men fell to the ground. Berne then found that his neck was cut. Mr J. R. Reed ia defending the accused. (Proceeding.) IN CHAMBERS. Probate was granted in the estates of the late Mary Bailey Taylor (Mr Gribbin solicitor)' and William Phillips (Mr Buddie).

OIVIL SITTINGS. The Civil Sittings of the Supremo Court ojjen on Monday morning. The cases set down for healing are as follows: — BEFORE A COMMON JURY OF TWELVE. William Forrest and Kice Owen Clark v. Thomas Kuuclmnn: £1800, ntnount alleged due for share ot partnership. Fanny Amelia Lindsay v. Auckland Electric Tramways Company, limited: £7UO, damages for alleged injuries received. Margaret Bagust v. Auckland Electric Tramways Company, Liniitp<J • £550, damages for alleged injuries received. WITHOUT A JURY. Sarah Theodore Edmonds v. Henry Edmonds and Ernest Makepeace Edmonds: Action to set aside sale of land, etc. Arthur Milson Edmonds and Ernest Makepeace Edmonds v. Henry Edmonds: Decree for dissolution of partnership and to take accounts. Walhi Gold Mining Company, Limited, v. Alexander Kose (Collector of Customs): Action as to rate of duty payable ou certain articles (two cases). Walter Douglas Cheyne and William Clifford v. Mary Teresa Murphy: Action for specific performance of agreement. Barbara Snodgrass v. John Kh-kwood: Action that estate be administered by Court. David Farrell, Robert Farrell, and Lilinn M. Farrell v. John Raphael Lundon: £428 5/5, proceeds of certain mortgage alleged due. William Stevenson v. George Leyland: Action for specifi'' performance of agreement or £300 damages for failure to complete agreement. Rice Owen Clark, Jun., v. Latlmer Clark: That defendant be decreed a trustee as to certain application for letters patent. Joseph Uea v. Wlllinm Thomas Woods: £500 damages for alleged slander. John Chambers and Sou. Limited, v. Alexander Kose (Collector of Customs): Action as to rate of duty payable on certain goode. Arthur Hughes Turnbull and Hugh Munro v. Northern Steamship Company, Ltd.: £200 damages for collision. DIVORCE. BEFORE A COMMON JURY OF TWELVE. George Currie v. Charlotte Currie. WITHOUT X JURY. Annie Catherine Lewis v. Bassett Charles Yoreth Lewis. Alfved Lebon v. Margaret Anne Jane Lebon. William Charles Woodhouse v. Ethel Margaret Hay Woodhouse and Robert James Fergus. Thomas Torbett v. Margaret Torbett. Arthur John Cadnian r. Anue Cadman aud John Bnsh. Ellen Elusa Matthews t. Alfred James Jlattbtwa.

James John Prater v. Adelaide Annette Frater. i Kate Harding Atterbury v. George John Atterbnry.