SUPREME COURT

Evening Star, Issue 16045, 23 February 1916, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

Wedkksday, February, 23. CRIMINAL. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) Robert tfiuharcls, who. pleaded guiltv at luparnn to assault causing actual bodily harm, tamo, up for sentence. _ Mr A. <J Ha.u!on, for the prisoner, said it could not be gainsaid that the assault was a serious one, because the evidence went to snow that prisoner kicked the man when ho was down. The unfortunate circumstance., .so far as nrisoner was concerned, was that lie took drink, and became more or less mad. As a result ->f his drinking habits he was some time ago nntd for assault and obscene language. Apparently when he kept away from drink prisoner was a hard-working young fellow. Learned counsel then read, testimonials as to prisoner's character.

Die Crown Prosevutor (Mr W. C. MaeGregor, K C.) said the police reported that prisoner's general character was indifferent. He was of a rowdv, quarrelsome disposition when under tlie influence of drink, but always bad sense-enough to pick his quarrels with old men or smaller men. Ho bad already been fined for as-KM-.lt. The present assault was a very bad one. It was brutal and unprovoked. Prisoner dragged an older and smaller man out of a billiard room, and kicked him, iniiicting serious injuries and rendering hint unconscious.

His Honor said that the assault was a very serious one, and the prisouer was fortunate in the fact that he did not have to answer it more .serious charge. It was a wonder lie did not .succeed in killing the man. His conduct seemed to bo that of. a cowardly ruffian. He might have been to some extent under the- influence of drink, but he must have known bo was behaving in a cowardlv wav indeed. Prisoner wculd be sentenced 'to 12 months' imprisonment. IX BANCO. —Family Protection Act.— In ro Isabella Fox, deceased (Fox v. M'Dowcll and another). Summons under the Family Protection Act. Mr Lee appeared for plaintiff, Mr Hjorring for the trustees, Mr Hanlon for Mrs Carson (one of the legatees) and for the. residuary legatee. Miss Carson; Mr Upham for M'Laren (one of the legatees and son of deceased), and Mr John MacGregor for Mrs Stewart (one of the legatees). The testatrix, Mrs Fox. died leaving an estate valued at' about £3,200. Her husband (the plaintiff), and her son by a former marriage (M'Laren) survived lier. Under her will she bequeathed a legacy of £SOO to Mrs Carson and Mrs Stewart, her sisters ; and £I,OOO to M'Laren. She bequeathed the residue of her estate to her trustees to pay the income to the plaintiff (her 'husband), and after his death sho bequeathed the residuary estate to Mrs Carson's daughter. Plaintiff now complained that adequate provision had not been made for him, and he applied under the Family Protection Act for an order making better provision for him. _ After argument, in which it was mentioned that Mr Hughes, widower of testatrix's deceased daughter, was likely to make a claim under this Act, which, if successful, would reduce the present estate, His Honor intimated that he considered the provision made by the will inadequate, and that it should' bo increased to £2 per week. His Honor then made an interim order for the payment of this sum to plaintiff as from the date of deceased's death; further consideration of the summons to be adjourned, with leave to any party to briny it on upon notice to the other parties. —A Chemist's Appeal.—

Alexander Bain, of Oanuiru, 'chomist, appealed against the decision of thcMagistratc in convicting him of selling Molondo wine, conlainin? over 10 per cent, of alcohol, without a license, in a No-license district.

Mr Lee appeared for the appellant, and Mr W. C. MaeGtcgor, K.C., for the respondent (Sergeant Stagpoole). Mr Loo said that the. point of appeal ■was whether the position of a chemist was the same in r, licensed district as in a Xo-liccn«o district. The Magistrate had found that so far as the sate was concerned a chemist was selling liquor for medical purposes, but he had decided that section 3. subsection I>. of tho Licensing Act, which allowed a chemist to sell fermented liquors for medicinal purposes, did not assist him, inasmuch as the. Licensing Act expressly provided in another portion of the Act to the contrary. Learned counsel then proceeded to refer to the section* of the Act. The object of the Act ivij that a chemist should be. permitted to sell liquor for medicinal purposes, and it was as necessary that liquor should ho sold by a chemist for medicinal purposes 'm n. No-license district as it was in a licensed district. Medicinally the requirements of the people in a- Xo-liecnse district were the same as in a. licensed district. His Honor: Probably greater.

Mr Lee : They may be, but not less. Learned counsel said that, the question was : Was it a. bona fide sale for medicinal purposes? As the Magistrate's decision stood, a, chemist could not, even on a doctor's certificate, sell alcoholic liquor. Mr MacCregor submitted that the judgment of the Magistrate was right. There was a separate code of law relating to No-license districts, and that code was contained in sections 146 and 147 of the Licensing Act. The. essence of that was that any person who sold liquor in a Xolieense district was liable to a penalty. The appellant in this ease had admitted that he was a person withbi a Xo-license district, and that he had sold liquor within that district. Therefore, learned counsel contended, ho had made himself liable, under seetio-i 146. -unless he could convince the Const that he had brought himself within .some statutory exception of the rule in that section. His Honor reserved judgment.