LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 50, 22 November 1907, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

■Tho Court resumed its sittings yesterday morning, His Honour,. Mr. Justice Cooper, taking his seat at 10 o'clock. OBSCENE LANGUAGE. James Egan, a young married man, • was charged with', on September 13, .having used indecent .and. obscene language in Sydney Street. . .■.''* Mr. T. Wilford appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded'".Not guilty." •• Tho following jury -was empanelled: Henry A. Hurrell (foreman), John Wood, Stanley Kifby, Joseph Hollis, Frederick Wallis, Oswald D. Avison, . Dugald Ferguson, James Taylor, Albert G. Rough, Eli 'Young, ;N. G. Binnio, John R. Horrie. Mr. Myers, in opening the case for.the Crown, stated, inter alia, that cases in which this' offence was alleged were usually dealt with in the Lower Court,. but. that prisoner had elected to be tried by a-jury. ' •'.>• Ann , Thompson, Thorndon Quay, gave evidence that, on the date in question, whilst she was sweeping at her shop door, prisoner asked her for a shilling. When she declined to give it to him, "he abused her, using the words complained of. ■ . • . Cross-examined, witness said she was surethe words used were not' " mean old cat." Prisoner deposed that when Mrs.'Thompson refused to lend him a shilling,' he called her a ."mean old cat." .'.'.' Cross-examined, prisoner admitted that he had once been before.tho Court for theft. Counsel addressed the jury,' and His Honour summed up briefly. ' The jury, which retired at 11.20, returned at 11.35, with a .verdict of ■" Guilty."., , His Honour: I intend to deal witli this case in the same way as a Magistrate would. You will be'fined 405., and ordered to pay tho costs, in default one month's imprisonment. Tho costs total £7 10s., and I order you to pay thorn, because you elected to bo tried by this Court, thus' putting the country to' greater expense.- Will you be ' able to pay the fine and.the costs, within a month? Prisoner: I can pay them now. ' His Honour: Oh, very well. ''.'.'" • The prisoner was then discharged. " '"

, .'SEXUAL OFFENCE, -.-••■ ■ ' . SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS. : William Thomas Raymond, a young man; .was charged, with, on August 12, having carnally known a girl above. the ago of twelve-years, but under- the age. of sixteen yoars, to wit fourteen years and eight months.

Prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded "Guilty." He stated that he had'-nothing to say why the sentence of tho Court- should not be passed on him. His Honour: You have pleaded guilty to a very grave offence. The depositions, the truth of which you admit by your plea of "guilty," show that you took advantage'of tho (laughter of your friend, and also that yoii overcame her' reluctance to allow .you to commit this offence. TKe sentence of {his iCoUrf is that- you be kept at hard -labour fpr.threo' years. •-.- - ■■■■■■'■■■•■;■'

"FORGERY*,AND FALSEi PRETENCES.SENTENCE- OF' 18' MONTHS. Frederick Nicolaus, a young man, was set forward for sentence. He had been-found guilty on the' previous' day of having, on August. 3, forged and uttered a cheque for £8 4s; 6(1.,■ purporting ,, to have been , signed by one ," H. A. , Ballingor," and ( of having obtained by false 'pretences from' Laricelot George oneshirjj.and the sum of£7. 19s. 9d. in nioney., .. ' ' , . ' ' ' ' Prisoner, in reply'to the' usual '-question',' ,shid,.■•witli..reference to the' charge of forgery, •that he did,-not realise at tho timo' that he was. committing a. crime, ..and, with reference to the charge of false pretences,' that' ho thought at tho "time •. there '.would' bo money in the bank to meet the cheque. '.He asked the Court to deal. leniently with,-him, seeing that he had been in prison awaiting • trial for.nearly throe'months;■ ■'. •■ ••.--.; His Honour: The. evidence on-which you have bbeh' convicted shows that you' eSfe'rcisdd a considerable; amo_unt of ingenuity in .the ..matter, ' ; I, have no,.doubt .that' you .opened tlie'account .in'the\name-" H. :: A. Bal- ■ linger"' 'for the purpose of.' lading. the \ou'hda--tion'bf the crimos of which'you have been No other explanation can bo suggested. You succeeded' in defrauding 'one •'firm of about £8. You are not a first offender, nrid. I-may point out that, you abused the leniency- which the Court extended to you somo months ago. I will take into consideration the fact that you have been in prison awaiting trial for-some little timo, and I shall sentence you to 18 months'imprisonment,- with"'hard labour."" A ! SERIOUS CHARGE. ALLEGED WOUNDING AND ASSAULT. ..-.' Edward Murtagh, a young man, •. was charged with, on Octoberll,-having wounded ail lftfant:named -Mary Lorraine- 'JL'ui Leigh :with ; intent : to do her grievous bodily harm; with having:assaulted tier so as to , .cause her actual bodily harm,. and with .having as-

eaulted her mother,- Frances Helen Leigh. Prisoner, who was defended by Mr. A. L. Hcrdnian, pleaded "not guilty. ,, A jury, of which Mr. (J. E. .Fordham was the foreman, ,was empanelled.' Dr. Pigeon deposed that there was-a deep, long cut on the child's thigh.; In his opinion, the child 'did not cause the injury itself. . Cross-examined, witness said that none- of the main arteries had been touched. No permanent injury had been sustained.

' Re-examined, witness stated that the wound was from three-quprters- of an inch to an inch in'depth. ,"

Eose Annio Greaves stated that prisoner and Mrs. Leigh lived for a , week or two'at her mother's place in M'Donald Crescent. They occupied separate rooms; On the morning in. question she met Mrs. Leigh, who was in tears, in the passage. When she asked prisoner -for' the child, he, said: " I must take her to a doctor. She will probably have to be stitched." After-the doctor had gorio prisoner said, "Don't cry, Tui. She will soon be better. ■ I wonder how she got hold of it." Witness saw a razor lying open on the chest of drawers in the prisoner's room after the occurrence. ' . ,

Cross-examined, witness stated that prisoner had always conducted himself respectably. ;... " ...

Francis Helen Leigh, mother of the child, gave evidence that she was a married woman, Kut-had lived off and on' with prisoner for about three years: . Prisoner was the father of tho child (who was two years old), and had! maintained it up till within a week or two of the occurrence. They went to Sydney together for a week or two, and, some time after they returned prisoner took £15 belonging to her from a hat-box. On tho morning in question she returned .a number of things , to prisoner, and asked him.'in'his room, for her money. He said: "You have :no chance of getting any money. I bought a suit of clothes, and I 'did in' tho rest at a 'hazard' school." Roforring to the child, he said, .".Give her.away, or put her in a home.' , Thoy had some further conversation,. - and prisoner throw her on the bed, and knocked and punched her. Ho said:. "If you como near mo again I'll murder you." Prisoner then caught hold of the child, and pulled its dress. Subsequently, she saw a razor m his hand. He said, "That is what I think of both of you. Perhaps you have had .enough. Attend to your kid." ' When , footstops were, heard in tho passage,' prisoner said: " Tell those .people nothing. Say she did it herself." Witness went to summon a doctor, and prisoner followed her. Since tlie case ivas heard in the Lower Court prisoner had, at Hawera, told her that ho was mad when lie committed the act, and that a friend had put him up to it. Cross-examined, witness stated that the writing on tho document authorising the registration of the child was similar to hers. She may have supplied tho particulars. (It was stated in the document that Harry I<eigh

was the- father., of.tlie child.)*. SKon aid-not: tell. a. constable at Hawera that she had given the £15-to' prisoner for safe custody, kho declined to answer whother sho had ever been on the stage. 'When prisoner assaulted her in the bedroom she uttered' a "stilled cry. J. no reason why! sho had kept in touch with P ris pner .^was because he had her money. . Alico Maud West, nurse, deposed that prisoner told her that tho, injury! was the result of an accident.. „>>-. '•" >T- ... Detective Cnssolls gave evidence that prisoner told him-that tho injury was inflicted ■ y - a r~T fionS." Afterwards, he said he was referring to -'Jfrsr Leigh; -'The wpund was, prisoner said,"" inflicted" by her whilst he was out of the room. When he-rcturncd. she had the razor in her. hand. He said he wanted to .get away from:.-her; and would' do_ twelve months to got rid"'of her. Mr, Herdmah outlined tho case for the defence. :-.■.'>-.• ■-. ■~,-.-.:. . ....

°^? n oAth > st atcd-'that he had lived with ■ Mrs.; Leigh> less than sis-'months altogether;. He:denied having stolon £15 from her ■■ After-they "came back from Sydney he free himself from npr.. ■ On>y the /mght - previous to tho occurrence he. tod-Mrs, Leigh that he had married. Nest morning she asked hini if that were true:- When he replied - "Yes," : she threatened •to'.-.cnt his clothes:- -He went aw,-iy,:.butßeturned,.tbiniang that-'she'might possibly, cut his clothes. -.She was bonding over the-child?-and had .the" razor in her hand, asked what , she 'was doing, and she replied "You cut, Tni. ■■• I'll- tell the police. .v,He.w6nt-.to got ■a- doctor, ■'-' ' ■ Cross-exammed;' prisoner stated that he had given'Mrs,-Leigh most-of his-wages ™E:*'l'?s':"tliw.yws-ii 1 • all, about fi iii fH,, TOS no . w ' "iidor'the impression that tho child was not his.. Mrs. Leigh had been -an. actress. - -He '■ told' Nurse -West that the''injury was the result of-an accident, /because The ■•wished- to'shield Mrs Leigh. /. . .■■■-.■' :■!,::■.:■■■ i :.-..-. • .-.: -, ■ The. Court : 'tjien" ; adjourned .until. 10 o'clock this morning,-:, The jury'-wero detained over night.:- -;--.:-.;■■. ':.--.- , '■"■.■■,' ' RESERVED JUDGMENTS'. . . i THE ELECTROCUTION CASE.- ' ; ACTION 4&AINSTT ELECTRIC LIGHTING ." ,'•:..::,.../ ■ ■ Mr Justice Button ' gave • his reserved interlocutory -judgment'" yesterwi '?"*:«■ "« r & v. the YYellmgkm Electric Lighting Company The ciraimstancos. of the .case were-that-William Henry Corfield was driving a dray along the Miramar Road on November. 3, 1906, for his employer,; the .plaintiff.:'. NoV far'■•from tho M >ramar wharf one of'the:- wires used by the defendant company to;.supply: electricity for lighting-purposes, amTearrying electricity °.f apqut 2000 volts, came into contact with, and was. pulled down by, the top .part of the loaduig . of a lorry,- which had- passed along -the road shortly, before Corfio'ld came lip- wit r Ins'dray. The 'wire 'was broken, and foil across tho-road:-," A-part of ■ the msulation ; of the wire became, destroyed, probably through .the-.stretching -and breaking of the wire. -AVhen. Gorneld came to this point with, his dray the'wire appeared' to have interfered .with a;wheel;of the dray and thb' horse s.feef, .but ;hb'damage seemed to'have been-caused-to the horse, presumably be-' cause it iPiaS,.the insulated part of-the wire' that. touc]ie.d; Ijim.., -, Corfield. stooped, down and picked up the wire, and, the moment ho. caughtj/hold..of .it he was electrocuted. The plaintiff.paid:,to the dependants' of , Cor-' held the sum of £105' 135., as compensation, for. his dejithj; under the provisions", of the Vvorkmen'sn.Cqmpensatidn for Accidents ; Act, 1900, andifjis.jame'ndmeuts, and tho present action .was; by, tho plaintiff .to be indemnificd'.by .the; defondant company against the payment.;of such compensatip'n, also under tHo provisions of such Act. "The man .William Henry,.Corfield had been going under the name.:of..William Heiiry, Wilson, \ but one witness.stated that;.he ;knew.;his. proper nanic ■was .Corfield. It was agreed 'bjf counsel!on both sides .that-the Court should be asked to give lli'e: qiiestion 1 .- of liability of, tho .defendant company, in ■■ case the- identity, of; tbo ,nian. Corfield, "-with: the man whosa : had received' the compensation, should be established to the faction'-', of.'the" C.Qurti/-,and-.-.that,[in '■ case ■]udgmerit;ghould-.,ber-jji,.plain.tiff'jsrfayour', the plaintiff 'should'have"reasonable "time to obtain-, oyidence; .'on such ~pf < identity. ... It was: : oon.teiide'd:,6n ; behalf if'/the, defendant 'w.as 'notsufficient oyidence of- negligpnce on tHe f part of the defendant support "this faction,; : that there was^ ; .j ( uc'h' .contributory '.negligence on: the : part of Corfield as "would diserititlo'.'him to recover,damages; that .the wir.e was broken through the.'.actVofvaithir'd-'partyj.'.viz.j.tlie driver of'the .lorry,; and ;that'.such third party,• and not. the-defendant company,! was lia'ble the! provisions of "Sections Wto 63 "o£ Linos Act, 18&t.;-.the'driver of. the' lorry,- and riot', tlie 'defendant-- com'pany, was- liable for co'mpensaCion.'ii'l'-With. regard' ,to the'. ■ first point,-it appearedvto, His Hpnour that-.it! was the duiiy.'-of. pthe, company, .when a dangerqlis ..wire ; across road; to' !take care .that^i.t.'was.iplacedV.and'.maintained 'at such a;liieight jtliat it could'not" bo" touched by vehicles';'i)assing-along ; lpaded..at..such a height' ; that road might reasonably:: ti'e expected, 'to be' loacled:"- Fromthe .ovidenc.e, , .";]io.:;,gathered; thiit c the: usual and. propar,l:height: was; 18ft,.',abgve;,tlie road-v •way. r : The/.wire ■at this pjace,'.,;asj originallyput up by:,the'witness-Xirkland'(h6w long before , .':th^>';.accident'-''did. iio,t'.appear), ;was 21ft.; on pli'e'side of the road'and 16ft: on the other. , -side' from tho crow"n of the road. This ' witness; said-"there w.ould bo a .

sag. .in...-i/the,... ; wire. c.of -• about .-■ 18m. The local. bpdy. had, raided .the crown of Che road after the erectioii'of- the wire by from 18ih. to j 2ft., sbthatjU'e lowest part ..of this wire, making some ..allowance for. sag,, could hod ;have;. been- more than :14ft." above- ch<s roadway, as, raised. There wero.two wires at this place;;.one .of which.'was, loft standing at a .height.of-13ft. 9in., or 13ft. , 7ih. above the. ground,; and,-.that, wire,' as.'far as! th<! evidence wont, was untouched' by the loading on the.lorr.v.' It. SGCihed.to him fair .to presume that the.■ too which fell causing, the accident was somewhat.lower than the. , wire which', was left.standing. The raising• of the roadway' w.as done somecousidorahie -time., before the-accident,- and; m< his opinion, if such raising lincl'mado the height of the wire dangerously low,: ■the;.'Cdn'ipany- had ample time tp'remedy it, and ought'to have done so. f .I'Voin tho evidence adduced he was of opinion. that;iO'ft.'Gin.' was about the actual height of':th!e ;;wirbV; and this , , was .not suffi-. ciont. • Hb'was furtl)er of ,opin'ion..that it was on the defendant company to prove that the wire had tod lo\v for safety, without negligence '•on , ' their'. part, l ■aiid-Ko" was also of opiriioiT'that" they had not; succeeded m proving this." As to the question of contributory negligence, he.was of opinion that the defendant company, had failed there also. He-thpught]it : could not.be said for.a momeftl that a man like Corfield.V driving a :dray, was guilty;,of -contributory., negligence,' because he,, no doubt inadvertently, caugnt hold of a'wire'lyiiig ontho public highway, which became entangled with - the.wheel or Ins dray and his horses' feet, for the purpose of disengaging it.; As-to the contention that the defendant/company was. not liable be caiiso the'.')VirD>;as. Woken By. a "third party, he was of ;6pinio(V that that'fact afforcUxl no defence- in this case'.'. With regard to the ingenious defence raised under Sqctipns 60 to 63 of the,. Electric Lines Act, 1884, he was pf opinion ■thai; those sections, wore intondod to render; ; any,: person' who 'negligently or carelessly .injured electric;..wires liable to a criminal prosecution,, and that they did not in any way limit, the' "responsibility of an electric lighting company: for. injuries' caused by their misfeasance or nohfeasanco. ■ ;

■■Messrs.. Skcrrett and Weston appeared for plaintiff,, : ,(ind. Mr. .Myers for defendant company. ......' -.. ; A QUESTION OF TRANSFER,; : Sir Robert Stout gave his reserved judgment yesterday .in .the case of- Peers v M'Mcnainjn,. a question of land ■ transfer His Hdriottr> ■ stated that the posjl tion of .the ;-matter appeared to, be as follows:—A block-of land of which-the-.sec-tion in question .was a-portion lindi been subdivided s".into, lots and a plan deposited numbered.Bß3.,nart. of., section 9 Tpyn District of Island Bay. On this-plan there was n section or, allotment., called' section 26.This section ciilldd 26becanio vested in Mrs Peers. She'suhdivided-itr-by a line about the middle of ,tho>-sectidn.>from-north' to south, ajid transferred the westerly half to _Mr. SomervUlo. This transfer was dated

sometime'. iiLil9o6\ and a ccrtificiite/.of title }™s .issuer] to Mr. Somcrville on August 31. -IJO6. J his was after tho coming into operation of.the Public Works Compilation Act,. 1905.. The land was bounded on tho »«™ b/ Brook Street. This street was only W links wide. As the street was less than ..40ft. wide, section 116 of the Public Works Act applied, and before Mrs. Peers could have given a registrablo transfer to-Mr. bomerville she would have had to have mado tho dedication required in section 116 of that Act. - Mr. Somervillo, however, was the owner of land lying to the west of this portion of section 26, which.-was transferred to him, and "by a provision of section 116 the. -requirements of that section were not enforceable against the sale of land to the owner ofan.v adjoining land. Consequently Mr. Soinorvillo's transfer was registered. Mr. Somerville inow purported to sell, not all his land 1 which he had fronting Brook Street, but the subdivision-which, ho purchased from Mrs. Peers/and the question was whether this sale came .within.-...the words of section 116. There was no doubt that the transaction came within the mischief that the statute was passed'to remedy. The question is, did .the fact that Mr. Somerville held these two piece's'of'land-under separate certificates of title enable him-to grant the transfer without'- complying- 'with tlifi provisions of section 116* of'the Act? His Honour was of opinion that the fact that the,land was held under separate certificates, of titlo did not .enable. Mr. Somer- . ville to escape the provisions of " section 110 unless-he could prove the transaction-to bo within any. of .the exceptions mentioned in-that section or other sections. In ,, His Honour's, opinion he could'not-/, and"therefore/section 116 did not apply, and-a-, good' title could not be made to Mr. M-'Menamin. His Honour could not, therefore, decide that the Qistrict Land Registrar, was .wrong in refusing to.register the-transfer, and) therefore, tho ■ plaintiff had not - shown a 'good title, unless section 116 was complied-with.-Mr. Young appeared for. plaintiff, and' Mr. Duiih for defendant. ' '• .'. :• "