SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17096, 19 February 1916, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMIN'\L SESSION'S. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court, were resumed yesterday, before Mr Justice Stringer. Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., appeared for the Crown.

SHEEP STEALING. The hearing was continued of the case of James Patrick Rodgers (Mr Cassidy), who had pleaded not guilty to charges: —(1) That, on November 27 last, lie did steal s'ixty-cight sheep and forty lambs, valued at .CSO, Hie property ot Richard O. Dixon; (2) that he did receive the same sheep and lambs, knotting that these had been dishonestly obtained ; (3) that he did steal one sheep, valued at Cl. on October 31, the property of R. 0. Dixon; (1) receiving same, knowing it had been dishonestly obtained: (5) stealing sixty-one sheep and fourteen lambs on November -G valued at £34 10s. the property ot Marin acl like John Dixon; (0) receiving same, knowing these to have been dishonestly obtained. ' The evidence having been completed on the previous day, his Honor summed up. „ , r l lie jurv retired at 10. Jo a.m. and returned at 12.40 p.m. with a verdict of guilty on all counts. Mr Cassidy asked that accused might he admitted under the terms of the the Probation Act. He bore a good character, and counsel lie had been recommended tor probation. He had never been in trouble before, and his case seemed one coming under tho category of the Probation Act. His Honor pointed out that the Judges had hold that when the eudence of the accused was counter to that of the verdict of the jury, it was not a case for probation. Apart from that, his Honor did not consider the was one for probation. Mr Cassidy cited the Craythorno case, in which a fine had been imposed. He strongly urged that tho present was a case of a. young man who had made his first slip. Mr Raymond said that, the broad distinction between the Craythorne case and the present one was that- in the Craythorne case Craythorne had admitted the theft of two sheep, and had pleaded guilty to stealing them in order to got evc-n in respect to two that lie had lost. His Honor sftid that shpop-stealing was difficult, to prove, but this case had been clearly established. In ordinary circumstances ho would have felt it his duty to inflict, a long term of imprisonment, but ho was anxious to spare the accused the worse effects of Ins crime and save him from association with hardened criminals. He would accept the suggestion contained in the probation officer’s report. Prisoner would he sentenced to two years’ reformative treatment. If. of course, lie satisfied tho Prisons Board that under proper conditions he could be released earlier, then it would be for the board to act. NOT GUILTY. George Doyoll (Mr Malloy) pleaded not guilty to charges that, on January 1 last-, he did steal £9 from Patrick O’Connor, at Christchurch. Outlining the case for the Crown, Mr Raymond said that on New Year’s Day, O’Connor, an elderly man. went round various hotels, drinking, in company with accused and others. O’Connor had an amount- of money about him, and later he was robbed and assaulted.

Evidence was given similar to that heard in the lower court.

Mr Malloy addressed the jury and his Honor summed tip. The jury retired at 12.25 p.m. and returned at 1 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty. The Court adjourned to 9.30 a.m. to-morrow.

1> T CHAMBERS. (Before his Honor Mr Juslieo Denniston.) On Wednesday probate was granted of tho wills of the. following deceased persons:—John Furman (Mr Salter), Martin Bnurke (Mr Harper), Arthur Waters (Mr Moslev), Patrick Ryan (Mr Malloy). . . . , „ In tho case of Ollivier (Mr Acland) v. Greswcll (Mr Beswick), an order was made for £2 2s costs.

CIVIL SITTINGS. The following civil cases have been fixed for hearing during the civil sittings of the Supreme Court: —February 21, Irene F. lies (Mr Alpers) v. Ernest Stackhouso (Mr Beswick), claim £IOOO for breach of promise; and February 9-> Mary L. D. Marshall (Mr Raymond) v‘. Public Trustee (Mr Beswick and Mr Harper), revocation of probate.