AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13781, 20 June 1908, Page 7

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

PRISONERS SENTENCED. • Three prisoners /were brought up for sentence, before Mr.. Justice Edwards, at the Auckland Supreme Court, yesterday morning. The Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C., Crown solicitor, appeared for the prosecution in each case. IN POOR CIRCUMSTANCES. The first prisoner dealt with was a voung man named Frederick Sherlock Jones, who had pleaded guilty in the lower Court to several charges of theft.. .Asked whether he ;. had anything to say in .extenuation, the prisoner handed in* written statement which His Honor perused. His Honor pointed out that the prisoner while suiting that he stole the first amount, because of want, made no explanation as regards the £8 and another sum which he stole in April and June respectively. The Prisoner: I was in poor circumstances at the time, Your Honor. His Honor: What did you do with the £8? The Prisoner: I sent £6 to my mother, and bought things with the rest. Jones was remanded until Thursday, in order that the probation officer might report. BREAKING AND ENTERING AND THEFT. The other prisoners were two. youths, named Ceo. Allen and Alt". Ooombes, who had been sent forward from Cambridge lor breaking and entering and theft. Mr. J. R. Lundon appealed on their behalf, and asked for clemency. It was, he said, Coombes' first offence, and was committed while lie was under the influence of drink, and partly at the instigation of Allen. He asked that he be admitted to probation. As to the other prisoner, Mr. Lundon said that from what the lad*s father said there was something the matter with his intellect. He had already been convicted for an offence. Allen was sentenced to one year's' imprisonment, while the other youth was admitted to probation for 12 months, on condition that he paid a portion of the costs. IN DIVORCE. A sitting in divorce was held subsequently. On the motion of Mr. Alexander, His Honor granted a decree absolute in the case of Maty Jane Peterson v. Martin A. Peterson. AX UNHAPPY MARRIAGE. A respectably dressed woman, named Mary Tobin, petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Herbert John Tobin, on the ground of misconduct. Mr. Wynyard appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner informed tlie Court that she was married to respondent in 1890, and had resided in various places in New Zealand with him since. Her life was not a happy otic. About the middle of last year her husband was arrested at Waihi upon a charge of obtaining board and lodging at Cambridge by false pretences, and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. Subsequently an order was made against him for the maintenance of illegitimate twins, which had been born at Cambridge. John William Brien (a warder in MountEden prison) and the mother of the children in question also gave evidence. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute at the expiration of three months, with costs against respondent.

AFTER TWENTY-NINE YEARS. Catherine Mary Akersten, for whom Messrs. F. E. Baume, K.C., and Prendergast appeared, also sought a dissolution of her marriage with James Akersten, a photographer. She stated that she was married to respondent in 1879, and lived fairly happily with him for about three- years, after which he started drinking heavily, and went to . the bad in business, He lost several positions through it, and ultimately she was obliged to shift from Nelson to Wanganui, where she kept herself and family by taking in sewing and keeping boarders. Her husband did nothing for three years, and she : had to support him. As he began taking things out of the house and selling them, and was generally intoxicated, she was obliged to remove to Auckland, and started keeping boarders again.- Her husband, however, followed her, and kept demanding money. He used to threaten her with a razor if she did not give, it to him. With the exception of £1 a week for six months, and 30s a week for another short period, she had not received a penny from her husband for the past 18 years. She did not hear from him for five or six years. At the end of 1906 she received a, letter from him asking for forgiveness. At the request of her children she, consented to his return, on condition that he gave up the drink. When he arrived here a prohibition order was taken out against him, and witness and her children provided him with material to cany on his business as a photographer. Ho got along splendidly at first, but as soon as the money came in gave way to drink again, and they paid his passage back to Wellington. She ' had not seen him since. Mr. Baume submitted that the fact. that the respondent misconducted himself on his return, about 18 months ago, revived the old offence of desertion, and he asked for a decree on that ground. Several cases were quoted in support. The decree, as applied for, was granted, with costs against respondent. A DISPUTED WILL. An action for the interpretation of a will was brought by Charles Murphy, a medical practitioner, practicing in Auckland, against Patrick O'Reilly and Patrick Brophy, for the interpretation of a will. Mr. Prendergast appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. McVeagh for the defendants. Counsel for the defence explained that the action was taken against the defendants as executors of the will of the late Sarah Anno McDonnell. The plaintiff was a nephew of the deceased, and in March, 1903, received a cheque for £100 from her, for which he gave an ordinary receipt, but did not say what the money was for. Under the will the deceased bequeathed her nephew a gold watch and chain, but in a codicil made four months afterwards she revoked this, and bequeathed him £100. The question at issue was. whether the £100 paid -to the plaintiff during the testatrix's lifetime was to be regarded as a gift or a loan. That the deceased regarded it as a loan was. he submitted, clear, from a letter to her solicitor at the Thames, in which die stated that the amount was a loan. Mr. McVeagh called evidence in support, and produced the letter and receipt in question. The plaintiff stated that he came to New Zealand in 1902, at the request of Mrs. McDonnell, she having promised him £500 with which to start practice in New Zealand. He went to the Thames, where he resided with his aunt. He was setting up a surgery when lie received the appointment of medical officer to the united friendly societies in Auckland. His aunt did not like him going, and, saying that she did not like to he selfish, gave him £100. She thanked him at the time for the care and attention he had paid to her on the voyage out. At her request for an acknowledgement, he gave her the receipt produced. 'She said that if he want'eel any more money when he got to Auckland, she would give it to- him. To His Honor: He could not say why he' made out an ordinary receipt implying a liability to pay instead of the usual acknowledgement of ''My dear aunt, 1 am very much obliged to you for your generous' gift. I shall never forget it." Several other witnesses were called. His Honor reserved his decision.