AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14906, 3 February 1912, Page 8

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

OLD AND NEW OFFENDERS. ; PRISONERS SENTENCED. , At the Supreme Court yesterday, in its criminal jurisdiction, Mr. Justice Edwards sentenced a number of prisoners who had pleaded guilty when charged at the lower Courts. s ■ - William Brown, a ■ powerfully-built young man, who had committed "an assault causing actual bodily harm at Gisborne, handed up a statement which His Honor said amounted to a withdrawal of his plea of guilty, which could hot be permitted. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment' with hard labour. • Henry Westwood Brown, against whom there were three charges of obtaining money by means of false pretences, was represented by Mr. Singer, who asked the judge ,to extend '.. leniency to the prisoner, as he had already been in prison for six or seven weeks. His Honor pointed out that the man had obtained a greenstone tiki, valued at £70, well as several sums of money from farmers and others by falsely representing that he was a Government inspector of machinery. ; He. was sentenced to one year's imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to , be 'concur* : rent. ' ]' ■■ '' '""V. . . : .,;; James Charles Graham, alias Adolphus Charles Henry Williamson, alias De Martemar, alias Paul Mercer, a young man, who said he was-a, native of the United States, admitted that he had broken and entered certain premises at New Plymouth, and also that he had previously been convicted of theft. He was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour, and warned that if lie again came before the Court he would bo declared an habitual criminal. , An elderly little man, who had six previous convictions recorded against him for forgery, was; sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour for the same kind of offences committed at Gisborne and New Plymouth. He was also declared -to be an habitual criminal. ' .'■'*.,• . A respectable-looking lad named William Murdoch Law pleaded guilty to a charge, of delaying and destroying postal matter at the Thames in somewhat peculiar circumstances. Mr. J. R. Reed, who appeared for accused, said ihe was a postman, and on the day when he committed ' the-foolish act with which he was charged, ! he had a very large number of letters, in- j eluding 450 election circulars, to deliver. I He went his round, and thought he had delivered all his letters, but when he got home he found 27 of • these circulars remaining in his bag, and he foolishly destroyed them. ; ; Then ihe got frighteped, and went to the man who issued the circulars, owned up to his offence, and 1 said if lie were given 27 more he would deliver them as addressed. His Honor said he would not send * the lad to prison, but he | would have to pay £2 3s, the costs of the | prosecution. ; : But ;he warned all postal officials .that this was in nowise : a 'departure from the rule he had laid; down of , imprisoning ..anyone who tampered with postal letters with the. intention of committing dishonest acts. He' referred particularly to sealed packages or letters, and not to election circulars, although the accused's action in destroying sven election. circulars was extremely reprehensible, ! and the Postal Department had done quite right in instituting the, prosecution!; He was ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. A. man named James McLaren, who has no fewer than 16 convictions recorded against him, and who had- previously been declared ;to be an ;habitual ■criminal, but was recently released by the Prisons Board, wan presented on a charge of breaking and entering and theft at Waitara. He begged : that he should not again be declared to,: be ;an habitual criminal, but His Honor said that ,to adopt any other course would be to turn the whole system ( into a farce, and he would be arrogating to himself '" tfre;;functions";•. of '.the;"Prison 1 Board. The man was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and again declared to be an habitual criminal. ; A young man named William Woolley, whose case .was similar, except that his offence -had been horsestealing at New Plymouth, was again declared an habitual, although lie""'insisted that he never had a chance of leading an honest life, as he had been continuously hounded down. His sentence was 18 months' „ imprisonment with hard labour.

William Grant, charged with horsestealing at Tolago Bay, was stated to be a first offender, and as the police gave him a, fairly; good character, he was granted probation for 12 I months, on condition that ]he paid £2 '■ 2s costs, arid took out a prohibition order against himself. A good-looking native youth, named Henare Waiti, who admitted ', stealing % » horse, also at Tolago Bay, was also admitted to probation -for 12; months, and ordered to pay £5 costs.

CIVIL SITTINGS. SETTLING THE DATES. Mr. Justice Edwards, sat in chambers yesterday morning for the purpose of settling the dates of ~hearing for the cases standing on. the Supreme Court list, which appeared in our columns on * Thursday j morning. The following cases were adjourned until next sessions Minister; for - Customs Iv. Waihi Gold Mining Company, Charles D, Grey v. ' Linda Eliza Hadley,Lucas Shirley Maxwell v. Eugen Langguth, Michael Foley v., William McGowan, Cecil Robert Tynden Bell 1 v. William McGowan, - Ira George Parker v. Mayorj Councillors, and Burgesses of Mount Eden, Patrick Keaney v. George Sutherland and H. T. Hollick, H. E. Partridge and Co., Ltd., v. A. H. Nathan,- Helvetia Ostrich Company, Ltd.,> v. New Zealand Insurance Company, and Mary Theresa Burnand v. Robert Francis Searlfi. The case of Bond and Bell {Mr. Cotter) v, 3. Teasdale and Co. (Mr. Reed), claim £269 6s lOd ; for; goods sold and delivered counter-claim, £50, amount paid inferior' £406 16s 6d. goods not delivered, was settled out of' court. ' In the case of ' Ethel Ella Watson (Mr. Cotter) .v. W. "M. Fyffe, claim £200, it was. intimated' that, application would be made for a special jury. . The matter, J. Andrew Banna (Mr. Hanna). v. Harry i Rainger (Mr. McGregor), claim £200 and £4 18s interest, on a dishonoured p.n., was fixed for Tuesday next. The case of the New Zealand Loan and Mortgage Agency Co.. (Mr. Richmond) v.•! John Moore Bridsonj claim £215 lis 6d, goods sold and delivered, was put down to the bottom of the list. The action George Hamilton •= Grapes (Mr i Phillips) v. William Edward Robins (Mr! j Cotter), claim £115 and interest, money alleged to be due, £1457 10s damages'for alleged neglect, etc.; counter-claim £69 8s 9d balance alleged to bo due for wages was set down to be tried; without a jury on February 12, and that of k Archibald' Wallace (Mr. Richmond) v. John Snti cliffe (no defence filed), claim £1000 dam- ! ages for alleged slander, was fixed for February 9. The suit of the Auckland Veneer . and Timber Company, Limited (Mr Richmond) v. the Totara Timber Co.' Limited (Mr. Reed), claim £616 5s 4d, for services was placed at tho bottom of the list. . ' All undefended divorce cases will be dealt with next Tuesday, at 10.30 • a.m The suit of William Francis Inder v. Leah Lilian Inder, will come on next Monday as. will also that of John Devison Austin' v. Tannie Sutton Austin.;.. The case of John Chitty Clendon v. Annie Clendon and George Whitfield, will be heard 'on Thnrs. day. '