SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 977, 18 November 1910, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

THE VIOLENCE OF A LANDLORD. AN ACT BY NIGHT. ■ A somewhat unusual case which came before his Honour the Chief Justice at the Supremo Court yesterday was one in which Robert Russell charged ■ with forcibly entering by night a ho'uso of which he was th» owner. This houso is a dwelling in Dawson' Street, Wellington, occupied by Albert Clemas. The charge further alleged that Riissell's intent was to intimidate the inmate's. Mr. T. Neavo prosecuted for the Crown and Mr. A. 1. Herdman appeared for ■ Russell. : Opening the case for the Crown Mr. Neavo stated that. the.affair had occurred on September 20 at or after 9 p.m. Some five weeks previously Albert. Clemas had rented the iiouse from prisoner's agent. Up till September 20 prisoner, had taken no part in the collection of the rent, it being collected by his father. The fourth week's rent had not been paid on September 20. Russell, senior, called, 1 in the morning and an arrangement was made that he should return in the evening. Mr. and Mr. Clemas waited up until about !).30 p.m., and then went to bed. Clemas would state that after going to bed he heard a knock at tho front door.' Tho' person who knocked went away, but soon afterwards there was a ' noise at the back door. Hearing a crash of. glass Clemas went through and found that Russell (the prisoner) had broken in through a window and entered the house. With much foul language Russell demanded possession of his house and payment of the rent. To a large extent,, counsel submitted, the explanation of this affair would appear to lie in the fact that the man had been drinking before ho came on thi9 extraordinary errand. It would bo intolerable if the law permitted a man to collect.rent or. take possession of his premises'in the manner attempted by the prisoner. Evidence for the prosecution .was given by Albert Clemas. Muriel Clemas," his wife. Constable Taylor, and • Sergeant Mathieson. ~-.... Mr. Herdman whil« not contending I that prisoner had'a Tight to'forcibly enter his premises, claimed.that no evidence of intention to intimidate the occupanip had been proved.' •■From the evidence of Crown witnesses, it vwas clear that • the prisoner had simply visited the house in pursuance of an arrangement. that the rent should be called for. . As owner of the property, ,the man had, a. right to visit the property for-such a purpose. His Honour, in charging the jury, remarked that this was tho first case of the kind of which he'. ha'd* heard during ■ a legal experience of forty years. To encourage landlords to put out tenants in the manner attempted by the prisoner would tend to. promote breaches of the peace. The jury, after a brief absence, returned a verdict of guilty. The foreman stated that the jurymen were unanimously of opinion that if the prisoner hnd not been intoxicated, tho offence', would not have occurred. His Honour, agreed that the occurrence had been brought about through drink. Prisoner would be admitted to probation. Within.' a /week ■ he. must pay £20 towards-the'costs of tho prosecution, and ho would be on probation for six months. During that time ho must not enter a hotel or drink alcoholic liquor. [ RECEIVED STOLEN CARGO. CURTAINS AND SUNSHADES. Alexander Taylor was charged with theft and with receiving stolen goods aboard a British ship on the high seas. In the indictment it was' alleged that, while the Turakina was at sea during the month of August last the prisoner stole . a quantity of curtains, sunshades, and umbrellas, valued at .£25 19s. 3d. , Mr. F. Kellv, who appeared " for ' the prisoner, stated that he had agreed with the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Neave) to enter, on behalf of his client, a plea of guilty to thesecond count of the indictment, that of receiving'. The plea'was accepted, and the prosecution for theft was not continued.. His Honour remanded the prisoner until Saturday next, for sentence. A CASE IN CAMERA. SENTENCE DEFERRED. William Lavery was accused of a criminal offence, against a girl fourteen years of age, committed at Wellington, in .tho month of September. ' ■Mr. T. Neave prosecuted,-and Mr. A. L.- Herdman defended the accused.- ~ Tho Court was.cleared and publication of evidence was 'forbidden. The jury was absent about two hours, and at tho "'expiration.of that period re- : turned a verdict of. guilty. ■ ■ Prisoner was remanded unfit Saturday for'sentence'.