LAW AND POLIOS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10081, 17 March 1896, Page 3

LAW AND POLIOS.

SUPREME COURT. Bankruptcy.

Monday. [Befor« His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.J

ORDER OP DISCHARGE. ' Mr. Brassey moved that an order of discharge be granted to Charles Cullen, a bankrupt. The application stood over from a previous sitting in order that the bankrupt might be present. He was now present. Mr. Brassey said he had given notice to the principal creditor that this application would be made, and he said he should not oppose. Mr. Tole said he understood that when the application was last before the Court it was stated that the bankrupt had paid a considerable sum to the opposing creditor aud bought him off. Mr. Brassey said that was an error. What was stated was that a brother of the bankrupt had made the offer. The bankrupt was called and examined by His Honor. The offer of £25 to Mr. Ermin, the principal creditor, which had been made since the bankruptcy by witness's brother, and which was accepted, was the same offer which had been made before the bankruptcy. His Honor thought it was a c >se in which something should be paid to the other creditors. The discharge would take effect on payment to the other creditors of 5s in the £. Mr. Lundon appeared in support of an application for an order of discharge for James P. Lonergan. There was no opposition, and the order was granted.

In Chambers. ROB ATE. Probate was granted to the executor named in the will of Amelia Brown. Next day (Tuesday) being St. Patricks Day-a public holiday-there will be no sitting in Chambers.

Ik Banco. WRIT OF ATTACHMENT. In the case Region v. Annear and another, Mr. Tole, Grown Prosecutor, moved fur a writ of attachment against William Wylie, who is at present undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in Mount Eden Gaol. The charge against Annear and Gassells, one of forgery, was heard at Napier, and Wylie was an important witness, being subpoenaed to appear as a witness for the prosecution. He failed to appear, and was subsequently arrested in Auckland on a charge of theft and convicted; Wylie was now in Court, and although in custody of the gaoler he was not in prison garb. Mr. Tole detailed the grounds of the application. On the 6th of November, the accused was duly served with a subpoena to attend as a witness for the Crown in the case Regina v. Annear, and Cissell, charged with forgery at the Supreme Court, Napier, on the 11th February, that he was a material witness, and that he was duly called, and did not appear. Affidavits were filed by Mr. Humphries, Crown Prosecutor, Hawke's Bay. This stated that the cheque on which the forgery was committed was taken from Wylie's cheque book, that Wylie had been duly informed that his passage money would be paid; that the case was called on the 12th February, and Wylie did not appear. The accused were convicted. There was an affidavit of service of the subpoena on W ylie by Acting-Detective Bailey, another from Mr. Turnbull, Registrar of the Supreme Court, at Napier, that Wylie was duly called and did not appear, also a joint affidavit by Inspector Hickson and Detective Grace. The inspector said that Wylie had applied to him some days before the 7th February for his passage to Napier, alleging that he was a witness ill a case for forgery, but as he had not his subpeena to produce, he could not grant his request. Subsequently he received a communication from the police inspector at Hawke's Bay, and he sent Chief Detective Grace to find Wylie, and ask him to cill next day at the police office, when Ins passage would be guaranteed. Grace said hi his affidavit, that acting on these instructions he had seen Wylie on or about the 7th February, and requested him to call at the police otlice, informing him that there would then be ample time to reach Napier in time for the Court. Wylie said that Inspector Hickson had already refused him passage. His Honor said that applications of thi3 nature were made ex parte. _ Formerly they were under nisi jyi'iust which did not now exist here, but there was a difficulty in his mind whether the accused not have time to answer. The accused was in a peculiar position in regard to the motion, being now in gaol, and he had had no opportunity of seeing the affidavits. . Mr. Tole suggested that the writ of attachment eould be issued to bring him up on a certain day. His Honor considered that the man accused should be heard before the writ of attachment issued. Where there was a rule nisi, if answered at all, it must be by affidavit. The proper course would be to adjourn the motion, and then if there was no answer, it would be granted as a matter of course. . Mr. R«'ton. gaoler, announced that the prisoner wished to make an explanation. The prisoner stepped forward, and said he would like to make an explanation. His Honor pointed out that any explainsion should be in the form of an affidavit. He would, however, listen to it, as lie would to the remarks of counsel. He would not swear him. , , . . The accused then stated that he was subnceiueed to attend the Napier criminal sessions on the 6th of November. Thinking, then that his expenses were paid, he left it over until the sth of February, when he went to Inspector Hickson at the Police Office. He informed the inspector that he was sub* pceuaed to attend as a witness at Napier Criminal Court on the 18th, and asked if his passage would be paid. Inspector Hickson, he believed, said something about the subpoena, but witness hadn't it with him, and Mr. Hickson then told him that he had nothing to do with it; it was not in his district; that he (witness) would have to pay his own passage, but his expenses would be refunded to him. He told the inspector he had no money; but Mr. Hickson told him if he did rtot appear on the 10th February he would bo arrested and taken down as a prisoner. On the 7th he saw Detective Grace, who told him if he did not appear at Napier Court when called he would lie taken down as a prisoner. His Honor read Grace s affidavit to the accused, and ho agreed with its correctness, but lie said that it was on the evening of the 7th that Grace saw him. The boat for Napier had cone, and he ascertained at the shipping office that there would not be another till the 13th, and he did not know what to do. He had tried to raise the passage mouey, but could not do so, and he knew he was liable for a heavy penalty for not appearing. He wished His Honor to deal with the matter now. His Honor said if the accused s statement was on affidavit, it would be sufficient to show that his absence was not wilful. His difficulty was whether it could be taken as an affidavit, „ ~, , L , Mr. Tole thought His Honor could take the statement as an affidavit. _ . , His Honor said there was not sufficient evidence to justify the issuing of a writ of attachment, for taking accused's statement there was no wilful absence, and although it was alleged that he was a material witness, nothing further could ensue from his presence than the conviction of the prisoners, which took place without his evidence. The motion was dismissed.

POLICE COURT.— Monday. [Before Mr. 11. W. Northcroft, S.M.] Drunkenness.—Two first offenders were cautioned ; and John Shields was fined 10s, with costs, or, in default, four days' imprisonment. James Joseph Smith was fined 20s, with the alternative of 48 hours' imprison""resisting the Police.-Matthew Parsons was charged that he did, on March 14, incite one Timothy Green to resist Constable i Emerson, who was in the execution of his lawful duty. His Worship commented severely on the accused s conduct, and others of his kind, and said he was determined to put a stop to it. A flue of 40s, with the option of one month' 3 imprisonment with hard labour, was imposed. Alleged Fish stealing.— youth named James Robertson was charged with the theft of 's worth of fish, on March 13, the property of Edward Carroll. Drink appeared to be at the bottom of accused's troubles, and his Worship adjourned the case for one month to give him a chance to pull himself together and make a fresh start. Accused was ordered to pay 18s, witness fees, and 2s, the value of the fish. Larceny.—A middle-aged woman named Mary Ross, alias Mitchell, pleaded not guilty to having stolen one pair of trousers, valued at 6s, from the shop of Thomas Henry Roxburgh, and one jacket and one skirt, of the value of 6s 6d, from ths shop of James Hurley. After hearing the evidence of the owners, and Acting-Detective Quirke, the accused was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour. Remanded.— Alfred Tretheway, aged 15, was remanded until Wednesday, on a charge of having attempted to carnally know Margaret Frances Carroll, aged six years and four months. Education Edward Jones, John Connell, George Since, Thomas Chaplin, and Henry Putland, were charged, on the information of Mr. J, S. Small, Truant Officer, with failing to send their children to school. Connell and Sluce were each fined Bs, with 7s costs, and the remaining cases were adjourned. ■