SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 113, 6 February 1920, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

A STABBING CASE SPANIARD SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS In the Supreme Court yesterday His Hfinour Mr. Justice Edwards continued tho hearing of criminal cases. A Spaniard named Domingo Carlos, for whom Mr. W. Perry appeared, was charged with having caused bodily harm to William Russell, proprietor of the Oxford Dining Rooms, in Dixon Street. Ho was further charged with having used obsceno languago on the occasion of the assault. Mr. J. Fulior was foreman of the July. Tho facts of tho case, as stated by tho police, were that at 8.15 p.m. on November 4 tho prisoner went to the Oxford Dining Rooms and asked to be served with tea, but was told that tea was "off." An argument took place, and Carlos was ordered to leave the premises, and eventually tho complainant opened tho door and pushed the man out. When in tho street the prisoner made use of obscene

languago, and smashed two panes of glass. Carlos then disappeared up Quinn's Lane, and Russell went in pursuit and closed with him. Russell received a stinging blow on tho left sido with a sharp instrument. Tho struggle continued and a crowd collected. A man wrenched the knife from the prisoner. Russell was attended by Dr. Begg, who found that a wound two inches and a half to three inches in depth had been inflicted. Russell spent two weeks in hospital, and another week in bed in his own home. Tho evidence given was the same as that tendered in the Lowei Court. Mr. Perry did not call ovidence, but addressed the jury, setting up (he theory that tho wound, was caused by the complainant falling on the knife during tho struggle with the prisoner. The jury, after a short retirement, brought in a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced ',to five years' imprisonment with hard labour, FALSE PRETENCES. Frederick Emanuel Simmie, for whom Mr. P. B. Broad appeared, pleaded guilty to the charge of obtaining a motor-car valued at ,£4lO from' William H. N. Amos by means of false pretences. Simmis represented that he had an account at the" Union Bank of Australia

(Palmerston North) and that his account was .£BOO in credit. While tho deal was being made, lie agreed to have the manager of tho bank telephoned as to bis credentials. This was done, and tho manager replied that he had taken over tho bank recently, and, as it was Saturday afternoon, he had no means ot, ascertaining the position. Siinmis then spoke to tho nwnager, and endeavoured to recall to his mind, without succoss, transactions which lie-alleged-had taken place during the previous week. Ultimately tho was agreed to, Simmw giving, a promissory note for X4lO, payable on demand. A few days later tho promissory note was returned, marked "no account,"

Mr. Broad said that tho prisoner left with the Second or Third Reinforcements, and prior to enlisting there <.as> nothing against him. He served in Egypt and Gallipoli, and was invalided home in 1015. Ho had boon kickfd by a mule, and his hoalth had suffered considerably. His military record was good, and his criminal career began after lie was discharged. It was evident that what he suffered in, his military service, bad un. hinged his mind. He had four previous convictions against him, one for Insobriety. one for receiving stolen goods, and two in connection with siotor-ear». He seemed to have developed a mania for stealing motor-cars. The man suffered severely in the influenza' epidemla of 1918. Counsel could not ask for probation, but thought that a lorn of reformative treatment would moot tho ends of justice. His Honour said that in spite of tfce excuso that accused's mind was unhinged by the effects of a kick from a mule, ac. cused could not be set at largo to con. tinue stealing motor-cars, Hie Honour then reviewed tho previous convictions against the prisoner, and faid that he would p\it him under the control of the Prisons Board, who would release him when they thought fit. Simmis was sentenced to reformative treatment for a period not exceeding five years.

BAG-SNATCHEft CONVICTED.

William Cornelius Bennett, a young man who was not represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty to a chargo that, on tho evening Year's Day, ho stole a handbag anil 3 contents, .valued at 245,, from tho person of Christina Thomson.

• Mr. P. S. K. JUeassey appeared for the Crown, and Mr. Evan Jones was foreman of the jury. The facts were that. the complainant (Christina Thomson) was icturmng from tho city on New Year's night to the Young Women's Hostel, at 115 Brougham Street, wliere she was -employed as a housemaid. Whilo going np soma steps sho saw the accused standing in a corner, There were two lights close by, and us tho complainant passed tho accused, the latter snatched hor handbag and made off down the street. Miss Thomson screamcd out, "Catch him!" and one John O'Donovan, a clerk in tho employ of tho New Zealand Express Company, gave chaso and caught up with tho accused. Four other men joined O'Donovan and the complainant, who had beon following in chaso, came up and -recognised accused, who was handed over to Sergeant Martin. Tho sum of 9s. Gd. in 6ilvcr was found Oh the prisoner, together with a farthing which the complainant recog. nised as hers. It had been in her possession for about five yean. Evidence was given by Christina Thomson, John O'Donovan, Arthur Harold Overend, Mark Levy, Sergoant Martin, and two others.

Accused gave evidence on ''lis own behalf. Ho said that on tho evening in question he went for a walk and got into a corner of th« street. He heard n lady scream, and immediately afterwards saw a man run past Jiim. He put out his hand to stop the man, but the latter brushed past, and witness gavo chase. Re'iieard another man Tunning behind him, but took no notice. He had to Rive up the chase, owing to a wound in his leg—a wound received at th# Dardanelles. Tyro men eame up to him and said: "What is jour gamo " and witness said: "What i? your gamep" They then asked witness what ho had done to the young lady. Later the young lady camo up, and asked if they had got her bag, and they replied that they had got tho man. Ho was eventually taken to the lock-up and rearchad, anil tli® Os. 6}d. was found in liia possession, The farthing was given to him by his little daughter ,before he went to the ,wnr. He knew uothing of tho lady's handbag. In cross-examination witness said that he. arrived jn New .Zealand in December, 1919. He was not on the steps that evening.

To His Honour, witness Raid that h« cot tho fnrthing before Is went to France. Ho was a married man and bis wife and children were in England,

The prisoner exercised his right of addressing the jury. Ho snid he had served seven years in tho Navy and 25 years in the Army. Ho analysed tho evidence and nppeared to bo at no loss for words.

Tho jury retired for about twenty-five minutes, and returned with a verdict of guilty. Bennett was placed on probation for two years, and was ordered to pay ,£4 18s., tho costs of the prosecution.

GUILTY OF BIGAMY. John Cairns Laverock and Mary Ellen Wolland were charged with bigamy.. It was alleged that on July 28 last at Wellington tlie accused wont through a form of marriage, Wolland well knowing that Laverock was already married to Mary Livingstone Johnson. Laverock v.as also charged with making a falsfe declaration to tho Registrar of Marriages in that he stated that be was a bachelor. Both .accuHcd pleaded guilty.

Mr. H. F. O'Leary, .who appeared for Laverock, mid that although the oiTcnco was a serious ono there wore certain mitigating circumstanccs. Laverock was married some seven years &go, at the agp

of 23, to a woman who wig almost 50 years of age, and that marriage, as might nave bceu expected, had not proved happy, more especially as tho woman was addicted to drink. ' Some time ago this woman stated that she intended to leave is'ew Zealand to go to a man, and Laverock thought that the (voman had left tho country, Laverock desired to take tho whole responsibility on his shoulders and lo clear tho accused WoU land of all blame. 9 ■

On behalf of Mary Woiland, Mr. C. H. Treadwell submitted that it wa9 a casp for mercy. There were certain unfortunate circumstances in connection with tho ca6o which had made the marriage desirable .from the point of view of the prisoners. Mary Holland believed that she was acting with propriety in going through tho form of marriage.

His Honour remarked that bigamy, like manslaughter, might be cither a most serious crime or n comparatively trivial one. In tlio present case there were circumstances which placed it in tlio second category, for Laverock had dona no wrong either to the woman who had left him,' or to the woman with whom he had gone through a form of ImuTinge. Tlio' making of a falsa declaration was, however, too serious a matter to be passixl over. He felt justified in this case in imposing eucli a fine as ho considered Laverock would bo able to pay and which would bo sufficient to weigh as a punishm?nt. Laverock was fined .£25, and allowed a month in which to find the I'ioney. Mary Wolland was > sentenced to i& hours'. Imprisonment, to .be .calculated from the opening of the criminal session —which meant that she was immediately set free. SERIOUS ASSAULT CHARGE FAILS. Martin M'Donough wag charged with having on Novembd; 7 assaulted Daniel Michael Collton so as to cause liim actual. bodily harm. The prisoner, who was represented by Mr. \V. Perry, pleaded not guilty,. Mr.< Evan Jones was foreman ot the jury. After hearing the evidence, the jury, without leaving their seats, pronounced tlio prisoner not guilty. M'Donough was discharged. DAMAGES FOR SLANDER Dy Telegraph—Press Association, Now Plymouth, February 5. In the Supremo Court, before Mr. Justice Sim, a jury 'found for plaintiff and awarded £15 damages ui a slander action brought by Thomas Simson and others, farmers, of Whenuakura (Patoa), against • John 'S. Pearce, farmer, of the eania place. A DANGEROUS CHARACTER / By Telegraph—Presj Association Auckland, February 5. At tlio Supreme Court Charles Spittle nnd James Edward May were charged with 'assault and robbery. The jury found May guilty, but was unable to agree regarding Spittle. \ The Judge'characterised May as a 1-017 dangerous character—one of tbo worst ha had seen for somo time. On a cliargoof the theft of a portmanteau, of which he had been previous* ly convicted, Mny was sentenced to two yeans' • hard labour, and for the assault nnd robbery ho received six years' hard labour, the sentences to be concurrent. \ ' , _________