SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17661, 13 December 1917, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

PRISONERS SENTENCED

His Honor Mr Justice Denniston, presided at yesterday s sitting of the Supreme Court.

Various prisoners who had been committed from the Lower Courts came up for seutoncc. Mr Raymond, K.C., iepresented the Crown. FOUR YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT.

Albert Feat, convicted of an unnatural offence at Timaru. handed a written statement to his Honor. His Honor said that it was almost impossible to believe that it was Peats first offence of the kind considering the circumstances, and at any rate it was an offence which the law punished by a heavy penalty. At no far distant time, it was a. capital qftouco. Prisoner would have to go to prison for four yea s. BREAKING AND ENTERING. Henry Grant and Selwvn Georgs Tarbutt, two youths, convicted of breaking and entering at Christchurch, had nothing to say iD reply to tho usual inquiry. Tarbutt said that he wanted to bo a soldier. His Honor said Tarbutt would be ordered to return to Burnham, to remain there until he was due to go to camp. As for Grant, lie seemed extremely precocious, and it was impossible to have a- worse description of anybody of the same age. He would be ordered to he detained for reformative treatment for a period not exceeding three years. SIX MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT. William Joseph Gafroy, alias Williams, convicted of bicaking and entering, appeared in khaki. He handed in a written statement to the Judge. Mr Ravmcmd stated that there had been previous convictions, mainly for drunkenness.

His Honor said that he could not overlook the previous similar offences, nor could ho overlook the present offence because the prisoner had served with the forces. He would be dealt with indulgently because of that fact, however, and would have to serve six months’ 'imprisonment, only. CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.

In the matter J. R. Webb (Mr J. Dougali) and another v. Colin Cook (Mr Wright), Mr Mills appearing for beneficiaries of tho estate, tho summons was dismissed by consent, and an order was .made for costs to be paid out of the estate. In the matter of the settlement of William Wilson and re Wilson (Mr Meares) v. Stringer and others (Mr Raymond, ICC., with him Mr Mills), sanction was given to a sale of property as agreed. In Sarah Susannah Kruse and others (Ah- Acland) v. Thomas Foster and others .(Mr Cuningham), representing tho trustees of the estate of the late I). Kruse, and Air Alpers, representing the Public Trustee, agent for the widow of the testator, an application was made to varv an order made by his Honor in 1906. Air Acland said that the necessity arose through the defalcations of G. B. Ritehie, formerly a trustee of the estate of the late Diodrich Kruse. The widow was awarded by the Court, an annuity of £l3O, but the defalcations bad considerably reduced the income, from the residuary estate, and it was sought by the. plaintiff and others, daughters of the testator, that tlio annuity should bo reduced ,in proportion to the losses by the estate. Judgment was reserved. EASTER BROOK v. HOPKINS.

In the matter of Katherine Christina Easterbrook (Air Raymond, K.C., with him Mr Cuningham) v. William Allan Hopkins (Air Gresson), the defendant moved for a, new trial. At the original hearing of tho claim brought by plaintiff for £415 damages for alleged misrepresentation by the. defendant, the jury awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed. Air Gresson said that the jury recorded its verdict on the question of the representations made to the plaintiff, and he would address the court on two main points, namely, (1) “ 1 hat AFFedries’s business was a little gold mine,” and (2) “that it was one of the best iu town.” Air Raymond objected to the opposing counsel’s line of action on the ground that the points were not opened at the trial. Air Gresson submitted that the points were raised in counsel’s address to the jury. . . , His Honor said that the issues to bo submitted to the jury were agreed upon bv counsel* , . ‘Continuing. Air Gresson submitted that the statements made by the defendant were not in law repiescntutions. and were not subjects tor a verdict for damages. Alere puffery of commodities was insufficient. His Honor said that the surrounding circumstances had to be considered. Air Gresson also submitted that the damages awarded were excessive. His address extended over two hours. The Court adjourned to 10.30 a.m. the following day.