Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT

CHRISTCHURCH SITTING. CHARGE OF THEFT. tPer Press Association —Copyright). CHRISTCHURCH, February 9. A charge of theft, brought, against Norman Henry Thomas before Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court, rested on whether or not Thomas had paid £5 to Henry Wealleans from whom he was alleged to have stolen a receipt for that amount. It was, said his Honour, an extraordinary case. The charge i against Thomas was that he stole from Henry Wealleans a receipt for £5 purporting to be an acknowledgement that Henry Wealleans had received that sum from him. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr Donnelly, said that Thomas had left a house owned by Wealleans, owing £5 in rent. Wealleans had issued a summons for that amount, but on September 27, before the case was due to be heard, Thomas called on Wealleans with the summons, a statement of claim anu .some banknotes. After Wealleans had written the receipt, the Crown aiiegeu that some discussion arose as to stamping it. Thomas, it was alleged, took up the receipt and left without paying the £5. The question at issue, fundamentally, was whether Thomas had paid the £5, said Mr Donnelly, because if he did he was entitled, to the receipt. Wealleans, and Mrs Wealleans declared that Thomas did not pay the money. Thomas maintained that he did.

SENTENCES AT DUNEDIN,

DUNEJMN. February’ 9

Prisoners sentenced at the- Supreme Court sitting at Dunedin this morning included the following:—

Thomas Crisp, on a charge of intoxication in charge of a car at Oamaru, causing death; two months imprisonment. James Hall Morris, arson and also sending a threatening letter; two years imprisonment. Richard Geary, causing bodily injury while intoxicated in charge of a car; 2 months imprisonment. Francis William Meason, indecent assault; nine months reformative detention.

ACQUITTED OF MANSLAUGHTER

DUNEDIN, Feb. 9

The trial of John Edward McElroy, on five charges, arising out of a struggle at the Dunedin Police Station, When the accused was arrested for drunkenness, on Christmas Day, was concluded in the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Kennedy.

The happenings were alleged to have been responsible for the deatn of Constable James Butler, who assisted to place McElroy in a cell. After a retirement of four hours, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the major charge, and on two other charges, and of guilty on the charge of assaulting Constable Butler, so as to cause actual bodily harm, and that of resisting a sergeant and other constables in the execution of their duty.

The jury .added a rider that the actual bodily harm inflicted on Constable Butler was in no way connected with his death.

McElroy was remanded till tomorrow for sentence.

DUNEDIN, February 10,

In the Supreme Court John Edward McElroy, acquitted yesterday on the manslaughter charge, was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment for assaulting Constable Butler.

BLACKMAIL CHARGE.

ACCUSED FOUND GUILTY

CHRISTCHURCH, Feb. 9

Allegations of systematic blackmail over a period of four years lay behind two charges of making threats for the purpose of extortion, which were preferred against Joseph Dyer in the Supreme Court to-day. The jury found Dyer guilty, and Dm accused was remanded for sentence. The charges against Dyer were that ou November 1, 1933, and August 6, 1937, with intent to extort money, he accused the complainant of a crime punishable by imprisonment with hard labour for five years or upwards—indecent assault on a male. Mr Justice Nortkcroft was on the bench.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19380210.2.48

Bibliographic details

Hokitika Guardian, 10 February 1938, Page 6

Word Count
575

SUPREME COURT Hokitika Guardian, 10 February 1938, Page 6

SUPREME COURT Hokitika Guardian, 10 February 1938, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert