SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20777, 10 February 1933, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CRIAUXAIi SESSIONS. (Before bis Honour Jlr Justice Reed.) GUILT I' OX TWO CHARGES. After a retirement of 35 minutes the jury returned a verdict of "suilty" in the cas,e. commenced on Wednesday afternoon, in winen Thomas John Morris, a single man, a 8 5 C *J* of age (Mr A. B. Hobbs), was charged witn breaking and entering on November~o. the Bhop of T. Armstrong and Co.. Higa street, and committing the crime ol tueu therein. The jury added that it was their opinion that others were implicated in tne offence and' that during its commission the accused was under the influence of cirinK. Sentence was deferred till to-morrow morn"iurtlier alternative charges of the theft of a quantitv of New Zealand duty stamps, of a total value of l-i ss. the property 01 Homo person or persons, and of reccivms tue stamps knowing them to hare been dishonestly obtained, were preferred against Morris, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Hobbs pointed out that when the accused was charged in the lower Court the Magistrate had considered that there was insufficient evidence of receiving, and dismissed the charge. . His Honour held that there was sufficient evidence in the deposition-: on which the charge of receiving might be placed berore the jury. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. 1. l»onnelly) said that recently a quantity ot duly stamps, used for the . purpose of reveuue collection, had been reported missing. <->" January 4 the accused tendered a 10s and a 5s dutv stamp at the railway telegraph office and received postage stamps of »»"" denomination in exchange. He later _cashea 7s worth of these smaller stamps. O" tne following dav the accused tendered a J«» stamp at the railway station receiving 10 Js stamps. He also tendered a ±- stamp, and the clerk, mistaking it for a '-s stamp, gave him 24 penny stamps. Later the accused gave a messenger a £1 '""P."™ instructions to change it at the rai w-O station. The messenger was questioned by the clerk, however, and the act-used was pointed out by the messenger The accused later gave the explanation that he obtained the stamps from a man in a legal ofccebal refused to disclose the identity of. either Mr Hobbs, in his address to the jurj, submitted that there was no evidence ol then except the inference that might be taken from his varying statements • to the Toii°e. He warned the jury of the danger of ldying upon circumstantial evidonce. The jury retired at 12.20 and "turned at 1 p.m. with a verdict of on the charge of receiving and not KUiuy on the charge of theft. Sentence was deferred till to-morrow morning WOMAN CONVICTED OF RECKIVI.NG. Jvy ily ra Goodtn <*r D. W tcred Pleas of not guilty °" 7 of „ charges of tne theft, on Ottobei squirrel fur coat, valued at »- i - d property of J. Ballantyne » '■<*" h of receiving Hie coat knowing of (Mr AT »- „eir?> said that in October of la,t yea, a woman, subsequently ' dontiue '' . ats at cused, tried on one before Ballantynes, eventually *e' ecn "? , d gEt going away, and stating t *»\™ e e< £°" l . The Ser husband to .return to ins,ec.t coat was (he name loft by 1 nt «man vin oru . The pol.c . sed's horn", in which .Hk been l*«f™ [^ > Vott tain the coat, carefully folded up hn(} balls . The «««"* «£ 0 ~ ed a Mv, Miller in bought the coal for ilo ik"" b Wellington.. K? idence !>«■• ho was one of a P alt > |""' stttteto ent in accused'* house. She ">»?* a ht »" tnew which she said that as far »< »>»" d l » e J the coat had nol: been »lole«. Sh« Lins. dTof wisi, sh t c o :£ *>.«. she ** Sh To C Mr R„£elfw!tnes ß \aid *«£ -"'« , t orf tnld him that she did not take l»e 0 hr elf but would rather 'plead J»'Hy t„°*tha theft 'of it than involve someone.else The- husband told witness tha he wanUU to put the coat hack, but not knowing hov, to do it, toot it home and put in away in an at MtR«". e u submitted that the Crown had not proved beyond reasonable doubt any .•onnevion of the accused either with the tnelt or the receiving of the coat. The husband had already been convicted and punished for the theft of the coat, which he contended was completed immediately the coat was removed from the shop. 'Hie evidence of identification by the shop aS3islnnts, too, was open to doubt, counsel submitted. Jn any ca«e there wan evidence only of suspicion. The jurv, after a retirement of an hour ami a half, brought in a verdict of ''not guiltv" on the theft charge, and 'guilty ' on the charge of receiving. The pnsoncr was remanded for sentence to tomorrow morning. , FRAUDULENT TELEGRAM. Charles Kdwards (Mr R. nebnra > ed not guilty to a charge that on October 27, with intent to defraud,.he caused a telegram to bo sent and delivered-to lan-GbU, purporting that it had been sent by tne authority of D. Gait. ■ The Crown Prosecutor taid that on Uiio tier 27, Douglas Gait, an Auckland engineur, met the accused, whom he. knew, in Christchurch, and in the course of thou conversation, he told the accused the artdress of his brother, lan Gait, in Southland. Inn Gal* on tho same day received the following telegram: "Been ratted. Wire tome monev Post Office. Christchurch. Coming south with truck. Repay you later." He telegraphed £2 to ; Christchurch, where someone collected tho money and signed for it. The Orown case depended upon two points: («) That the accused met Douglas Gait aDd obtained the necessary information cnocernmg his brother's address, and that no one else appeared to have the information concerning Douglas Gait's movements; (b) that the evidence ot handwriting experts would show the handwriting on the telegraph form and receipt to be that of the accused. Mr Twyneham, in his address to the jury, said that there was an eutire absence of motive for the alleged crime, as had the accused needed the money ho could. an Douglas Gait Said, have obtained a loan from him. No such desperate expedient as the transmission of a fraudulent telegram waß necessary. Again, the accused had no hesitation in supplying the police with specimens of his handwriting, and was quite frank in making statements. Counsel submitted that the sole evidence of any importance was that of the expert, which was only a matter of opinion. The jury returned » verdict of guilty, and the aci'iied was remanded for sentence till iO-aioiTow, ATTEMPTED ' HOUSE-BREAKING. Ccdiic Charles Kiddey entered a plea ol not guilty to a- charge that, on bej,U«ttbei <>i he attempted to break and enter W ca'y the dwelling of Arthur Henry Bhrubsliall at Cashmere, with intent to commit a cr:me therein. , Tho accused was not represented ».v counsel. , , The Crown Prosecutor eatd that on the clay of the offence Mrs Sbrubshall leit houie early in the day. At 3.30 in the afternoon her daughter, a schoolgirl, came home ana found that the, house had been broken into. She found or; her arrival at home a man with a bicycle outside the gate. The accused, in a (statement to the police, admitted the offence, and stated that he -.ntended to plead guilty. In the lower Court, however, he declared that "practically every, word of thi3 statement had been put into his mouth by the detective." "After evidence for 'the Crown had been given, the accused read a statement to the jury, in which he said that he was surprised when mtei-viewed by -h» detective. Ho denied the charge, smd after some argument told the detective to take the case to Court. "The detective," said accused, "then asked me how I would like to spend Christinas and 2>"ew YeaT and about two months m gaol." Accused said that the detective suggested that be should plead guilty and get out on bail during Christmas. Accused said that he merely answered "Yes" and "Xo" to the questions put by the detective whe took his statement. "1 had had time to think it over, and I rainr- to the conclusion that I had already disgraced my people enough and decided not to plead guilty," said the accused, who added that both the defective and the Probation Officer suggested hiti pleading guilty, as thev would get him an extension of his probation. His Honour then directed that the detective concerned be recalled. Detective James McClimg stated that when he interviewed the accused at Staveley, where Ilia latter was working on a farm, F.ickley admitted that he had gone to the house and made an attempt <o break in. Buying that he had done it at the suggestion ot an associate. The associate had given information to the police. Wiln?:.? mentioned that the aicused was already on probation and bad a chance of getting the term extended. AA T ilne-;3 took the opportunity of tolling the Probation Officer trial Kiddey's employer liad agreed to provide (he boy with woik if he was released. When charged the accused asked witness to get the Probation Officer to guarantee him probation, saying he would plead guilty if his were done. 'Witness told the accused (hat would have to be left to the Court. His Honour, in Buniming nr, said that the accused had mado .in allegation against a detective. In. his..statement, however, he said that he visited the house, "on iht spur of the moment." His Honour *aid he did not know quite what the accmsd meant by

trwl, and addtd that the facts of (he caRO would cause the jury no difficulty. Alter a. brief retirement the jury brought in a verdict of guilty, with a strong recomniendaliOJ to leniency on account of the stccused'a youth. .He was remanded till tomorrow for renlencs. MAGISTRATE'S COURT. THURSDAY. ( Before Mr K. D. Mosley. S.-y.) IMPRISONMENT, FOTt DRUNKENNESS. Patrick Murphy, a labourer, aged 16. was charged with drunkenness in Manchester street on Wednesday. He had two provious convictions and the Magistrate, remarking that ho had had hi* warning, sentenced him to 11 days' imprisonment with hard labour. BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT. The licensee of the White Swan Hotel, Snverio Massetti, pleaded guilty to a charge ot selling liquor after hours on January IM. Irine Massetti was charged with supplying liquor, and Roland Jackson, lan Donald Robbie, Alexander Thomson, and William John Thomas Whalley, were charged with being on licensed premises after hours. Only Mussetti appeared, while G'cbbic was represented by Mr E. S. Bowie, who pleaded guilty. Senior-Sergeant J. Fox said the charges were the result of a visit to the hotel by tho police at 7.20 p.m. on January 24, and Sergeant Wolfindale gave evidence of visiting the hotel. Massetti was fined ±'l and costs, Mrs Massetti was fined ii2 and costf, and each of (he other defendants it and costs. BREACH OF ORDER. John William Miller, charged with the breach of a prohibition order, was convicted aDd iiued £2 and costs, in default one month's imprisonment. He was allowed 3 4 days to pay. A WOMAN'S QUARREL. Mary Dorothy Harris (Dr. A. L. Haslam) pleaded not guilty to a charge of behaving in a threatening manner in Golf Links road on January 25. Senior-Sergeant Fox said lhat the case was something in the nature of a neighbours' quarrel which had gone beyond the usual limits of such affairs. Defendant was alleged . to have actually assaulted one of her neighbours, after thero had been a good deal of trouble in the neighbourhood. Dofeudant was tho wife of a relief worker. She said that she received ill 5s in (he last week with which she had to pay it in rent and keep five children. Two witnesses were called, and it was stated that defendant had struck- another woman several blows across' the face and nearly pulled her to the ground bv her hair. "It's a pity that these people can't live in peace and quietness," remarked the Magistrate in passing sentence. Defendant, he considered, had bocn clearly guilty of assault. She was convicted and ordered to come up Cor sentence if called upon withinsix months. In addition, costs amounting to lis -td, were imposed. "I'll do time for it—l haven't jot it'" declared defendant, and when she was told that she would have to pay or S o to gaol: Maybe I'd have more to eat there than 1 linve now." CIVIL BUSINESS. fßefore. Mr H. A. Young, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following undefended I'rade Auxiliary Company of N. 55., Ltd., v. M. .P. Dann, £1 15s; Herbert Shoe Co., Ltd., v. P. C. Edwards, £2 19s 6d; F. D. Kestevon v. P. C. Edwards, £6; Tail, Carlisle, Siinpsou Ltd., v. AT. Winder. Z4 19s 4d; Anderson's, Ltd., v. B. Thompson, £2 6s; Johnson and Smith. Ltd., v. Norman Emms. £25; Christchurch Press Co., Ltd.. v. John William Parsons, m 15s; same v. Percival Rapley, £5 7s: J. L. Vergette v. P. Edward*. £l3 Ss 6d; Fred Sladen and Sons. Ltd.. v. D. H. Cameron, £3 "14s; Para Rubber Co., Ltd.. v. A. M. Stewart. £2 15s; Harper. Danks. Ltd. (in liquidation-, v. F. Sawtell. i'2 .15s Id. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. F. Biggs- -was ordered to par K. Reece. Jitd». . JR. 15s 3d .forthwith, in default ten days' imprisonment DEFENDED. CASUS. Jane Read, masseuse, Christchurch (Dr. A. L. Haslam), claimed from John Stuart Uees, linotype operator, and Dorothy Rees, his wife, in respect of her separate estate (Mr K. M. Gresson), the 6um of £44 9s for massage, electrical treatment, and remedial exercises given by the plaintiff to Mrs Rees, on the request of both defendants. Judgment for £35 and costs was ghen for jilaintiff.

(Before Mr H. P, Lawry, S.M.) Armstrong and Springhalt, Ltd.. of Wellington CMr .T. A. Kennedy), claimed from H. K. Barnsley, Christchurch, the sum of £l, being balance owed by. defendant under a hire-purchase agreement. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs. Judgment for defendant with costs was awarded in the case in which \V. Field, a sign writer. of Christchurch (Mr AV. ,f, Stacey), claimed from Zo-Glo, Dtd.. manufacturers of toilet requisites, Auckland, the Mim of £R 15s in respect of money alleged to he due by defendants for the services of plaintiff. (Before Mr 15. T». Mosley, S.M.) Mrs C. Kent fJfr K. d. Archer) claimed from Thomas Pilling, of Holmes Boarding House. Christchurch (Mr R. A. Toung), the Kv.m of £l6 6s 3d, as arrears of wages. It was alleged that plaintiff was employed by defendant doing the work of a general hand, under the New Zealand (except Stewart island) Private Hotel Rmployees' Award, nud that during a period of 43 weeks she had been paid at £1 6s 3d a week, instead of £1 16s lOd a week, as provided in the award. . Judgment for plaintiff was given for the sum of £6 0? 8d and costs.