SUPREME COURT SITTINGS.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXVI, Issue 230, 2 October 1902, Page 4

SUPREME COURT SITTINGS.

Press Association. Electric Tetegraph

Copyright.

Hokitika, October U

The action Earle v. the King, a claim of £1500 for the loss of a leg on the Greymouth wharf 12 months ago, was concluded. A verdict was given for £800. On the point raised by the Crown Solicitor, in opening the case for the defence, that under the Bailways Act the Minister of Railways should have been sued and not the King,, Justice Denniston gave the Crown one month to consider whether they would proceed with the point. In default judgment would be entered up for plaintiff with costs. In the Divorce case Sarah Jelly v. David Jelly, of Auckland, a divorce was granted subject to the proper identification of defendant.

New Plymouth, October 1.

In' hjs address to the- Grand Jury, Judge Conolly commented on the yoath of the accused, the oldest of six being only 23 and two only 17 years of age. F. Copeland pleaied guilty to horse stealing and was admitted to probation for 12 months. H. L Parker pleaded guilty to theft, and was also admitted to probation for 12 months. The Judge commented on the negligence of informant in sending a large sum of money through the post without registration. J. H. Hooten was sentenced to two years for forgeryJohn Laydon, arson, was acquitted on the around of temporary insanity. The Judge directed accused to be sent to the Porirua Asylum during the pleasure of the Colonial Secretary. In the case of thefb of money by Parker, bank clerk at Hawera, the grand jury made a presentment that Muggeridge, Postmaster at Mauutahi, who sent the money to the bank through the post unregistered, deserved censure. Justice Conolly, addressing Muggridge, said he concurred with this view, and administered a reprimand > but he had no power to do more than disallow his expenses. This he would do.

DtJNEDiN, October 1.

In the SuDreme Court to flay the Commissioner of Stamps sued the City Corporation, tj whom valuable property in Princes Street for encouragement of rifle shooting was among other bequests, for stamp duty. The Judge decided on the first count that the Charitable Gifts Act of 1901 was not retrospective, therefore the Corpora tion v?as liable. Other paints were reserved* ''