SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3132, 10 July 1917, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

PRISONERS SENTENCED

lu the Sunrcmc Court yesterday, tho I Chief .1 usticu (Sir llobcrt. Stout) lmd »<v loro him several urisoiicrs for sememe. Mr. l>. H. K. Macassey, of the Crown Law OUicc, auyeared for tho Crown. George Cooke. who pleaded guilty to h™ charges involving thirty-tour separate o - fences of breaking, entering and t licit, when asked if he had anything to say why sentence should not b<; passed upon him, handed in a written statement in which ho expressed regret. The aggregate value of the foods stolen amounted to £807. and of this about. £300 worth was recovered. Cooke had been previously convicted on two charges of breaking, entering, and theft at Palmcrist on North, anrt the same at Feildiug. and he, was ordered lo come up for sentence when called upon. He was also convicted of being drunk and disorderly, using obscene language, and reriisting tho nolice. ■In sentencing prisoner His Honour said: "You came before me previously on charges of breaking and entering and theft, lou wero associated at that time with a hardened criminal, and this fact was taken into consideration and you were leniently treated. You were ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. You will coiuo before me again to-morrow morning to show cause why you should not be sentenced on those charges." , .

Cooke was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on tho first charge, one year on the second,; nine months on the third, and six mouths on each of the other two, the terms to bo cumulative, tho sentences thus bein;; four years aud nine months. Thomas James Campbell, convicted . of■: false pretences (two charges) at Napier, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on each charge, the terms to he cumulative. In Dunedin quite recently lie wiib convicted on three charges, and His Honour intimated that if the prisoner came before tho Court again ho would be declared a habitual criminal.

Clarence Herd, aged 16 yea-j-s, for whom Mr. 11. P. O'ljcary appeared, and Edward Kruger, 17 years of age, for whom Jtr. T. M. Wilford appeared, were next put forward for senteuco. These two lads broke into a shed and stole some liquor. On behalf of Herd, Mr. O'teary said the laa had been in trouble in October laet, which would prevent him being placed on probation. The lad's homo life was very unfortunate. He was the eldest of a family of nine, and was tho only one earning. His mother was dead, and his father was a cripple. The boy's employer had come across from Blenheim to-e'ee what lie could do for the boy, who was a good worker. Henry Birch, the employer in question, stated that the lad was an excellent worker. He was willing to' take him back, and to keep him off the streets he would bo prepared to teach him mechanical drawing between the hours of six and eight p.m., when his father could meet him and take him home.

On behalf, of Ki-ugev, Mr. Wilford sail! there was no suggestion that the boys consumed tho liquor.. It was more in tho nature o£ a boyish adventure, probably tho result ot seeing some ot tho wild piclures at the picture shows. Kruger was employed by Mr. Ward, boot manufacturer, who was willing to take him back and givo him a, chnnce. The lads were ordered to come up for simtenco when called upon. Herd waa ordered to return to his employer at Blenheim, and to work lwtwecn tho hours of six and eight p.m. Both lads were ordered not to be on the streets after 8 p.m. Kathleen Jl'Gaskell, eighteen years of age, a machinist, and Elizabeth Grown, married woman, aged twenty-seven, who pleaded guilty to the theft of coats anil costumes valued at £26 17s. 6d.. tho property of James Smith, Ltd., were next placed in Hie dock. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for both accused. His Honour said Elizabeth Grown had been previously convicted of theft and false pretences, and had served six months' imprisonment. She was sentenced to twelve months' reformative treatment. M'Gaskell was placed on probation for one year, and was ordered to pay ss. per month towards the costs of the prosecution. A LONG-DItAWN-OUT CASK A civil action which had been prominently before the Court for three years—the case of M'Dougall v. Chapman—was announced yesterday as having been Dually settled. Ramsay M'Dougull, the plaintilT, a farmer, bought a property in tho Waikato from John Wells Chapman, who at one time resided at Johiisonville. After working on the property for a considerable time, Jf'Dougall decided that the deal had been misrepresented, and commenced proceedings for the recovery of £3OciiJ for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. Tho case was tried in WellinKlon in September, 1915, and judgment was given for defendant, but immediately after Itr. Wilford, on behalf of M'Dougall, moved for a new trial. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) allowed Mr. Wilford's application for a new trial, but Mr. Skerrett moved tho matter Ti>'o the Appeal Court for review of the uAgment given by tho Chief J«s« tice. Tho Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, and granted a rehearing, but M'Doiißall and Chapman met at Hamilton and signed an agreement of settlement. Ohapman later repudiated the agreement, alleging he was not responsible for his actions at the time he- signed it. M'Dougall thereupon commenced proceedings to recover wider tho agreement, and after several adjournments the case was sot down for yesterday. Mr. Wilford announced that the ease has been sottlctl, Ohnpmnn to pay £1200-£7OO in cash and »ssT?Stri)ce in six months. JtESERVED JUDGMENT. His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman delivered judgment in thn case oE David William Forinan (appellant) and Susan Onidduck (respondent.), an appeal against a decision of tho Magistrate at Mastcrton. His Honour 6aiil that appellant had been found by the Magistrate to bo the father of tho illegitimate child of tho respond«nT"'aiul was ordered to contribute Inwards the child's support. This decision was appealed against. His Honour, after rnmwlng tho evidence at length, granted the appeal, with costs to be tixed by thn Magistrate. Mr. A. Gray, K. 0., who appeared for appellant, asked if Formnn hat any redress for the money he had paid tKS Court uKSer tile decision of tile Magistrate. His Honour replied that thero was provision in the Statute for such.

In a further appeal case. Pqrmaii against Jones, die appeal was dismissed. Sir. 'P. It. Wilford appeared at the hearing for Susan Oradduck and also for ; Jones.