SUPREME COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume III, Issue 76, 13 March 1913, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

NAPIER CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (Before his Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout.) WEDNESDAY. AN UNNATURAL OFFENCE. James David Clifton was charged with committing an unnatural offence at Hastings on January 14th. The following jury was empanneled : John Henry Corne, J. L. Black, H. J. Law rence, Arthur Oliver, J. S. T. Ennor, R. J. Morrissey, H. Gascoyne. A. Burr, F. Jennings, R. W. Hansard, R. Crerar, and Percy Hansard. Mr. R. N. Hansard was appoint od foreman. Mr. Coinford appeared for the Crown and Mr. Dolan for the defence. After lengthy evidence had been taken and counsel for the defence had addressed the juyr. His Honour summed up very strongly against the prisoner. The jury retired to consider their verdict at 1.25, and returned at 6 p.m. yvith a verdict of guilty on the first count, i.c.. of committing an unnatural offence. Accused will come up for sentence on Friday. This concluded the criminal business before the Court, and His Honour proceeded to take the CIVIL CASES. CUTLER v. DIM DOPE. The first case was that of A, C. Cutler v. Alex Diindore, in yvhich plaintiff sued for the rccoy erv of £1 15 ■1 - alleged to lie due for wrongful dismissal. Mr. Dolau appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Hindniarsh Hr the defendant. The following jury was empanel-led-.-Messrs. L. Nelson. AV. Sneddon. G. J. Merritt. A. Hunt. T. James, G. Thornton. A. Coffin. W. Double. F .Simmonds. F. Freeman. Janies Douglas. H. R. Bull. Mr. Lionel Nelson was appointed foreman.

Mr. Dolan, in opening the case, pointed out that the plaintiff had b een appointed with his wife to the management of a business in Hastings. After about two months Air. Cutler and his wife were dismissed. He stated that the wife was caught by the threat in the street and also shipped in the face in the shop in front of her husband. It was also wrongfully stated that money for commission bad been misappropriated by Cutler or that he bad disobeyed orders, or encouraged his wife in defiant conduct.

The plaintiff, in the box. stated he had been 25 to 26 years in the drapery business. He accepted the management of a business in Hastings at £1 pt r week and 20 per cent, on the net profits. Expenses of removal of household furniture were to be born by Dinwiddie, and it was understood that a house was to be provided for 12- per week. An agreement was entered into and duly signed. A quarrel took place between Dimdore and Airs. Cutler in June. striking Airs. Cutler in t’ne face. His wife was dismissed and he was dismissed on Julv 6th unless he refunded monev taken foi- board and lodging, removal of furniture and fare for Airs. Cutler by the railwav.

Airs. Cutler said she had entered lie emplcv ment of the defendant on Alarch 23rd. I!) 12. She had received assurance from Dimdore that the freight on the furniture would be paid to Hastings, and that board would be allowed in place of paying overtime to Cutler. The defence put in a counter-claim amounting to £33 63. and alleged that Cutler’s misconduct was sufficient to justify his dismissal. The defendant. Dimdore, said managers of a business were never paid overtime. and he never agreed to make the cost of board a set-off against overtime. He never agreed to give the cost of packing and cartng of furniture to Airs. Cutler. Airs. Cutler had insulted him in the street and he fled to the shop. The Court then adjourned.