SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27500, 6 November 1954, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

TWO PRISONERS SENTENCED

MAN FINED £75 FOR INDECENT ASSAULT

Ernest Sidney Coward, aged 58, a chimney sweep, who was found guilty by a jury on a charge of indecently assaulting a woman on June 29, appeared before Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court yesterday for sentence.

He was fined £75, in default four months’ imprisonment, and allowed one month in which to pay the fine. Mr W. F, Brown, who appeared mr Coward, said that apart from this offence the prisoner seemed to be bn essentially good man. He vias a reliable and conscientious worker, as his testimonials showed. The Probation Officer’s opinion was that the prisoner acted on impulse and was unlikely to become a persistent offender. Coward still maintained his innocence. He had already suffered some punishment. He had been 10 days in prison and he had had the disgrace of the publicity of his trial The Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. W. Brown) said this appeared not to be an isolated case. A precisely similar complaint wal made against Coward 12 months ago, but it was not proceeded with.

His Honour said that, before this offence, the prisoner appeared to have led a respectable life, except for the episode alleged to have occurred a year previously. His health apparently gave him some trouble and his wife and daughter also were not in good health. If Coward was sent to prison the punishment would fall heavily on his wife and daughter and the Court had come to the conclusion it was permissible to deal with him in some other way than by imprisoning him. No good purpose would be served by putting him on probation, so a substantial fine would be imposed.

PROBATION FOR ASSAULT Douglas David Eric Gordon, aged 25, a spray painter, who appeared for sentence on a charge that he assaulted Patrick Joseph Fitzsimmons on August 20 so as to cause him actual bodily harm, was admitted to probation for three years. Special conditions were that he takes out a prohibition order

and keeps it renewed for three years; that he abstains altogether from alcoholic liquor during that period; and that he pays £75 towards the costs of the prosecution, by instalments of 10s a week. i Mr E. S. Bowie, who appeared for Gordon, said that all the evidence at the trial Showed him to be a quiet, well-behaved young man, a good worker and a good husband. He had now been in custody for a total of 17 days. He had been charged with ship desertion and the matter would come before the Magistrate's Court on Monday. H the outcome of that matter was adverse to Gordon he would be subject to deportation and would have to return to New Zealand as an immigrant. If the . Supreme Court sentenced him to Imprisonment on the assault charge he would not be able to return to New Zealand for two years, because he would be a prohibited immigrant. That would be a great hardship not only on Gordon but on his young wife and might affect their marriage. There was a probability that Gordon was a/i epileptic and so would be more easily affected by liquor. 77ie Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. W. Brown) said 'the case was somewhat different from the usual type of assault. Gordon was a decent, clean hying young man and happily married. He seemed to have had no real intention of causing serious harm to

anyone. His Honour said it was clear that Gordon was very much under the Influence of alcohol when he committed the offence, perhaps sufficiently so to account for what he did, though there probably were other factors. Gordon might be wise to submit to whatever treatment Dr. F. O. Bennett advised, so that for his own safety and that of others he might be cured of the disease to which in the doctor’s opinion he was subject. It was a serious matter to release someone who had used knives, said his Honour. The episode had ail the making of a serious tragedy. The fear in the mind of the Court was whether it was likely to be repeated. Only a moderate term of imprisonment could be imposed for the offence and the risks would have to be taken m .the near future, so probably it would be better to take them now ana deal with Gordon in a way other than sending, him to prison.

PRISONER’S APPEAL DISMISSED m An appeal by Joseph Nathan, aged 25, against the sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment with hard labour, imposed by Mr Rex C. Abernethy, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court on charges of resisting arrest and unlawfully converting a motor-van, was dismissed by Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr J. B. Weir appeared for Nathan, and the Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. W. Brown) for the Crown.

Mr Weir said that Nathan had had quite a lot to drink and had no recollection of driving the van. The police found him sleeping in the back of the van and the accusation that he had been driving it led to the other offence. It was submitted that the sentence was too severe.

Mr Brown said that his Honour had already beefi most merciful to Nathan in admitting him to probation. Nathan had not taken advantage of the opportunity given him. The Court nught well dismiss the appeal. His Honour said that when Nathan was before him early in September he took an exceptional course, fully realising the' risk involved but hoping that if Nathan was given One more chance he would take his place in society. It seemed obvious that he was not prepared to take the advice given by the Court or by the Probation Officer. “I am not prepared to interfere with the sentences and the appeal will be dismissed.” said his Honour. >

DEFENDED DIVORCE PETITION

CO-RESPONDENT TO PAY DAMAGES

A jury in the Supreme Court yesterday found that Mrs Mabel Winefred Pfahlert and Raymond Joseph Atkinson, a farmer, committed adultery on March 18, 1953, and they awardee Joseph Oswald Pfahlert, a grocer, £450 damages against Atkinson. Pfahlert, who was represented by Mr A. W. Brown and Mr P. T. Mahon, petitioned for divorce from Mabel Winefred Pfahlert on the ground of adultery and cited Atkinson as corespondent. Mrs Pfahlert was represented by Mr E.M, Hay, and Atkinson by Mr K. W. Frampton. After the jury returned their verdict, Mr Hay asked Mr Justice Adams to consider the special defence of condonation. He submitted that Pfahlert had condoned the offence.

Mr Brown said there had been no forgiveness and no condonation. His Honour held that the husband had not condoned the adultery. He granted the petitioner a decree nisi to be moved absolute after three months, and ordered Atkinson to pay £450 into Court within 14 days and also tp pay the costs. The hearing began on Wednesday, the allegation of adultery being denied by Mrs Pfahlert and Atkinson. The jury retired at 1.10 p.m. yesterday, and returned at 3.20 p.m. with their verdict.