LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1115, 1 May 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. YOUTHFUL BURGLARS, THREE MONTHS' HARD LABOUR. "Well, lads, I am sorry to see you here . . . but at the fame time I cannot let you out again seeing that you luivc been before tho Court previously in January and again in March." Such were the remarks addressed by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) U> two youths, Henry Sargent and Charles Henry Dixon. who were brought before the, niipremc Court for sentence on Saturday morning. The youths were arrested when living in a wlir.ro at the back of Brooklyn and were brought before the Magistrate's Court on charges of breaking and entering nnd theft, and theft from a dwelMr. T. M. Wilford said he had been asked by Sargent's parents to say a few words on his behalf. The boy's step-mother had come to tho Court and was prepared to answer any questions as to the good behaviour of the lad. She did not believe, and could not be convinced, that the boy had criminal inclinations or was wilfully desirous of crime. Mrs. Sargent thoroughly relied on the lad. Tho Chief Justice: "The report before me is to the effect that the boys had been living in a whare at. Brooklyn and -were apparently stealing to keep themselves." Mr. Wiiford: "That is what these cases often look like, your Honour. I think it was a case of sheer bravado and boys often read tales of derring-do and penny dreadfuls and imagine themselves men after the "Starlight brand,' without in the least being criminals at heart. It was a species of conceit." "Has ho ever done any work?" asked his Honour of Mrs. Sargent. Witness: "Yes—he always works. He was herding cows last." Proceeding, his Honour remarked that the boy had apparently got out of hand. He had been convicted nnd discharged on January 16 and was fined for theft in March. The Court could not let the boys out again in view of what they had done. His Honour sentenced both lads to thrco months' imprisonment without hard labour, and ordered that they be kept apart from and not allowed to speak to other prisoners. "If you come ud again," concluded his Honour, "you will not be dea.lt with so leniently. This is a last chance." FOR REFORMATIVE TREATMENT. A VICTIM TO GAMBLING'. The recent case of assault and robbery in Sydney Street,. in which a man was robbed of a sum of £ii, was revived on Saturday morning, when Norman Manson (alias Williams) came up for sentence. Mr. T. Neave, who appeared for the Crown, informed the Court that the prisoner had five previous convictions against, his name. Hβ had refused to give the police any assistance in recovering the balance of the stolen property (.£27). At first the prisoner had stated that tho money was stolen from him, but later admitted that he had lost it in gambling. In a statement to the Chief Justice, the prisoner attributed his downfall to gambling, and alleged that he had been used as a tool by bad companions. The Chief■ Justice, after scanning tho statement presented by the prisoner, said that Mausoii had iippavenllj 'been sending money to the totalizator, or whatever it was called—some gambling thing—"on the other side." It was a great pity, added his Honour, to tee a young man of 23 with such a score against his name. "Wo have a new Act for reformative treatment," continued his .Honour, "and 1 will see if that will have any effect on you. This will bo your last chance—l .will sentence you to eighteen months' reformative treatment." ' ■ . On the application of Mr. Ncave another order was made that the money found on the prisoner (.£l6 ISs.) . must ba returned to the owner. SENTENCE POSTPONED. A well-dressed youth named John Hayes, alias Noon, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of theft from a dwelling at Ngaio, was, at tho request of counsel, remanded until the next batch of prisoners comes up ■ for sentence. MISSING NEXT OF KIN. AN UNUSUAL CASE. An interesting case concerning missing next of kin was heard on Saturday morning, when a petition in connection with the estate of Thos. Bourke Mitchell, farmer, late of Belfast, Canterbury, who died in July, 1302, was before Hie Chief Justice (Sir' Robert Stout). At the time of his death, deceased was a widower 6i years of age, and left no children. His brother-in-law, Wm. Bourke, of Marshlands, farmer, made a statutory declaration as the next of kin of the deceased in which ho stated thnt he had known Mitchell from childhood, and that his (Mitchell's) father was married twice. By his first marriage, according to this declaration, he had a son, Wm. Bourke, and by his second marriage three sons, Matthew, John, and Thomas, and two daughters, Mary, now Mitchell, of tho United States, and Ellen, now Bourke, wife of Wm. Bourke. The petition was in respect of tho sharp of tho son John, who had not been heard of since 18S0, and tho son William. These shares amounted to ,£2OO each, exclusive of accumulated interest. The brother Matthew, writing to the Public Trustee from Ireland, denied'the existence of the first marriage and the issue thereof (his supposed half-brother William), and enclosed a certificate from the Rev. Maurice C. Power, of Enily, Ireland, hearing on the declaration made by Win. Bourke. Following on this, the solicitor to tinPublic Trust Office wrote to tho Rev. M. C. Power, in order to clear up the mystery of tho missing half-brother. A reply came to hand that lie had ssarched all registries and made inquiry of the old psoplo of tho country, but nothing could be discovered cf this marriage. On receipt of this letter, Mr. Bourke adhered to his former statements, and stated ho had la*t sesn William in 1543, and had heard that ho had subsequently enlisted for the Crimean War, and was heard of no more. Search had been made for the missing brother John in New South Wales,, but no trace of him could be found. The estate had been distributed long aeo, but the two shares in question had been reserved pending inquiry. Tho evidence in support of the petition was very lo.n?. His Honour finally adjourned tho petition for six months, and in the meantime directed that in lespect of John Mitchell two advertisements to inserted in the /'Catholic Times," Sydney, at intervals'of a-vweek, a;*l if no such paper is in existence, then in the "S_ydncy Mornins Herald." In respect of Wni. Mitchell, two advertisements at similar intervals be published in some paper published in Limerick. Tho question of a final ordeT could be considered at the expiration of six months. Mr- J. W. Macdonald appeared for the Public Trustee. JOHNSONVILC'i DRAINAGE. LANDOWNER V. TOWN BOAED. A phase of the Johnsonville Town Board drainage echemo was mentioned before the Chief Justice on Saturday morning in an originating summons case. Tho board was desirous of constructing a septic tank on certain property owned by James Foster, outside the town district, but tho owner of the land objected on the ground that tho Town Board has no; jurisdiction to construct the tank, ex-i cept within its own district. It lvasi argued on behalf of tho board that twe-; ,tion 279 of tho Municipal Corporations, 'Act empowered a local authority to do all things necessary for the preservation of public health and convenience. It v.as, further urged that the local authority! was tho solo judge, and that in deciding that a particular class of scheme should: be adopted it could not bo checked byf ■any outside person. TheUank in question was not the whole of the system but only part of it. /On behalf of the owner, it was argued :ihat "public works" as enumerated in tho Public Works Act did not include s-pptic tank. His Honour reserved his decision. Mr. !■'. E. Petherick appeared for tho Town Board, Mr. 0. Beere for the orncoi the land in question, and Mr. T. 2J.avo I for Uv? Crown, which hid been directed J to be joined as n partj,