LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1135, 24 May 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

-4 SUPREME COURT. LETTERS OF "TRUE FRIEND BILL' UP TOR DECISION. The criminal sessions were continued in tho Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honour the Chief Justice, Sir lictert Stout. William James Geddys Hughes was charged with obtaining from John 13. ,Blake and Elizabeth Blake, of Karori, on Juno 28, 1910, sums of money totalling £51 10s., by false pretences, viz.—by representing that he had money coming to him. Mr. T. Neave conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr. F. I'. Kelly appeared for the accused. In outlining the case for tho • Crown, Mr. Neave stated that- tho accused Hughes had obtained the money at various times from an , elderly couplo (Mr. and Mrs. Blake) residing at Karori, telling them that he had a sum of .£225 coming to him from a property in Wales. A property, continued counsel, had certainly been bequeathed to the prisoner's mother, and upon her death the accused was to come into possession, subject to the provision that he had issue of a lawful marriage. Prisoner, however, was not married at the time ho obtained the money. The value of the property also was below that represented by . the accused.

Elizabeth Blake, wife of John B. Blake, said that tho accused had told them that he had been managing a farm, that he wa.s looking for a property, that he had money coming to him from England, and that he was married. Accused v/rote to them asking for monetary assistance until he could, get something to do, stating that his wife had been ill, and that his money had gone to pay doctors' bills. A large number of subsequent letters rotating to various loans of money were also reao. to witness, who stated that they came f roni the accused. There were over thirty of them, and one 'was signed "Your t.rrr* friend, Bill." '

John Luiitist Blake, an elderly man, and apparently in precarious health, gave corroborative evidence. AVitness had interviewed Jlr. Eiddell, S.M., in consequence of a statement made by accused that the magistrate had witnessed a document of his relating to property. The magistrate had denied this.

Detective Andrews gave evidence as to the arrest. The witness afro stated that he had forad a letter on 'accused's premises from his solicitors, Messrs. LloydGeorge and George, of Pontvpridd, Wales. It was dated Juno 22, 1909, and it related to tho sale of a house in 'which he was interested. The solicitors stated that tho house was to come to accused after his mother's death on condition that ho did not die without issue. The opinion of the solicitors was that accused had a vested and saleable interest in the property if ho could prove that he had lawful issue. The present tenant of the property paid £9 a year rent. Tho value of the property was from £175 to £180, though several repairs would bo necessary to enable that price to be obtained. Tlio accused had also given him a written statement which, contained several admissions. He had further informed witness that he had been married in October, 1910. The case is proceeding.

WITHOUT RETIRING-NOT GUILTY,

George Stewart ?veish, a respectable, intelligent looking youth, was charged with having- committed criminal assault on a male, at Wellington on April 10. ,„,l\r r ' m Ca \ C r n mV !,lied thc Croivnthe defence!' *' *»™ mi for

Tho charge was heard with closed doors, and publication of the evidence was f'or-

vJS°,l'/ 'f'"'-',:' tho ,i"''.V returned a discharged Kmlt3 ''- am ' «"> accused was RETRIAL-AN ACQUITTAL. Arthur Gilford St. Clair Isbistor was charged with- the theft of a mare the prpperty of Henry S. Burton, of Wellington, rlus was a new trial, the junhaving disagreed last week when the case was .first heard. Mr. T. Ncave appeared for die Crown and Mr. Holmdeu tor the prisoner. At the previous hearing accused was undefended. Ihe evidence in the case was published on the occasion of the first hearing The accused owns a "small farm in the Ilutt district and ho grazed tho animal in dispute for Mr. Burton, at 2s. a week ' On March G it was alleged that he telegraphed to Mrs. Burton (Mr. Burton being away) asking what sum she would accept lor. the mare, and received a reply that <£25 would be accepted, but that the accused had better see her. interviewed her, and, it was alleged, induced her to sign a document purporting to be permission to sell for .£23. Mrs Burton, it was alleged, could not read. Ihe document she signed proved to be a receipt for 255.' on account of the 'ale ot the marc. It was alleged that tho series of acts of the prisoner to get somo form of authority to show that the mare was. his, and could be sold by him, constituted a description of theft. Evidence on similar lines as that at the first trial was given by Henry S. burton (plasterer), Mrs. Burton, Beatrice Mtirch, daughter of tho previous witness (who said that her mother could read though her sight was not good), Robert Hancock, hairdresser and tobacconist (who bought the mare from tho accused for .£l2), and Detectivo * Cameron, who arrested the accused.

His Honour said that the case was not one of ordinary theft. Before the jury could find a verdict of guilty they must come to the conclusion that the obtaining of the receipt from Mrs. Burton was a trick. The only point, against the accused seemed to be. that he sold a mare which he bought for .£23 for .£l2—assuming, of course, that he did purchase it at that price. After half an -hour's retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.