AUCKLAND SUPEREME COURTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13834, 21 August 1908, Page 6

AUCKLAND SUPEREME COURTS.

CHARGE AGAINST A FARMER.

VERDICT 01" NOT GUILTY.

The trial' of a farmer named Ronald Souirtr, upon a charge of moving a quantity of main*,' knowing it to have '* > " stolen, was continued before Mr. Justice Edwards at the Auckland Supreme Court yesterday rnotning. The Hon. J. A. fole, K.C., Crown solicitor, appeared for (ha prosecution, and Mr. I. 31. Reed for th» defence. Further evidence was called for th« Crown, and Mr. Reed was proceeding '•> open the ease for the defence when His Honor intimated that it would be unsafe for the jury to convict. The evident against him was that of two Maoris, convicted of the theft of the maize, and unfortunately the} knew thai Maori-? did urneoct these stories in older to get themselves out of difficulties. The jury returned u verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. ANOTHER ACQUITTAL. Maximilian Day King, ioi whom Mr. Reed appeared, pleaded not guilty to a charge ot theft, as. a servant while acting in the capacity of secretary and treasurer to toe. Waihi Hospital Board. John Henderson, icrnirrly a trustee >>i the Waihi Hospital, stated that in 1907 he received a donation ot £20 from the Hauraki Engine-drivers' Union, which he paid over to the prisoner, and obtained a receipt tor it. Witness was elected a lite member of the Board in consequence, ami was relieved of the payment of tees tor himself and family. Subsequently his daughter became a patient at the hospital, and in month or two afterwards the prisoner resigned his position. A few weeks afterwards witness received an account for his daughter's expenses, and he thereupon produced the receipt. Questioned by Mr. Reed witness stated that the account was rendered from a record which had been kept by accused. Witness paid tin. £20 to hun in accused's own office, and while he was engaged in attending to his own business as bookselkv and stationer. William Henry Toy, who succeeded accused as secretary and treasurer to the Hoard, said accused attributed the non-entering of the £20 in the books as due mote to carelessness and bungling titan anything else, and later said he deserved to get into trouble over it. To Mr. Reed: The cash book and ledger were fairly well kepi, but he knew of one instance in which money had been entered as paid in twice. in the minute book mention was made of the donation made by Mr. Henderson, Thomas Gilmour, until recently chairman of the Waihi Hospital Trustees, also gave evidence, and stated that in his opinion, accused, in not having accounted for the money, had absolutely no intention of? fraud. His Honor observed that while there wan tho possibility of accused simply having made a mistake, as one ot the witnesses intimated, it was no use going any further. He asked the jury whether they desired to heat any more evidence. The jury replied in the negative, and returned it verdict of not guilty, upon which the accused was discharged.

THEFT FROM THE PERSON. John Ross, a man ot about 25 years of age, pleaded not guilty to a charge of stealing a watch, chain, and locket from the person of a man named Meldntm, and also to a further count of receiving the property. Mr. J. R. fiundon defended. The offence was stated to have taken place on May 6 last, and • evidence was i given similar to that previously tendered in the lower Court. The jury, after a short retirement, brought in a verdict of guilty on both counts. The prisoner, who had several previous convictions recorded against him, was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on each count, sentences to run concurrently. The Court adjourned until 10.50 to-day, CIVIL SITTINGS. LIST OF CASES. The following is the list of cases «set ? down for hearing at the civil sittings-, ! which commence before His Honor on, Monday next: BEFORE A SPEI7NL JURY OK TWKI.VE. Northern Coal Company, Limited (Mr. McGregor) v. U.S.S. Co., iamited (Mr. Hanna), claim for £1946 (#, rial.damage?*. ID '.FORE A COMMON JURY Of TWKI.VK. ■ John Darroch Bodle (Mr. Reed) v. William Henry Aghan (Mr. (ilaister), action for alleged breach of an agreement, and counter-claim for £1164, for alleged negligence. Complex Ore Refining Process, Limited (Mr. Walker), v. Mount Zeehan Cold Mining Company (Mr. Baslcy), claim for £160, alleged to have beer lout, and counterclaim for £1090, also alleged to have beets lent.

Donald McKenzic (Mr. Steadman) v, John Bray (Mr. Pan) and John Thompson I'iUibinnd (X.D.F.), action for accounts, and a counter-claim by John Bray tor £62't damages for alleged breach of contract. Preservaline Manufacturing Com pony (Dr. Bam ford) v. Alfred Beviii& and A. Southey Baker (Mr, Wynyard), claim for £1800 for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered. WIT] 10 VI A Jl-KY. Alfred Atkinson /Mr. Earl) v. Richard McKae Greig (Mr, Tunksj, claim for £155 17* Bd, principal and interest alleged to Ik? due on a cheque. Alfred Atkinson (Air. Earl) v. Richard Mcßae Greig (Mr. 'Links), claim for £2426 damage* for alleged breach of contract. Wright, Stephen,',o, and Co. (Mr. TunluO v. J, Adams and Co. (X.D.F.), claim lor £450 for alleged bieaeh of contract. Benjamin William Hamilton (Mr. Iteedjt v. William Henry Glove (Mr. Tole), e'aiir; for £200 for alleged trespass, and counterclaim for £404 10s <;..'.. Auckland City Council (Mr. Cotter) v. Auckland Electric Train Company, Limited (Mr. Coleman), action for £784 for alleged breach of deed and Order-in-Coun-cil. T. H. Hall and Co.. and Brown, Barrett, and Co. (Mr. Rueeell) v. J. H. Mackie (N.D.F.), action for accounts. Robert Elliott Grieve and others (Mr. Reed) v. Thomas Ilallott (Mr. Hesketh), action for specific performance, £2009, and interest. W. A. Ryan and Co.. Limited (Mr. Wynvard) v. Oldham and Walker (Mr. Reed), claim for £205 lfo 6d, amount <•; promissory note, and counter-claim foi £100 and return <>f promissory note. John Knight (Mr. Alison)*v. Peter Oilpliant (Mr. Battlcy), action for relief from forfeiture. Margaret Mille. Dufaur (Mr. Earl) v. Ernest Brothers Dufaur (X.D.F.), action for determination of partnership.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL. l'.fc>'UKr. A ,)t.KV. James MeMWleu (Mr. W. Fallon) v. Annie McMulleii ivbpoiident, and Arthur Powell co-respondent (Mr. Reed). BKIOUE THK JUDGE ALONK. Lucy Caroline Maxwell (Messrs. Earl and Kent) v. Christopher Freke Maxwell (Mr. Hesketh). George Ernest Shave (Messrs. Brookfield and Schnauer) v. Mar} Theresa Shave and Thomas Wright. Herbert Haslett (Mr. W. Fallon) v. Eva Haslett and Jame* Henry Evans. William John Monk" (M'>. Cotter) v. Alice Maud Monk and Walter Henry Gray*. John Eruett P&ton (Mr. Singer) v. Janet Mcintosh Pator and Harry Harky (Mr. Lundoti). Mary Jane C'oukon (Messrs. Reed &ad Bailor) v. Martin Coulson. William Galbraith (Mr.- J. R. Lundon) v., Clam Ruth Galbraith and John Petersen Benjamin Tom Pari* (Mr. W *K Hackett) v. Adelaide Mary Paris and Jessie William Nicholson Jane Elizabeth Brideson (Mr. Williamson) v. William Rrideftoo. Edwin Gibbs (Mr. Haekett.) v. Beatrice Marie Hollo way Uibba and William Mortimer. Eli&,.Wlh langw«ll (Mr. Haddow) v. Alfred Ernest LaoijfwelL .