LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4397, 16 December 1875, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—IN Banco. Wednesday, December 15. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.] The ordinary weekly sittings in banco wore resumed to day. Mackf.vrla.me v. Lock iiart. —A rule nixi had been obtained for a new trial in this case. The action was tried at the last civil sittings of the Circuit Court, and was brought to recover the damages sustained by the wrongful and unlawful seizure by the defendant of the goods and chattels in tho estate of Robert Henry Bartlett, who was alleged to have committed at the time an act of bankruptcy.---Mr. Hesketh appeared to support the rule, Mr. Rees appeared to shew cause against the rule. The plaintiff is the trustee of the bankrupt estate. The facts proved at the trial were that the defendant held a bill of sale over Bartlett's stock-in-trade, &c. A. debtor's summons had been sued out against Bartlett, but on the day before demand was made, Bartlett executed a deed of absolute sale to Lockhart, and this, it was contended by the plaintiff, was done to defeat and delay tho other creditors, Bartlett being hopelessly insolvent at the time. Bartlett, in consideration of executing this deed, received an advance of £20, which it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff, was so small as to indicate the fraudulent intention. When Bartlett executed this second deed it was stated he was not in a fit condition to do such an act, a fact which was claimed by the plaintiff to shew that advantage was taken of such a condition to obtain, the deed, and by the defendant to shew that there was no fraud by Bartlett, the goods being in his order and disposition to invalidate the deed. The question of fraud or no fraud was left to the jury, the Court directing them that there was evidence of a fraudulent transfer. The jury,'however, found that Bartlett did not intend to defeat and delay his creditors, and that the stock-in-trade at the time of making the deed was not in his order and disposition. The motion for a rule for a new trial was made on the grounds—(l) That the verdict was against the weight of evidence ; (2) that the verdict was perverse.—His Honor refused the rule upon the second ground, but granted it on the first.—Mr. liees, in shewing cause, said that the facts proved in this case were strictly matter for the jury, of which they alone were the judges, and there must be some misapprehen-

sion or misconduct shewn on their part before he would upset a vsrdict given trpon matters ol fact proved. In a case where the facts were parallel with those proved in the case (Carstairs "r. Stein, IV., Maull and Selwyn, p.. 192), Lord Ellenborough, delivering judgment, said the question was not whether the verdict was such as the jury should hare given, but whether having been given it could be set aside. All the questions were questions of fact. There was allegation of misdirection, or that, though rightly directed, they had come to an erroneous conclusion. The questions being matters of fact, which it was the peculiar province of the jury to decide, the Court refused to upset the verdict. Even where the verdict was contrary to the opinion of a single judge, or different from that of the full Court, being a verdict upon facts, it could not be set aside. There roust have been some actual misapprehension, amounting to positive misconduct, before the Court would interfere. —Mr. Hesketh was heard in support of the rule. He was only called upon to combat the general proposition laid down by his learned friend, that in no case would the Court interfere with the verdict of a jury. Assuming the facts to have been admitted, if the jury upon them returned a verdict contrary to the common judgment of most men, would that be a good verdict, and would the Court in such a case refuse to interfere for the purpose of having substantial justice done.— His Honor : The same or similar facts may prove fraud in one case and not in another. Facts are the badges or indications of the intent which constitutes the fraudulent act. There is no doubt that at the trial I did feel very considerable surprise at the verdict, the facts, uncontradicted as they were, setting forth very strong badges of fraud. I think it would be in the interest of justice to grant a new trial, but I have been much impressed by the argument laid before the Court by Mr. Rees, and will therefore reserve my judgment until the next Court-day, in order that I may have time to consider what may be the right of tire Court in a ca°e of this kind.—J-udgment deferred accordingly. POLICE COURT.—"Wednesday. [.Before W. J. Hurst and J. Newman, Esqs., Justices.] Drunkenness. — Two individuals were punished in the usual manner for this offence. Vagrant Act. — Wm. M. Lloyd was charged with committing a breach of the Vagrant Act, by behaving in Shortlandstreet, on the 14th inst. with intent to provoke a breach of the poace. Prisoner not guilty. Sergeant Mulville detailed the facts which had led to his apprehension. Inspector JBroham said the man had a small quarterly pension, and on its receipt indulged in a series of carouses which generally resulted in his being placed in the Lunatic ABylum as a person of unsound mind. His conduct was good towards the end of the quarter, as he then had no money to spend. A friend was in Court who had expressed a desire to take him to "Waiheke if he were set at liberty The prisoner agreed to go away with his friend ; and after receiving a caution from the Bench, he was discharged. —Jane Jackson was charged with infringing the provisions of the Vagrant Act by being a rogue and vagabond, having no lawful visible means of support, and with having previously been convicted as an idle and disorderly person. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and said that if she were discharged she would at once return to her home in the country. Inspector Broham stated that the girl had been brought before the Court once previously, and she had then made a similar promise, which she had failed to keep. The Bench agreed to give her another chance, and she was discharged on condition that she left tho town immediately.

Larceny.—Thomas Hamilton and Michael Kildufi', two youths, aged 1G and 15 years respectively, appeared to answer a charge of stealing, on the l'2tli instant, a quantity of flowers, valued at 4s, the property of the trustees of the Presbyterian Cemetery. Mr. J. B. Russell appeared for the prisoners, and pleaded guilty on their behalf. He did not intend to set up any defence, as the offence was admitted, but would leave the case entirely in the hands of the Bench. The lads bore good characters, and the offence had been committed through mere thoughtlessness ; they were not aware that by plucking the flowers they were rendering themselves liable to punishment. He himself felt strongly upon the subject, and had any defence been set up, he should not have appeared for the prisoners. There could bo 110 palliation for this charge, but he trusted that the characters of the lads, the fact that they had already undergone a night's imprisonment, and that they had offended through ignorance, would be taken into the consideration of the Bunch. He hoped that the full peualty would be inflicted in the next chargo of that nature brought before the Court, and he -would himself appear gratuitously and prosecute all persons guilty of such acts of Vandalism as desecrating and despoiling the sleeping places of the dead. The public, however, were not fully aware that the law could be brought to bear upon the subject, and he trusted that a mitigated penalty would be found sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Inspector Broham said that although this was the first ease of the kind brought before the Court, yet it was not the first reported to the police. Crowds of lads promenaded the cemcteries every Sunday, and plucked flowers indiscriminately. After a short deliberation, the Bench said that if the lads were discharged at once, a false impression might be created in the public mind, and they thought, therefore, that the best plan would be to remaud the case until to-morrow. If the youths had been younger a private whipping would have been ordered them. The ca«e was accordingly remanded till Thursday.—Thomas Flaherty was brought up on warrant charged with stealing Ss in silver from the bar of the Aurora Hotel, Victoria-street, on the 10th inst. Tho prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge, but stated that he must have been drank at the time, as he had no remembrance of tho occurrence. He was very sorry, and had he been sober 110 was sure that he should never have thought of committing such a crime. In consideration of the good character which the man had hitherto borne, the Bench took a lenient view of the case, and only inflicted a sentence of one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

Education Kates.—John. Ray, Daniel Goodwin, and John Gallagher were charged with having failed to pay the education rate for the current year. On the application of Mr. Beale, the cases were adjourned till the 10th January. Industrial Soiiool. —Wm. J. McManus was charged with failing to contribute to the support of his child, an inmate of the Industrial School. Inspector Broham stated the facts of the case, and the prisoner having agreed to pay 3s per week towards his child's maintenance, he was discharged.