Supreme Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8038, 14 March 1905, Page 5

Supreme Court.

PALMERSTON—MONDAY,

(Before His Honor, the Chief Justice.)

The charge of alleged embezzlement of moneys belonging to the U.F.C.A.i preferred against Hamilton Sinclair, was concluded after we went to press yesterday. The jury retired at 4.37 p.m. and did not return till 7.45 p.m. when they found a verdict of guilty on the following charges .-—November sth £1 Ss idd, 14th 3s sd, 17th 14s Sd, 13th £r3s Id, 19th £1 0& 3d, 22nd 3s 6d, 24th ss, December Ist 3s sd, 2nd 19s 9d, sth 4s, 6th 14s, Bth 16s 9d, 9th 9s Bd, 10th £1 2s 2d, 15th £1 10s 6d, 22nd 7s 3d, 23rd 16s 4d, 24th 13s Bd, 28th £3 Bs, 29t4i 15s 9d. Total £17 los. A verdict of not guilty was returned on the counts remaining. His Honor in reply to counsel for the prisoner said he would deal with, the question of probation this morning and the Court adjourned till 10 a.m.

PALMERSTON—TUESDAY

The accused, Hamilton Sinclair and John Archibald, for whom Mr Moore appeared, were brought up for sentence on the charges of embezzlement on which they had been guilty. Mr Moore presented a petition asking for such- leniency as the. Court., could show in Sinclair's case, and he also presented credentials both the prisoners held from previous employers, showing that up to the preseot they had each borne good characters, nothing being set down against either of them up to the present.

The Eev. Sidney Baker also appealed for the clemency of the. Court on behalf of both the prisoners. Elis Honor, addressing the prisoners, said they were two more to be added to the already long list of those who had fallen through gambling, which was very prevalent in rrar midst. Seeing, however, that gambling was sanctioned by the State, it was evidently not regarded as an evil and the moral sense of the community was not shocked by the results of it. Both the prisoners, his Honor proceeded, were liable to very severe punishment, 14 years' imprisonment with hard labour', for each thing stolen. If the offences had not been continuous and, he believed, systematic, and if they had shown contrition by confession probation might have been granted, but he did not think the prisoners now came within the terms of the Probation Act. They, however, had been tempted by evils which society sanctioned and had lost their good names and positions. Though it was the first time they had been charged before the Court with an offence, they had not only committed theft but had also betrayed the confidence of their employers, and that was a more serious offence than theft. Ordinary theft was punishable by two years' imprisonment, theft by a servant was punishable by fourteen years' imprisonment. He hoped the present occurrence would be a lesson to them. The sentence of the Court would be a lenient one, nine months' imprisonment.

IN DIVOECE

Ada Younghusbaud (Mr Moore) v. Frank Younghusband. Petitioner, in her evidence, stated she was married on March 31st. 1536, to the respondent, at Levin. They livt«l there for two years and then wont to D>mnevirke, where they lived oilmen y> ars. There were three i-hiidren of the marriage living and four dead. Her husband left her six years ago. The police had made enquiries in Gisborne, where respondent was supposed to have gone, but nothing was heard of him definitely. Ho had not supported her since he went away.

Margaret Eraser, Dannevirke, gave evidence as to respondent's ill-treatment of his wife and also his non-support. A.decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months.

In the case of Martha Isabella Hill (Mr Hankins) y. George A. Hill (Mr Fitzherbert), wife's petition, an order was made for the amendment of the petition, and the trial fixed for the next sittings of the Court here before a judge alone. The question of costs was re- ] served. Selina Dobbs (Mr Fitzherbert) v. Jas. i Dobbs. Wife's petition. Evidence was given by petitioner as to her marriage with the informant, his subsequent desertion of her and eventually his marriage while a resident of Hawke's Bay. W. Matravers, Clerk of the Court, produced the certificate of marriage between the parties, also the depositions in the late case of Eex v. J. Dobbs, bigamy, and in which the latter was found guilty.

At this stage the case was set down tor the attendance of Constable Hattie.

ON APPEAL.

John Eussell (Mr Loughnan) v Geo. Miller (Mr Guy). This was an appeal from a decision of Mr Thomson, S.M. witn regard to the position of the dividing fence between the properties of the parties. It was alleged by the appellant in the Court below that the fence was erected on the original boundary line, while the respondent alleged that the original boundary pegs were wrong since they did not agree with the present certificate of title. After hearing legal argument judgment was reserved.

ALIMONY.

John Knight Richards, against whom an order was made at the last sitting of the Supreme Court for alimony at the rate of £1 per week, appeared before the Court on a writ of attachment, he not having paid any money since the order was made. The Chief Justice made an order for the payment of £2 off the arrears before this day month, and also that the expenses of the writ be paid before May 10th, further that at least £2 per month be paid off the arrears, failing.which, an order for imprisonment would be made. Mr Moore appeared for Mrs Richards.