SUPREME COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 February 1940, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

BOOKMAKERS IMPRISONED

“TISSUE OF FALSEHOODS’’

[PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

AUCKLAND, February 20. “If it had not been for your conduct in the- box, I might have per- : suaded myself to deal with your case, in your circumstances, not with a fine, -* but with some form of recognisance ’ which would have avoided sending you to gaol; but, by your conduct, you ' have precluded such a possibility,” said the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). « in sentencing Ernest Frederick McNeil, 26,. and Frederick Angus McNeil, 24, to imprisonment, on a charge of bookmaking, on the Ellerslie racecourse, on which they had been found guilty by the jury: Mr. J. J. Sullivan, appearing for the prisoners, said that the jury’s verdict was a tribute to the administration of justice, but he made a strong plea, on behalf of the young wives, that the punishment be a fine and not imprison- ; ment. The week spent in gaol had been a fearful experience, and the men were not likely to offend again, * with the prospect of■ imprisonment in front of them. He remarked that the Probation Officer reported the McNeils worked regularly, and did not mats a whole-time business of bookmaking. Sir Michael Myers said that despite a warning given to one of the prisoners, both had persisted in endeavouring to secure acquittal by a tissue of falsehoods. Fortunately, a jury of honest men had refused to allow themselves to be deluded. In the circumstances, imprisonment must be imposed, as a deterrent to the prisoners themselves and to others similarly minded to carry on an illegal business and to escape punishment by perjury. Each would be sentenced to imprisonment for three calendar months.

Sir Michael Myers subsequently requested Mr. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, to convey to the prison authorities his request that, during their confinement, the McNeils should be kept apart from other prisoners.

PRISONERS SENTENCED.

CHRISTCHURCH, February 19,

At the Supreme Court, to-day, before Mr. Justice Northcroft, on two charges of breaking and entering, George McDonald Hamilton was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. William Stephen Thomson (Mr. J. K. Moloney) was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for theft. His client, said Mr. Moloney, had been educated in an orphanage, and bad not had the advantages of an ordinary citizen. His Honor said that Thomson had been before the Lower Court several times on charges of dishonesty. James Mervyn Philp, on four charges of theft, two of breaking, entering, and one of receiving, was sentenced to three years’ detention in a Borstal institution, to be conceurrent with a sentence he is serving at present.

LESSENING DELAYS.

CHRISTCHURCH, February 19.

Much of the delay in litigation caused by cases not being set down for trial within the specified time of the session will be eliminated by the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 1940, which have been made by Order-in-Council and which came into force on February 2. According to a Gazette notice the Code of Civil Procedure set forth in the second schedule to the Judicature Act is amended. The main amending clause states: —

"Nevertheless if a judge is satisfied that the exigencies of the case so require he may at any time on the application of any party order that any action (except an action to be tried before a jury) although not set down for trial at any sittings of the Court, and without requiring it to be so set •Gown, shall be tried at such time as the judge in the circumstances thinks proper.

“Every application under this rule shall be made upon notice to all other parties.

“Upon making an order under this rule the judge may make such order as he thinks convenient as to the time for filing statements of defence, the place of trial, the time for service'of the order for trial, and any other incidential matter.”

A legal opinion on the effect of this amendment was that this was really an order to enable urgent cases to be dealt with notwithstanding that they were" not formally entered within the prescribed period before a session. It would result in the distinct speeding up of litigation. Some embarrassment had been caused in New Zealand, v.'here, with quarterly Supreme Court sessions, cases which arose just too late to be set down for the session, had to wait three months. There was the"other point, too, that there were occasions when the judge had time on his hands in which he could dispose of, cases to come for trial, yet could do nothing as the time formality had not been complied with. This amendment rave the judge power to bring the case even though the technical procedure had not been followed.