Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE COURTS-TO-DAY

SUPREME COURT.- CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) —A Youth for Sentence.— Samuel Alexander Lowis, who had pleaded guilty in the lower court to 4 charge of forgery, came up for sentence. Mr J. S. Sinclair, instructed by the Crown Prosecutor, said that the prisoner was aged 15 years and 7 months. His father had' had considerable trouble with his son, who had committed forgery on many occasions, and from time to time he had used his father's good name to obtain money oh goods and credit. Last year the father placed his son in Mr Axelaen's care, but that did not do any good, and Mr Aielsen had to send him home again. The vouth was reported as untruthful aoid deceitful. Mr Axclsen and the father strongly urged that t.he lad should be sent to an industrial school. His Honor committed the prisoner to the .Burnham Industrial School. —Motion for Leave to Appeal.— Mr H. Brasch appeared in support of a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Apneal for a new trial in the caso of Christina Barlow (convicted at the last criminal sessions on a charge of forgery) on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Learned counsel said that the application was made under section 446 of the Crimes Act, and referred to His Honor's charge to the grand jnrv, when he Baid that there was no direct evidence to show that the woman had anything to do with the forgery or the uttering of tho cheque. Mr Brasch submitted that there had been no attempt made to copy the signature of Alexander Murray, the name appearing on the forgeu cheque", and that there was nothing to show that the woman liad a guilty mind when she obtained tho blank chequo at Mosgiel. Learned counsel then quoted cases in support of the motion. On the evidence at tho trial it was not proved clearly even that the cheque was a forgery. His Honor: Murray swore that \'. was not signed by him, arid your argunun.'t that it was not a bit like his signature. Mr Brasch said that Alexander Murray was not an uncommon name. The Crown must prove in the first place that tho cheque was a forgery, and that only evidence they brought was that of Murray, who said that it was not his signature. xMr S. Solomon, K.C., instructed by tho Crown Prosecutor, opposed the application. He said that the verdict of a jury should not be upset unless it was demonstrably wrong. The fallacy of the argument 'for tho other side was that it was not a case of circumstantial evidence at all. It was the case of a proper deduction from proved facts. There was ample evidence to show that the prisoner actually took part in tho crime. He went further, and said that there was ample evidence to support tho deduction that there were two crimes committed by the prisoner and tho man Burns, who accompanied her to Mosgicl, of each 'of which crimes Murray was the objective. One of tho cases was an attempt, and the other a complete crime, and of each of these crimes there was evidence that tho prisoner was not only tho participant* but that she was the instigator. The- cheque was undoubtedly a forgery.

His Honor said the question was whether the applicant had made out that there existed a reasonably arguable ground on which il might bo contended that tho verdict wat? against the weight of evidence. In his opinion the applicant had not made that out. In view of all the circumstances ho certainly would not be justified in granting the present application, which would therefore be dismissed. —Preferred Gaol.— Christina Barlow then came up for sentence for not complying with the conditions of her release." The prisoner, wlkmi convicted of forgery at the last session*, was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence, on condition that she went to the Salvation Army Home. The .Matron said that the prisoner left the home without leave. Sho behaved herself while there.

Chief-detective Herbert said that the prisoner preferred gaol to the home. The Prisoner said she would like to know how long she had to stay in the home before ehe got a place. His Honor: You have to stay there for a period of two yeai-s. The Prisoner] Then I would rather go to gaol. His Honor: Then you are ordered to be detained for reformative treatment for a period of net moro than three years. DIVORCE. —Betts v. Betts.— Jessie Elizabeth Betts v. Albert Edward Augustus Betts. niotorman.—A petition for dissolution of marriage ou the ground of misconduct. Mr C. (.}. White appeared for tho petitioner, and there was no appearance oi the respondent. The petitioner, in her evidence, said that alio was married in the Hanover Street Baptist Church on the Ist of September, 1905. She lived with her husband in Dunedin for ahjut five years, and there were two children of the marriage. The respondent left her in February, 1911, and she obtained a eeparation order in May of tho same year on tho ground of desertion. She had heard since that he wan the father of a child the mother of which was a single girl. After further evidence His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute at the end of three months, the petitioner to have the custody of the children ; costs against the respondent on the lowest, scale. —Geddis v. Geddis.— Agnes Geddis v. James Geddis.—This was a petition for dissolution of marriage oa the ground of desertion. Mr 11. D. Bedford appeared for the petitioner, and there was no appearance of the respondent. Mr Bedford said that the parties were married on the 6th of December, 1839. They lived together in Dune-din for two vears and seven months, when the respondent was convicted of a crime and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He was released on" tho sth of November, 1904, and since tfcit time he had never communicated with his wife. He was convicted again for an offence on the 22nd of November, 1909, and had just been released. After evidence His Honor adjourned the further hearing until Tuesday next lor evidence of identification. CHAMBERS. Ro Donald M'Leod, deceased.—.Motion to confirm registrar's report (Mr Cook).— Report confirmed, remuneration accordingly, costs of solicitor of representatives to'-bo taxed by registrar and paid out of estate. . Re Jamen Logan, deceased : Hoslung v. White and others, Hosking v. O'Brien and others, and Hosking v. Mackenzie and others.—Motion to appoint representatives and for directions as to service (Mr Cook).—Order in terms of motion. Re Otago Iron Rolling Mills Company. Motion to dispense with notice (Mr Duncan). —Order in terms of motion. Bennie v. Stewart. —Motion for directions as to service (Mr Hanlon).—To be served on defendant. MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.) Undefended Cases.—ludgment was given by default in the following undefended cases:—James Alexander (Mr Brugh) v. David Wright (Caversham). for £3 As sd, ■with 12s costs; Dunedin United Furniture Trades Union v. James Torrance, claim | £2 3s 6d, -with costs (ss); Bertha Trelcar (Mr Callan) v. John Murphy, claim £6 lis 6d, with costs (£1 3s 6d); W. C. Gray v. Mabel Stanley, for 10s, costs ss; 'O. Christie and Co. "(Mr Mooro) v. Hugh Fer-gvs-on (Middlemareh). for 10s 6d, with costs (7s) ; Keith Rameay (Mr Aspinall) r. A, Forrier (Riverton), costs only (6&). CITY POLICE COURT. ( Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness. —Two first offenders, who did nob appear, vrcie fined 10s each, in i&JSuU* da..,WiTi. A think >d»»v>foA.aftk.

appear, was fined Ss, with the usual alternative.—Michael Anderson was fined 10s, in default 24 hours. Change of Charge.—George Mostyn pleaded not guilty to using obscene language in th 6 Excelsior Hotel bar.—Roderick M'Kenzie said that the maj\ oame in with another man between 3.30 and 4 p.m. on the 11th. He was refused drink by the barmaid, aiid afterwards, when witness told him repeatedly to go away, and sent for the police, accused made use of an obscene expression.—lt transpired at this stage that accused was not .in the bar when the expression was used, and a charge of being drunk and refusing to leave the premises was substituted.—Constable Eckford said that both men were under the influence of liquor, and accused was almost fit for arrest on «i charge of drunkenness. — Senior Sergeant Dart said that accused had previous convictions for aesault and robbery, and indecent exposure.—He was fined 20s, in default three days' imprisonment. Assault,—Alfred Payne was charged with assaulting one Geo. Loversedge at Christchurch.—Accused, who had been arrested by Detective Connolly, was remanded to' Christchurch.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19141215.2.35

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS-TO-DAY, Evening Star, Issue 15676, 15 December 1914

Word Count
1,455

THE COURTS-TO-DAY Evening Star, Issue 15676, 15 December 1914

Working