AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13453, 1 June 1907, Page 7

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

THE PUKEKOHE ARSON CASE

SHORTT RECEIVES THREE YEARS.

The sittings of the Auckland Supreme Court, in criminal jurisdiction, were continued yesterday,, before. Mr. Justice Denniston. The Hon. J. A. To'e was Crown Prosecutor. George William Shortt, who was defended by Mr. J. R. Lundon,; denied a charge .preferred against him of wilfully attempting to set firo to tho Catholic Church and hall at Pukekohe on January 29. . ' In setting out the facts on which the prosecution was based," Mr. Tole stated that the accused, who was an engine-driver, and lived near Pukckohe, was seen by two witnesses (John Hogan and Edward Carroll) to • walk towards the Catholic Church late on the night of January 29. He gathered a quantity of light wood from a.hedge in the neighbourhood, and the two men, who con--1 stituted themselves watchers, heard the sticks being broken by' accused. A few minutes later they saw a light in the church, and heard matches being struck. Accused then came- out of the building, and briskly walked away, once stopping to look back. The light in the church appeared to go out. On reaching the Catholic hall Shortt looked in, } and then collected more wood, carrying it into the building, and setting fire to iv near the stage. When he left the hall Shortt •walked towards . the Presbyterian Church with a bundle of paper under his arm. Hedropped the paper when he found he was being watched. . ■• Evidence its to these facts was given by John tPompey, John Hogan, Edward Carroll, and Constable McGoverii. the three firstnamed stating that Shortt's behaviour was strange on the night in question, and ho ; was talking to himself, as a man who had been drinking. , The constablo said that when arrested the accused was dazed. Replying to Mr. Lundon, the constable ' stated that on account of information received ho had cause to specially watch the accused, who, it was alleged, was in the habit of setting fire to buildings. Counsel diew attention to a former charge against "accused of attempting to sot fire to the Manukau Hotel. *

The facts were not disputed by the defence, but Mr.. Lundon contended that as accused was weak-minded, and not altogether responsible for his actions, he could not be said to have wilfully attempted tho destruction by fire of the Catholic Church buildings. . Witnesses were called who knew accused, to show that he was generally regarded as mentally weak and Eccentric.

Accused gave evidence that ho was subject to fits of temporary insanity.

His Honor summed up. He remarked that the plea set up in defence was somewhat extraordinary, for accused ..vas able to do work and fit to give evidence on his own behalf. His Honor explained the law on the subject of insanity. Accused had get . firo to places systematically and deliberately, and did such acts show insanity? It was a serious defence to set up. : '

■: After a Brief retirement; the jury, returned a verdict of guilty. ,V,

His Honor said prisoner had been convicted cm the clearest possible evidence of deliberately attempting to burn down a church, and the ~ hall connected' with it. That, in itself was a very "serious offence, buttho defence set up that ho became in such a condition when he took liquor that the could not refrain from acts of this description was not creditable. ; "It is very clear you are not a person who ought to be at large for any considerable time," said His Honor. , • ,

; Prisoner was- then sentenced to three years' imprisonment. • . ■;' •

CRIMINAL ASSAULT.

. A SENTENCE, OF TWENTY MONTHS; , Arthur James Harris, 20 years of age,, the jockey who was found guilty on two counts af criminal assault, was brought up. for sentence. "■ ; ;j ">' '.-:.'•.;'-i; !;.■• '"';.' ,.-, -..'.. '',-1

In sentencing the prisoner; to 20 months', imprisonment, His Honor remarked that the findings, A the- jury: wore independent altogether of any question of the trustworthiness of the girls evidence.' The prisoner had received the benefit of the doubt as to the alleged offence in November and -as to the prisoner's responsibility for the girl leaving her ■ parents' house. The evidene© justified : the conclusion that the prisoner knew the girl's real age. "■■': His Honor agreed with the verdict of the jury. He regarded the offence as very serious. 'Prisoner was five .years older ,than \ the girl, and a grown man. He had taken advantage of his position in the house of the girl's father. It had been urged that the girl was an active party in the transaction, hut' the law had been framed to protect girls in like circumstances. . Prisoner had already been about four months in gaol awaiting trial.

'AN HABITUAL CRIMINAL.

OVER THIRTY YEARS IN GAOL.

John Thomas. Bennett, 55 years of age, and an old offender, pleaded guilty Jo a charge of having obtained goods,, valued at £18 4s 3d, from two persons at - Auckland by false pretences. Bennett handed. His Honor a written statement, which contained . ; what His Honor could only term the usual promises to reform. Recent legislation permitted him to deal with the prisoner as an habitual criminal. . He noticed that there was no provision made in the Habitual _ Criminals Act for proving previous convictions. ; , Mr. Tole said he could prove some of the convictions, and he called Detective Eollis. The latter said that in 1899 Bennett, revived a sentence of three years for forgery, md in August, 1904, a similar sentence for false pretences. . , t . # His Honor said there was also. prisoner's record, which dated from 1866, - when bo was charged with larceny, or beginning with the year 1877, no 'less than 30 yoars ago, when he was convicted, .18 convictions had been recorded against him, totalling 24 years' imprisonment. Prisoner appeared to His Honor to lie from some cause, possibly drink, an habitual criminal. Legislation gave him the power to order prisoner to be detained (luring. His Majesty's pleasure, in addition to any sentence that might be imposed. Prisoner was emphatically one of th» class of nien v for whom this legislation had been passed, a man who had lived by crime for over 30 years, and as he was now over 55 it m«ant that ho had been a crimi- \ nal from boyhood. His Honor then sentenced prisoner to three years' imprisonment, concurrently on each of the two charges, and as part of the sentence de- ' flared him an habitual criminal. '

SIX MONTHS FOR ASSAULT

A PECULIAR CASK.

•Tolin O'Connor, who was undefended, was charged with having assaulted Archibald iuintill on April 13 at Auckland, causing mm actual bodily harm. Archibald Quintall, a seaman on the cable steamer Iris, deposed that he was standing S£*r. a " Salvation Army gathering * at the "aitomata Hotel corner, when lie saw a person approach the gathering, and witness S'".'"«a not to interfere with the service. «» did not know who the person was. A V 7 nnnutes afterwards witness was struck ac li back of the head by somo person, ana he did not remember anything further until he woke up in the hospital. His hearing Had been affected by the blow. Witness was sobe«. Smoyn Quinrall, seaman on the Iris, and cousin of the last witness, said the accused went to interfere with the army serviec,. "lien the first witness remonstrated. Accused turned on the remonstrator,' and Punched him, .and when witness went to off a s a ° them another person pulled witness Herbert Andrew Muir, seaman, of Onc«*visa' „ clc Posrd that he saw the accused 41 , intal l on the hack of the head, wi ! att , cr fell at:ain=t the kerbstone, and ■naa to be picked up. Ho did not speak. Accu SC( i walked away. It was a deliberate

Dr. Aickin said Quintall was in a serious condition when taken: to the hospital, blood coming from the ear and nose. The-injury to the ear might he.permanent. %%.'■■ Constable Doyle said accused, whim arrested, alleged that, owing to - two sailors interfering with him, he struck one oil the head on two occasions; the second time ■man fell. '■■ », - ■ -'••-

Accused did not give evidence, but: addressed the jury, traversing the evidence. He declared that an attemept "was made to rob him, and he struck the men in return. - His Honor briefly summed up. The* jury returned a verdict of guilty of causing actual bodily harm. Prisoner was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

THE CIVIL SITTINGS.

-,: . A LENGTHY LIST. . The civil sittings of the Supreme Court are set down to commence on .Monday morning,: but the criminal calendar is not nearly completed. The following is the complete list, there being 45 cases:— ' CLAIMS AGAINST THE HARBOUR BOARD. Before tho judge and special jury of 1?: Shaw-, Savill, and Albion Company, Limited, v. Auckland Harbour Board, £15,000 for damages; James Baxter v. Auckland Harbour Board, £501 damages for alleged .Injuries received; Lawrence Mack v. Auck- ' land Harbour Board, £501 damages for alleged injuries received; Hugh Gilmour v. Auckland Harbour Board, £501 damages for alleged injuries received; William John May v. Auckland Harbour Board, £1500 damages for death of son; William Henry Smith v. Auckland Harbour Board, £1250 damages fo.. alleged injuries, received; Joseph Heloy v. Auckland Harbour Board, £501 damage for alleged injuries received; Carl Gustav Erikson v. Auckland Harbour Board, £600 damages for alleged injuries received. _ _ Before the judge and special jury of four: James Broen v. Auckland Harbour Board, £400 damages for alleged injuries received; James Wright Anderson v. Auckland Harbour Board, £300 damages for alleged injuries received; William. Hoile Brown v. Auckland Harbour Board, £84 3s for compensation paid and declaration for indemnity : George. Evans v.: Auckland Harbour Board, £100 damages for alleged injuries received Arthur John Johnstone v. Auckland Harbour Board, £150 damages for alleged injuries received; . Frederick 'Poynton v. Auckland Harbour Board,' £200 dam-, ages for alleged injuries received; Frank Langlcy v. Auckland Harbour Board, £200 damages for alleged injuries received.. ' OTHER CASES. ,- Before a judge and common jury of 12: George Shepherd Henderson v. John Michael McCarthy, £566 12s 2d for money lent, counter-claim for £496 7s 2d for amount owing; Patrick Quinlari v. J. G. Swan and Co., £1000 damages for wrongful trespass; Christopher James Parr v. Robert Frederick Way, £550- damages for alleged libel. : " , , Before a judge alone: Patrick Lynch and Margaret Lynch v. ■ Patrick ,Glee-son and Margaret Gleeson, execution of trusts declared by" deed and cancellation of deed of conveyance: Archibald McGregor v. John Kiley Median and John Newport Parkes-. issue, of . facts to determine right of goods and chattels.: Ellen Alice Malfroy v. William ; Theobald ; Ray : mond. possession of land; Turin. Paki and others v. Kenneth Finlayson and Annie Elizabeth Finlavson, decree for ownership of land and restraining from further proceeding, with annlication for certificate or title; Arena Tuhi ; and others, y, same, same: Grov Lynu Borough Council v. Assets Realisation Board, £63 13s for wor* done: Auckland Hospital and Charitable Aid Board v. Bay of Plenty Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, "-£93 lis 4d. costs of relief to inmate: Northern Estate Agency and Finance Company, Ltd., v. George' Frederick Brimblccombe. £146 for promts-, sory note; John Gregg O'Neill v. .Lewis O'Neill, action to remove executor, and- accounts taken; Edward Rule and Grace Isabella Rulo v. John. action for probato in solemn 'form;. Mabel .Barry v. Henry Holloway, 'Robert John Gwynnc, and Melville Henry Quick. £100 damages for .wrongful dismissal: Sarah Selina Westhcy v. Francis J. Halm, action for injunction or £200 damages: Charles Newman v. Auckland Farmers' Union, Ltd., £4161354 d. for work done;-John Abraham Hewitt v. Eliza Kate Jcphson, specific performance and £150 damages; Assets Realisation Board v. District Land Registrar, issue o e facts.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL. ; Before* ! a judge, and., common jury,:of. 12. '—'For*.'dissolution of marriage and -decrees nisi: Edward.' Maurice Burkhardt. (petitioner) v. Mildred Emma Louisa Victoria Burkhardt (respondent) and James Butler (co-respondent). Before a judge, . alone: Albert Henry Berry v. Mary Berry; George Thomas, jun., v. Edith Hargraves Thomas and Ernest Albert Tardieu; Mildred Murray, v. ! Sidney Alexander Murray; Charlotte Amelia Stone v. Bernard Martin Stone; Robert Herbert Davis v. Ethel Maud Davis and Robert Davis; Arthur Bellamy v. Charlotte Bellamy and; Patrick Mark Corcoran ■;'. Sarah Jane Prances Ncary v. Joseph Albert Neary ; William Dudley Stuart Crombie; v. Elizabeth Crombie and Lindsay John FredkOarmsoii. For decrees absolute and custody of child: Eleanor Hannah, O'Hanlon v. Frederick John .>■ O'Hanlori;; Catherine Watts v. Herbert John Watts.