COURT NEWS

Grey River Argus, 3 October 1934, Page 8

COURT NEWS

(Pbf Press Association.) WELLINGTON, October 2.

The hearing is proceeding of charges of breaking and entering against Arthur and Mervyn John Cudbv, in connection with which the evidence of 21 civilians and one police officer was given at the previous hearing. Detective Robinson said that Detective Campin and himself had visited about sixty houses, taking with them tools found in the possession of accused, when arrested, and in forty of the houses they found marks in sonic cases consistent with having been made, and in others, actually made by- some one of these instru ments. Tn no case did they find any marks which could not have been made by some one of them. The hearing is proceeding. CHRISTCHURCH, October 2. Arrested at Knox Church, in the city, ou the eve of his wedding, John Varcoe, aged 20, labourer, appeared before Alagistrate Alosley this morning, and was sentenced to three months’ hard labour for breach of probation, and four months’ for false pretences. On a charge of making a false declaration to a Registrar of Alarriagcs, accused was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Tie pleaded guilty. The police said that he ordered donation-receipt books, representing he was collecting for the Ashburton High School Old Pupils’ Association, and canvassed in the city, collecting a considerable sum. He had previously been convicted of fraud. Counscel for the accused said he came from a well-known Ashburton family-, and had a fine record at school. he had suffered a serious illness.

Accident Damages

AN AWARD QUASHED. WELLINGTON, October 2. His TLonor, Air Justice Blair, to-day reversed a judgment that has been the subject of much litigation, originating from damages awarded by a Alagistraite against the employers of a lorry driver who gave a child of six a ride cn the running board, resulting in the •diild falling off and breaking its thigh. Judge B'air said that, in his opinion, the driver was properly convicted of negligence, but it was clear to his mind, in the circumstances, thait ihe employer was not liable. He allowed the appeal so far as if concerned the employing company, AlcC’utchcon and AlcCultehcon.