LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1592, 8 November 1912, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

SENTENCES' PASSED. (By His Honour Sir Bobert Stout, C.J.) THE UNION OFFICIAL'S WATCH. ■ AND HIS EXAMPLE. Yesterday morning the Chief Justice passed sentence on several prisoners, who had. been found guilty at the criminal sessions during the week., Mr. H. H. Ostler appeared for the Crovrnr Fred. 'White, a seafaring man, who on Monday had been found guilty of stealing a'watch, valued at £2 55., from the person of William Smithyman, assistantsecretary of the Seamen's Union, was first placed in the dock. Mr. C. V. Goulter asked his Honour to admit White to probation. It wis true that his client had, during the hearing of the case, given evidence which was in conflict with the testimony of tho Crown witnesses, but he (counsel) submitted that White had honestly believed that he was giving a correct account of- the case. As, however, he had been in liquor at the time of the offence, his recollection was not clear. White, had already been in gaol for six weeks, and, if his Honour would take this into consideration, and admit him to probation, he would tako the first ship available, nnd leave the country. There was nothing against him previously. ■ .'.,. His. Honour replied that he could not accede to the request to grant probation because the prisoner had instructed his counsel to say that two of the witnesses for the Crown were committing perjury. His Honour then commented on prisoner's folly in wasting his money on drink. Smithyman, an officer of the same union as the prisoner, had set the latter a bad example by also being drunk. His Honour did not know wnether Smithyman was so very drunk that he did not remember, or whether he merely said that he "did not remember" in order to shield the prisoner. The fact remained that he had told a witness named Graham that prisoner took the watch. In, passing a sentence of four months' imprisonment with' hard labour, His Honour remarked that he was dealing very leniently with prisoner. THE MARTIN STREET AFFAIR. ASSAULT WITH A RAZOR. Mr. Goulter also appeared for Arthur Henry Widdas, a barber, who, had,been found'guilty of assault causing actual bodily harm. . A razor was used in the assault, and a corporation labourer, named Leahy, was rather badly injured. Mr. Goulter asked'if his Honour would extend the ; provisions of tho First Offenders' Act to':his ' client,, who, he claimed; was not wholly - responsible for the assault. that took place. Counsel pointed out that Ms client had admitted punching" Leahy, but the evidence did not make it.clear, how the razor camo to be used.' • The, Chief Justice remarked that this was another case of a man being addicted to drink. . There ; had teen a previous conviction for bad language—probably the result of drink also. ' The . offence for which, prisoner had now been convicted was V very'serious, one, and, if he had been tried, in Scotland, ho would pro.b'ably have received a long sentence. His 'Honour, thought, that it would be in the prisoner's interest that he should be sent to gaol for'some time, so that he could | get the drink out of. his system. Ho would be sentenced to nine months' imprisonment'with'bard labour. , UTTERED FORGED CHEQUE. MAXWELL GRANTED PROBATION. A' mill .hand, named George Maxwell, .who had been found guilty of uttering a forged, cheque, was next brought forward for sentence. Mr, Pi W. Jackson, on,behalf of Maxwell, stated that his-client had been in trouble in tho. Magistrate's Court on two occasions, but hot for auy serious offence. Counsel asked, his Honour to take into consideration Maxwell's previous good character, and to grant probation. His Honour: How does he come to have an-alias?

Mr. Jackson replied that it was easy for some people to get an alias. It sometimes meant nothing. • Evidence was then tendered by ono of Maxwell's former employers as to the character of the prisoner and his ability to do good.work; His Honour said that it was with some hesitation that he .would admit Maxwell to probation for .-'twelve-months. He had been guilty of a very mean action in endeavouring to cast suspicion on a mate, and might have caused the latter serious injury; A condition of thesentonce would be that he would have to pay all costs of the prosecution during the : first sis months, and refund the- value of the forged cheque (i£3 95.) in the second six months.. .... .- { "AN IDIOT-THAT'S ALL." ' '"-'■'■•' BANKRUPT GAOLED. Probation was refused in the case of the young man Edward Wilfrid Jacobs, who on Tuesday was'found guilty'of a breach of the Bankruptcy Act, in that he failed to keep, proper books. Mr. Qj H. Tell appeared for the prisoner, and asked his Honour either to grant probation or to merely record a conviction and order Jacobs to come up for sentence when „ called on. Qounsel submitted that the offence was really one of not keeping the books written up, and Jacobs had been busy at the time and worried.

His Honour pointed out' that prisoner had a knowledge of books, and could have kept proper books had he, desired. 'He would not pass a severe sentence, and he would not consider- the trouble Jacobs had pot into in Australia after leaving Now Zealand. The fact remained, however, that tho business had lost ,£5 a day, and Jacobs should have stopped long before he did, and so saved his creditors. Ho had been guilty of "stupidity and .extravagance, and was an idiot, that was all." ,:■"': . A sentence of two months' imprisonment without .hard labour was imposed, his Honour being of opinion that he_ could jiot admit Jacobs to probation . without, treating the Bankruptcy Act as a dead 'letter. QUESTION OF PROCEDURE, , - THE 46GRULE. ■ Rule 466 of civH procedure requires that statements of claim in actions for mandamus and tho like shall be verified by affidavit. The question was, sometime ago raised as to the form of thisveriiication, and in the Supreme " Court the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justice Edwards heard argument on the point.. The casos in which the question' arose wero those of Daniel Hnnnan v. the IkaToa District Maori Land Board; and Hannan v. tho Land Board and another. . Defendants moved to dismiss the actions on tho ground that the rule had not been complied with. At the hearing, Mr. Myers appeared in support of the motion, while Mr. -A. W. Blair, on behalf of the defendants, raised opposition. Reserved judgment was delivered yesterday morning. The Court held that there was a defect in the proceduro followed, but they relievo against the defect on payment of costs.