LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1131, 19 May 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT,

TWO PRISONERS ON THEIR TRIAL. A JURY'S DIFFICULTY. "NO CHANCE OF AGREEING." Tho criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were resumed at 10.30 yesterday morning. In tho absence of tho Chief Justice, who was attending a meeting of the Prisons Board, Mr. Justice Chapman was on tho Bench.

Mr. T. Neave is prosecuting for the Crown throughout the sessions. Arthur Gifford Sinclair Isbister had been committed at "Wellington on charges of stealing a heifsr and a mare. Tho heifer was the property of Timothy Toomey, of Lower Hutt, and was valued at i; 2"105., while the mare belonged to Henry S. Burton, of the same place, and was said to be worth .£23. Mr. H. E. Leighton was chosen foreman of the jury. •■'■,, Prisoner conducted his own defence, and asked tho witnesses a number of questions. According to tho prosecution, tho prisoner took over from Toomey the lease of a property on which ho had had 20 or 30 head of cattle, and several horses. Tooraey, on leaving, took them all away except three or four. One of those loft was a black and white heifer, not discovered at the time of mustering the rest. It was admitted that Isbister sent a heifer to Toomey, and the latter returned it, as it did not belong to him. It was suggested for tho defence that there was an arrangement whereby the accused was to have the heifer in return for_ certain grazing. Tho prisoner sold at Ngahauranga a certain black and white heifer, which Toomey identified as his. The purchaser was a Mr. Footer.

In. regard to* tho second charge, it was alleged that Burton sent his mare to graze on prisoner's farm, and the prisoner, without having received any authority to do so, sold it to a Mr. Hancock at tho Hutt. ■ After a hearing of several hours, and a retirement of about an hour, the jury camo back into Court, and the foreman stated that they were unanimously of opinion that the prisoner was not guilty of the theft of tho heifer, but they could not agree as to tho alleged theft of tho mare, and there was no chance of their agreeing. His Honour sent the jury back for further consideration. Keturning again at 5.50 p.m., the jury, through their foreman, repeated their former statement, and wero again sent back. They had then been in retirement altogether 2J hours. After tho full four hours' retirement, the position was still the same, and his Honour therefore discharged the jury, and ordered a new trial.

SAID HE WAS "NON COMPOS." HIS WILL POWER-DID IT FAIL? William Ilaining, an elderly man, was charged with a criminal assault on a little girl,' and exposure. The' court was cleared and publication of evidence was forbidden. . Mr. Wilford (for the prisoner) suggested that the case should be dealt with on the depositions taken in the Magistrate's Court, and that it would not be necessary to call the witnesses. His Honour said that he would not dictate to the.Crown Prosecutor as to how he. should conduct his case. 'Mr..Neave declined to agree to the course proposed by Mr. Wilford. - ■ His Honour said'it was right that the jury should have' full information placed before them.. , ■ The defence set up by. Mr. Wilford was that'at the time of the offence the accused was momentarily in such a state that his mind could not be said to bo directed to the deed. .' Ho quoted Mr. Justice Day (Regina v. Baines): "If sjuch.a state, as not to know' the '''natures "of bis act, or not:to. know its wrongfulness, his act will be excusable." Counsel said tho accused was 66 years of age, and lived a'thoroughly, respectable life and brought un a family. He must have been, absolutely "non compos mentis" at the time of the offence. Mr. Neavo . contended that temporary imbecility was no. defence, if tho state was induced ,by a. man's own act, like drinking, as alleged in this case. Ho further submitted that the evidence showed that the prisoner knew that ho was doing, wrong. Tho jury found 'the prisoner guilty, and recommended him to mercy on account of his age and previous good career. Sentence was deferrell until 9.30 a.m'. to-morrow. The Court adjourned until 10.30 this morning, when the Chief Justice will again preside. .

TO-DAY'S BUSINESS. PRISONERS FOR SENTENCE. The following prisoners are to come up for sentence this morning:—Ernest Edwin Thompson, for attempting to procure a noxious article for an unlawful purposeFrederick Hunter, for criminal, assault: Charles Gurote, theft; Michael O'Brien Frank Voss, and Thomas Lane, theft; John Hackett, criminal assault. Other cases are to be taken in the following order: Annie Peterson and Edward Reynolds, alleged use of an unlawful instrument; Edward Reynolds, alleged supply of a certain thing for unlawful use; George Stewart Neish, alleged criminal assault; David Irwin, breaking and entering and theft. It is unlikely that all of these cases will be heard to-day. ■ MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) CHEF AT THE ARCADIA. "NO SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION." Henry Alexander North Webber, cook, of Thorudon Quay, Wellington, sued Jkatrico Amy l-innock, o£ tne Arcaij--Hotel, Wellington, to recover the sum ui 10s. alleged to be owing as extra wages for two weeks ended April Ti, in lieu of lodging accommodation while employed as chef. 'Mr. A. il. Hindmarsh. appeared for the plaintili', and Mr. G. Samuel for defendant. At the request of Mr. Hindmarsh all witnesses were ordered out of Court. Mr. Samuel asked that Mr. Pinnock should ka allowed to remain, as Mrs. Pinnock herself was hot present, and counsel required the assistance of s. mcone. Mr. Hindmarsh objected, and tho Magistrate rukd that Mr.. Pinnock must remain outside with the other witnesses. ... In opening the case, Mr. Hindmarsh said that the plaintiff Webber had obtained board, but not lodging on the premises, and the claim was for, an extra ss. a week, as provided for in Ihe Wellington Cooks' and Waiters' Award. Plaintiff, in evidence, deposed that he had been employed for two weeks. He was a married man, and, during bis period of employment, he slept at home. The question of accommodation had never been referred to, cither by Mrs. Pinnae!; or her husband, who had engaged , liintilf. On the first day on which he went to work Mrs. Pinnock had showed him a storeroom where lie could change his clothes, but, niter a couple of day?, he decided to change in the boys' bedroom i.j that he would not get his clothes dirty. There was a spare bed in this rerun, but plaintili' bad been informed tli.it it was occasional!; - occupied by Pinnock's brother. Ho (Webber) was only paid the ordinary award wage—,C3 15s. a week—and, when leaving, he had asked for the extra os. per wotk in lieu of accommodation. Mrs. Pinnock then repiiod that she could have found accommodation for him had slie known that he ? ished. to sleep on the premises. Defendant's husband swore that plaintiff had been asked, when engaged, whether he was married or not, and had replied: "I am married, and will sleep at home." Plaintiff could' have given him a bed at the hotel every night. He would not have been expected to sleep in a bed which had been occupied during the day. A rou;eabout. at the hotel stated that there was a bed which could have been occupied by tho chef any night. This witness also stated that, in one case, one bed served one mau during the day and another man during the nisht,

Another of defendant's servants, named Stewart, who supervises tho motor-car business, stated thn't lie slept in the basement, nnil Hint there was a spare bed there which plainlilT could have occupied; also a bed upstairs. This witness also swore that there were six beds in a room where other witnesses had stated there were only live. The magistrate warned him to Iw careful. "The beds have grown since yon came into the witness-box," remarked his Worship. At the conclusion of the evidence, his Worship remarked that he was satisfied that.no suitable accommodation had been provided for plaintiff. It was one of the first principles that servants should b? well looked after, and, if Pin nock looked after them as well as he looked after tho other part of the hotel, there would bo ■nothing to complain of. Mr. Samuel here asked if the magistrate would be willing to inspsct the accommodation before giving his decision. His Worship declined to do so, remarking that it would be useless to endeavour to judge by inspection now what the conditions had been last month.* His finding was that no suitable accommodation had been provided then, and judgment would be for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with Court costs 6s.

WHAT NOTICE SHOULD BE GIVEN? Alice Martin, widow, dairy farmer, of Upper Hutt, sued Guy, Williams, and Lake,'milk vendors, Elizabeth Sireet, Wellington (trading as tho Wellington Dairy Company) to recover the sum oi £U 19s. 5d., alleged to be owing on account of 1199 gallons of milk supplied to defendants between March 1 and 31, 1911. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. W. Blair for defendants. Defendants admitted having been supplied with 1099 gallons of milk (instead of 1199 gallons), but connterclaimed for .£7 ss. Gd., alleging that the contract was (according to custom) subject to a month's notice on either sk'.Cj ?;nl tsiat plaintiff had ceased supplying milk after one week's notice only. In consequence of this defendants'had (for three weeks) been compelled to purchase 40 gallons of milk daily elsewhere. This purchase had necessitated an increased cost of 2d. per gallon. Defendants therefore claimed such increased cost (amounting to £7), and also claimed ss. Gd.—a sum paid for repairs to plaintiff's milk cans. After hearing evidence, his Worship intimated that he would give his decision on May 25. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in ;.' the following undefended cases: —Kirkcaldie and Stains, Ltd., v. William.Nuttall, jun., 15s. 3d., costs 10s.; Townsend and Paul, Ltd., v. James V. Dyke, £i 10s., costs £1 . 75.; Meddows Bros and Taylor, Ltd., v. A. S. Hawley, £1 18s. 3d., costs 155.; Fredk. Geo. Boltou v. Tredk. M'Kinlny, £5 ss. 6d:, costs .£1 3s.■Gd.: Schlaadt and Co. v. William Nelson, ,£2B 9s. lid., costs .£2 Us.; Judd and Randell v. Albert B. Clarke, £5 12s. 6d., costs £1 3s. Gd.; H. J. S.Richard /v. B. Cave, Us., costs 55.; C. S. and P. Cording v..P. Pirani, ,£1 lCs. 2d., costs 55.; Wellington Harbour Board v. C. S. Bailey, ifil'Js. 6d., costs ss'.; tho Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. Jones and M'Gregor, .£73 10s. lid., costs .£1 Gs. Gd.; Alex. Eoss and Co. v. John Anderson, <£6 9s. 7d., costs ■JBl'-lSs. Gd.; W. M. Bannatyno and Co. v. Harold Greville, £U 15s. 10d., costs ,£1 10s. Gd.; Vacuum Oil Co. v. Alf. F. Roy, £1 175., costs 55.; Geo. R. Wilton v. Stanley Sawtell, £1 155.; 10d;, costs Gs.; Palmer Engineering Co., Ltd., v. J. Duncan and Sons, X2O 7s. 10d., costs .£2 Us.; the Empire Oil Co., Ltd., v. Murphy Bros., £2 Is. 3d., costs 10s.; John Norton v. C. A. Riche, 18s. 2d., costs .£2 Us.; J. Myors and Co. v. Geo. Forrest, .£32 9s. 4d., costs .£2 Ms.; J. Myers and Co. v. W. Frankfitt, .£23. Bs., costs .£3; Cyprian Edv;*rd Bridge v. William Wilkinson, ,£5 195., costs £1 35.. 6d.; Annie Pouting v. Geo. Glover, ,£2 os. 6d.,' costs ss.

*. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. "In the case of J. H. Playne v. H. D. Barton, a claim for £1 Is. "d., defendant was ordered to pay the amoUDt on or before Juno 1, in default three days' imprisonment. ■■Thomas Hjll was .ordered to .pay £2 7s'. Bd. to Thompson Bros, on or before June 1, in default three,days' imprisonment. JNo order was made in the following cases:—Cycle and Motor Supplies, Ltd., v. Stephen H. Malterson, a claim for £$ 15s. 3d.; Sydney Dromgooll v. Edward Barnes, £i!i 13s. 6d.

DAMAGES FOE.SHEEP WORRIED. (Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) Domingo Vealee Hobbs, farmer, of Ivhaudallah, sued William Rickford Collett, civil servant, of Ngaio, to recover the sum of .Ell iJs. as damages on account of plaintiff's sheep having been worried by defendant's dogs on several occasions between March 4 and April 12, 1911. Mr. H. E. Evans appeared for plaintiff, while defendant conducted his own case. For the defence it .was alleged that plaintiff had agreed to take no action if defendant allowed one of his three doys to be shot. Tho dog, it appeared, had been shot, but tho worrying went on. The magistrate remarked that, as defendant had made an assertion about the agreement, the onus was upon him to prove it, but he had failed to do so. Judgment ■ was accordingly given for plaintiff for ,£lO, with costs £2 3s

POLICE CASES. i James Bowers, a fireman off the Indra-iv-n-' mittcd that > Ivhil ° drun k- in \Vi lis Street, on Wednesday night, he had assaulted Charles Craik, and had afterwards resisted Constable Sejuire while the latter was placingaccused under arrest. On the charge of drunkenness, accused was convicted and discharged; for resisting the police, he was sentenced to A days imprisonment, and, for the assault, he was fined £i, with the alternative of seven days' imprisonment. \n order was made that half the fine (if recovered) should be paid to complainant, Whoso teeth had been damaged by a blow received from accused. Another fireman, named James Alexander Lyons, was charged with obstructing Constable Squire while the latter was in the execution of his duty. It appeared irom the evidence tbat,. ivhilo the previous accused (Bowers) was being arrested, Lyons had followed up, au3, in addition to inciting- Bowers to resist ha:l attempted to pull him away. A sentence 0 n l ' a , y ? "".PNsoiHuent was imposed. Daniel Bugloss, 22 years of age, and said to be-a_ recent arrival from Scotland bj tho lome, was convicted and discharged for drunkenness, and fined £3, with tii.. option of 14 days' imprisonment, for making use of improper language. The magistrate remarked that accused had not made a very good, start , in this country. Henry Kichard Balding pleaded E uiltv to a cnargo of drunkenness, and to a further . charge,ot procuring liquor durin" the currency ot a prohibition order. For the first ofcciica. he was convicted and discharged and, for the second, he was fined 205,, with the alternative of U days' imprisoninent. * A -first-offcnflino; inebriate, who had been remanded for a week for mr-R-al treatment, wnS ordered to pay 17* fid 'Iv per.Ms incurred, in default it hours , ' imprisonment. '