THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17813, 12 July 1923, Page 7

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL. (Before Messrs S. Bullock and 3\ H. Christian, J.P.'s.) CASE OP ASSAULT. i,® 1 ? June 35th an assault took place in the bar of the Club Hotel, by Annie McMillan upon Margaret Madiera Walker. McMillan went to Walker's place to apologise, when Richard Hilchcns, a biother oi Mrs walker, was alleged to have avenged himself upon her with his fists for the injuries done to hia sister Such alleged assaults resulted in two actions, one, in which Margaret Maddern Walker (Mr R. Twvneham) proceeded against Annie McMillan '(Mr P. P. J. Amodeo) to be bound over to koep the peace, and the other wherein Annie McMillan aocused Richard Hitch ens (Mr A. J. Malley) oi assault, and applied that he be bound over to keep the peace. Mr Twyneham explained, in connexion with a3Sail "i that Mrs Walker had visited the Club Hotel on the afternoon of June ?r-S when she had entered she saw Mrs McJlnlan. Mrs McMillan and Mrs Walker liad oeen at loggerheads for some time, bef 3 " 80 , a number of years ago Mrs Walker had been acquainted with Mrs McMillan's husband. Mrs McMillan strongly objected to any friendship between Mrs Walker and her husband. V> hen Mrs Walker had gone into the Ciub Hotel, Mrs McMillan bad struck her on the ©ye with her fist, and in so doing had given Mrs Walker a nasty black eye. " le onl y °°c'i -ion upon which Mrs Walker had had trouble witn the defendant who had molested her every time fine saw her during the past four or five years. On one occasion McMillan had visited Mrs Walker's house and had smashed a -»;d°w with her (defendant's) scent bottle. ihe complainant (Mrs Walker) in her evidence stated that she knew McMillan's husband some eighteen or nineteen years ago. She had again met McMillan's husband some hve ot six years ago, but witness then did k- n ° w that the man was married. MoMillan had molested witness oontinually for the past three or four years. Three years ago witness had publicly been assaulted in the street by the defendant, who had called witness some of the most vile names imagin- . ?' regard to the assault on Juno 25tli, witness had entered the ban of the Cliibi Hotel, and MrMillan had turned round and struck her on tho eye. To .Mr P. P. J. 'Amodeo: She had been familiar with defendant's husband ' but she had understood that the husband was then an unmarried man. She understood at that time that McMillan was really Mrs Hill. Defendant said she did not deny striking the complainant. She had done if) because complainant had taken her husband away, and would not strike complainant again because she was satisfied that tho punishment of the blow delivered on June 25th in the Club Hotel was sufficient. Witness had) led ."""happy life through the interference of Walker in her married life. In connexion with the case between Mrs MoMillan and Richard Hitchens, the presiding Justices decided to hear the evidence in that case before giving their decision in the previous one. The complainant, Mrs McMillan, said that after the assault on June 25th she had gone along to Mrs Walker's place to apologise for her action in striking her, as had been detailed in the previous case. She asked Mrs Walker's daughter to toll her mother that witness had) come to apologise. Hitohens had come out of Mrs Walker's house and had punched witness a number of time 3. She had been bruised as a result of the assault and was afraid that Hiichens would strike Her again if he had the opportunity. To Mr Malley: Complainant admitted that she had had three whisikys in the bar at the hotel. The liquor would probably have excited her. She was afraid that Hitchens would renew the assault if he got the chance. Defendant Hitchens said that on the occasion when McMillan had cotne down to Mr 3 Walker's place he had been in the house at the time. He was a brother of Mrs Walker. McMillan had been very drunk when she came to the door, and witness had opened the front door and had told) her to go away. McMillan had gone down the road screaming. He had not struck her. To Mr Amodcc defendant admitted that he had previously been convicted of assault, and sentenced o two years' imprisonment. In the fifst ca?e McMillan wa3 bound over to keep tho peace for a period of twelve months, in her own recognisance of £25. The case against Hitchens was dismissed without coats. ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT. Levi Burnard Green, a Maori, aged 44 years, was committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court on a charge of having committed an indecent assault on a girl aged eight years. The accused reserved his defence. Bail was granted self in £IOO, and two sureties of £IOO each. COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. Arthur McKeever {Mr P. P. J. Amodeo) appeared to answer a. charge that on June 30th, at Christchurch, he diid steal the sum of £5 IjOs in money from George Tipping. Tipping, in the course of his evidence, stated that he had first met the accused in the -White Hart Hotel bar, where McKeever had been exhibiting a number of slight-of-hand triaks with a penny. McKeever subsequently accompanied witness outside, and McKeeveT had grabbed the money in witness's possession from his pocket and rushed away. Bv the time witness had been able to follow, McKeever had disappeared. Aocused waa committed for trial. THEFT FROM POST OFFICE. Edward BTyan Carter, aged 19 years (Mr P. P. J. Amodeo) pleaded guilty to five charges of having stolen sums of money amounting to £66, the property of. the Postmaster-G-encral. He was also charged with the theft of a postal packet. Chief-Detective A. Cameron stated that the accused had been employed at the Hanmer Post Office for four years, and at the time of the thefts heldi the position of a cadet. Accused, in a statement to the police, admitted having stolen the money. He also pleaded guilty to the charges, and was committed for sentence at the next faessdona of the Supreme Court in Ghristchurch. BIGAMY CASES. (rmiss ASSOCTATIOIT TSL3GBIX.) AUCKLAND, July 11.' In the Supreme ©curt to-day his Honour sentenced Ernest Harold McLean, who admitted bigamy, to eighteen months' hard labour: William Arthur Perry, who went through a form of marriage witli a woman after his wife had deserted him and his two children, was convicted and ordered to come up for eentenoe if oalled on. His wife was now living with another man. APPEAL COURT. N;, (pass 3 ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, July 11. The Court of Appeal heard argument this morning in the Commissioner of Taxes v. Todd, a Dunedin case. The facts were that about February 16th, 1921, Todd, out oi his regard towards the proposed transferees, signed transfers by way of gift of 1000 shares of the nominal value of £IOOO in Todd Bros., [ Limited. The transfers were lodged for stamping on February 17 th, 1921, but at that date they had not been registered in the books of Todd Bros., Limited, or aeiivered 10 tlia transferees. After some discussion with the Commissioner of Stamps the transfers were withdrawn, but oil April 7th, 1921, they were returned ftnd duly stamped as if the shares were to the value of £IOOO. Then on February 27th, 1922, Todd made a further gift of £IOOO to one Hyde. The Commissioner of Stamps olaimed duty at the rate of 5 per cent, on the total value of both, gifts, as he contended they had been made within a period of one year, and that the limit of the amount of gifta free of duty within tho period of one year waa £IOOO. In the Supreme Court the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, decided against tli» Commissioner. Mr W. C. McGregor, the Solicitor-General, who appeared for the Commissioner, said the point for the consideration of the Court was whether the transfer of the shares of February 16th, 1921, was complete on that date, or was not complete until after April 7th, 1921. He contended that as the transfers were not delivered to the transferees until after April 7th, 1921, the transfer was not complete until after that date. The Hon. J. MacGregor, for Todd, said that the case waa most unfairly stated by the Commissioner of Stamps. In the case were several incorrect statements of fsct. He admitted, however, that he was bound by the facts as stated. On the question oi law he oontended that the delivery and- transfer of the shares to the transferee waa not necessary in order to complete the transfer In the present case, the transferees had signed the transfer, thus showing that they accepted the transfers. This gave the I transferees a clear and equitable title on ! February 16th, 1921, and the two gifts of I £IOOO each had not therefore been made j within a period of one veals' No stamp I duty was, therefore, The Court reserved its deoision. I The Court of Appeal also heard argument i this afternoon in the case of "Powley and an- ' (an&eUant*) aoainat his Mfcieaty the ftiaß

(respondent), an appeal from the judgment of the Chief Justice delivered at Wellington on June 7th last. Appellants claimed against the Crown for a refund of Customs duties to the extent of £298 in respect of duty paid on 881 gallons of whisky on December 2nd, 1921. The Chief Justice, in the Supreme Court, held that the appellants were not entitled to a refund. Before the Court of Appeal this afternoon, . Mr Myers, K.C-, and with him Mr Sinclair, of Dunedin, appeared for the ap-pellants, and Mr W. C. ficGregor, K.K., Solicitor-Uen-eral, for the Crown. Mr Myers contended that upon, the proper construction of the Parliamentary resolutions passed on November 3rd, 1921, coupled witli the provision of the Customs Act, 1913, appellants were entitled to a refund, t The Solicitor-General said that it was only by giving a forced construction to the word "imported" that the construction of the Parliamentary regulations asked for bv Mr Myers oould be maintained. He contended further, that even assuming the correctness of the appellants' construction of the word "importfed," they were not entitled to a refund. The Court reserved its decision.

A striking instance of longevity comes from Otley (England), where in a row of five houses reside eight persons whose combined ages reach exactly 600 years. They live in what are known as the Mill Cottages, on the, Burley road at Otley., In the first house is a couple, aged respectively 72 and 62, and in the next is an old lady of 86. Then follow a couple of 83 and 79, next one of 60, and in the fifth are two persons who are each 79. The average age of the eight is 75.