WAREHOUSE THEFTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1194, 1 August 1911, Page 3

WAREHOUSE THEFTS.

STOREMAN GRANTED PROBATION. ■' THE JUDGES REASON. In the, Supremo Court yesterday morning, Mr. Justice' Chapman passed sentenco on Ernest Charles Gregory, a young man who until Tecently bad been employed as a stoi'cman by Messrs. A. S. Paterson and Co. On Saturday last Gregory, who had pleaded guilty to theft of goods from his "mployers, was brought up for sentence, -ind probation was asked for on his behalf. His Honour then feaid he did not feel disposed to allow probation, but ho would take till .Monday to consider matters. lUr. T. NeritSj represented tho Crown yesterday, and Jlr. A. Gray appeared for tho accused. His Honour iaid that ho had carefully considered, the prisoner's'case slhw Saturday., His difficulty had been that he had uniformly sent to prison men who had robbed their employers as Gregory had done. This, course had been adopted not merely to punish the offenders, but because innocent persons might bo suspected of crimes such as Grcgoiy bad committed, and it was therefore, necessary that the Court should make a stern example of those detected. His Honour then went on to say that ho had decided to be "somewhat inconsistent" in this case, and admit Gregory to probation. This for two reasons: firstly, because Gregory was a young man, and, secondly, because .he had been tempted by an older mail who had somo pecuniary interest in corrupting him. Accused would hare to bear in mind, howover, that there was a mark upon him. He was no longer a man of blameless character such as he had been. Ho was permitted to c;o among his fellow men again, and it was to -bo hoped that tho stigma on his character would, in time, be effaced. Ho should make up his inir.d to livo an upright lifo in future in whatever part of the Empire he might be. If he left New Zealand he should not imagine that his guilt would be hidden, lor, nowadays, it often happened that the career of a person was known from one country to another by means of the police. His Honour proposed to sentence accused to a somewhat long term of probation—necessarily longer than his sentence would have been—and it was to 1)3 hoped that he would show some gratitude to the Court by living a reputable life hereafter. The sentence of. tho Court was that accused be admitted to probation for three years, and ho would have to make good tha loss which Messrs. A. S. Paterson and Co. hid sustained by repaying the amount (,£2 Bs. Bd.) in monthly instalments of 10a. CONTRACT MADE IN ENGLAND. "CHEVALIER BAELEY." "Even had I seen iny way to allow the defendants the right to challenge, the judgment of tho English Court, had the application beeu made promptly, I think that they have put themselves out of Court by their deiay in taking any steps in the matter." These remarks wcro made yesterday by Mr. Justice Denriiston, in delivering reserved judgment in the two cases of Montgomery. Jones and Co. v. C'orry and Co. These two summonses were for liberty to the plaintiffs to issue execution against the defendants upon two judgments obtained against them by tho plaintiffs in tho King's Bench Division in England for tho sum of .£1331 Is. 5(1. and J2GI7 2s. 9d. respectively. At the hearing Mr. W. 11. B. Bell appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. A. W. Blair for tho defendants. Tho plaintiffs arc grain merchants, carrying on business in Liverpool. Tho dofondants are a firm of merchants in Blenheim. On March 4, 1001), a member of the defendant's firm, Sir. John M'Kenzie, entered into an agreement with tho plaintiffs for tho sale of the New Zealand Chevalier barley crop, 1009, tho same to average a sealed sample put into tho hands of the plaintiffs tit a price of 30s. per 1801b. gross. Tho agreement contained a very stringent clause making it binding that the contract should be deemed to be mado in England for the purpose of proceedings (either legal or by arbitration), and that any parly to tho contract should be deemed to bo "resident in England," and that the service of proceedings upon- any such party should bo deemed good service by leaving I he same at the offices of the Liverpool Corn Trade Association, together with posting a copy of his address abroad. "This." said Mr. Justice Denniston. "is evidently a common form in the trade, and was intended lo forbid, in the most definite way. recourse to the Courts of the colony in any proceedings arising out of the contract." The defendants shipped tho barley in due course. As to three shipments, a dispute arose a-s to the quality of the barley. Those disputes were referred to arbitration in the terms of tho agreement. M'Kenzie instructed the plaintiffs to appoint arbitrators ou behalf of the defendants, which they did. In the arbitration and, in the appeal, defendants were (at M'Kenzie's request) represented by a partner of the plaintiffs. M'Kenzie was dissatisfied with the result of the arbitration, and appealed to the Liverpool Corn Trade Association, Limited, which disallowed the appeal. On June 8, 11)10, plaintiffs issued writs in the High Court of Justice. Liverpool JU 'aict, reriuiriujT defendants to enter an

[ appearanco within eight days of servico. These writs were served on the dale ot their issue hy leaving a true copy ot oach with the cashier nf the Liverpool Corn Trado Association, Limited, at Liverpool and, on tho same dale, a true copy of such writ was sent by post' to tho defendants at Blenheim. M'Kcnzie had left. England before those proceedings commenced, and no appearance was entered. On June IS, judgment for the amount of the awards was entered by default. On October 12 a memorial of this judgment was extracted, nnd was filed in the Supreme (,'onri of New Zealand on November 25. It war on these fads that the plaintiffs moved. The answer of the defendants was to . hallenge the correctness of the accounts on which the balance jyed for had been arrived at. "It. is quite possible," said his Honour, "that the defendants could, had they been actually (instead of merely constructively) represented at the pl-iee of service iii Liverpool, successfully defended the action. The service was. however, made at. the place ind, in the manner designated by them in the contract. They took no steps to r/ovide for tho contingency that should have been contemplated by them—thai is the absence of any actual representation by (hem. As all the proceedings i e, on their face, in order, and as, in fiy opinion, the defendants have not ."hown any sufficient cause against ihe giant of the summons I must make in each case the order asked for. It is admitted that certain sums have, since the judgment, been received •by plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant for which they were willing to give the defendant credit. I think that it should a condition of these orders that' there should be an undertaking that credit to the extent of the sums admitted shall be given. Subject to this the plaintiffs will have the orders asked for, with costs."