AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14224, 22 November 1909, Page 3

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

BANKRUPTCY BREACHES.

THREE MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT.

The criminal sessions' of the Auckland Supreme Court were continued on Saturday before His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper. The Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C., Crown solicitor, prosecuted in each case.

Arthur Ernest Tyer, for whom Mr. Mahony appeared, came up for sentence for breaches of the Bankruptcy Act. Mr. Mahony called Alfred Tyer, prisoner's father, who said his son had been 28 years in Auckland. Prisoner was a bad business man. He was a bad buyer and a bad 'seller. He was not capable of properly conducting business affairs, and witness had had to dissolve partnership with him to save himself from disaster. Prisoner never smoked, drank, nor gambled ; there was no vice whatever in him. The reason why he had lost so much money in such a short time was that he was a muddler. His honesty had always been beyond question. Mr. Mahony said the losses had occurred over a space of six months. The accountant who had examined prisoner's books did not seem to be impressed at all with his intelligence. Prisoner did not realise his position. He had not wilfully wasted or spent money; he simply had not in any shape or form grasped his position. Furthermore, he had been unfortunate in his second marriage, as shortly after that event his. wife had met with an accident, and prisoner had been compelled to pay heavy medical and hospital fees. Mr. Mahony therefore asked His Honor to deal with prisoner as leniently as possible. If it were not possible for His Honor to grant probation, would he make the sentence as light as possible and not introduce hard' labour? - - ■-■'. ■:_■■-

His Honor said it was not the usual practice to make use the Probation Act in a bankruptcy case. He did not mind saying that the judges had consulted on the matter and had come to the decision that the Bankruptcy Act did not apply. Only in one instance had he admitted a bankruptcy offender to probation, and then there had been special circumstances. He had considered the present case, and the evidence from the depositions did not disclose what was known as criminal intention. He would not inflict a heavy penalty. Prisoner would be sentenced to three months' imprisonment without hard labour on the charges, the sentences to run concurrently. MAORI AND PAKEHA. The hearing of the charge against Wharo Waiora of assaulting Harry Jensen so as to cause actual bodily harm was continued, when evidence for the defence was given by Whaka Waiora and prisoner's nephew, who both denied that Jensen had been assaulted. ■ ■--> ...-•;-; .-vo

; Mr. Tole preferred not to address the jury, remarking that there was clearly perjury on one side or the other. a His Honor said the case presented a sharp conflict of evidence. , What the jury had to determine was what set of witnesses to believe. If they could not decide upon this they would have to bring in a verdict that the , Crown had not established its case. ■ Possibly the prisoner Was more interested in the case* than the witnesses for the Crown, 'so that . his evidence might be more prejudiced. The jury would therefore have to watch with more caution the evidence for the defence than that of the Crown. It was, however, somewhat extraordinary that Jensen was able to go out rabbit shooting with his injured arm immediately after the occurrence and also to do it on subsequent immediate occasions before he got the arm set by a doci or. The whole trouble could perhaps have been averted by Jensen adopting a conciliatory attitude. Of course the assault had been a very serious one.- ;..;'.'. i ">\ "'■■'■:■:> r -K%"

,: The jury-retumed a verdict of not guilty; and prisoner was discharged. -■

A MISSING WATCH.

On charges of theft of a, watch and chain from a dwelling at Epsom and obtaining 10s by false pretences on July 20 last;, Walter Henry Grantham pleaded not guilty. From the evidence for the Crown it appeared that about a fortnight before the affair the prisoner was an inmate of the Salvation Army Prison Gate Home, and shared the same room as Sergeant William H. Morrison. At 7.45 o'clock on the morning, in question Morrison and prisoner went out and separated. Returning later Morrison found the watch and chain had gone. At about noon that day prisoner, under an assumed name, disposed of the watch and chain to a eecond-hand dealer named Laxarus.

The evidence for the defence was that the prisoner was at the home at the time he was alleged to have pawned the watch. His Honor thought there was considerable doubt as to whether prisoner was the man who had pawned the watch.,, The case was not strong enough. It would be better for the jurv to let the man go. The jury without leaving the box found the prisoner not guilty, and he was discharged. •