SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 9321, 16 June 1891, Page 2 (Supplement)

SUPREME COURT.

COURT 01)’ APPEAL. TUK EDWARDS CASK. WjiDME.HDAY, 27m MaY. (Before the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Rioh. mood, Mr Justice Williams, Mr Jubtioo Dennislon, and Mr Justice Conolly.) ATTORNEY-(JEN JIB AL V. EDWARDS,

Judgments in this caao were now delivered. The Chief Justice was of opinion that the general words of section 5 of the Supremo Oouit Act, 1882, were controlled by thn other proviaiena of that Act, by section 05 of the Constitution Act, and by the Civil List Act, 1873. Ho considered that Parliament in passing tho Supreme Court Act, 1858, had intended to c?arry out to its fullest extent possible the principle of judicial independence, which had beeu partly brought into operation by the Constitution Aot. It was, in his opinion, ft narrow view of tho Civil List Act. 1L873, to read it as ft mere Appropriation Act, and it should, ho thought, have the same effect as tho provisions relating to Judges had been incorporated in tho Supremo Court Act, 1892. Tho sections of tho latter Act as to tho salaries of Judges not being diminished during their tenure of office and providing for their superannuation allow, ancoa, showed on tho face of the Aot itself that it was not tho intention of the Legislature that a Judge should bo appointed before his salary had been provided for. It was, he considered, beyond question that no power had been given to the Governor to contract to pay a salary which had not previously been voted by Parliament, and it was therefore unnecessary to consider whether there bad been any contract in this case ascertaining and establishing tho salary to bo paid to Mr Kdwards. Ho doubted whether the facts brought before the Court established the fact that the practice in New Zealand in regard to the appointment of Judges had been in conflict with the principle that no appointment should bo made before the salary was ascertained by law. If, however, there had been any invalidity In any of the appointments made before the Aofeof 1882, that Aot bad validated them. In his opinion, tho appointment now in question was not lawfully made; no, however, tho majority of tho Court were of a different opinion, tho judgment of the Court would be for the defendant. Mr Justice Richmond said that if the case had depended upon tho question whether there had been an ascertainment of the salary by contract, he should have agreed that judgment would have to be for tho Crown. Ho could not have held that the promise of a Minister that a certain salary should bo paid amounted to an ascertainment and establishment of tho salary. Proceeding to the question whether the appointment was a legal one, notwithstanding that no fiialary had been oatabtablisbed, ho said that no trace could bo found ia the Constitution Act of any intention to limit tho Governor’o power of appointing judges, or to enact that in future no judge should be appointed unless his salary should have previously been provided by the Legislature. Tho question must bo do termiued upon the colonial legislation, the English law upon tho subject being useful only by way of illustration. There wore six colonial Acts affecting the matter, namely—tho Supreme Court Aot, 1858, and the Supremo Court Act, 1882, and tho four Civil List Acts. He could not agree with the contention that the Civil List Acts were in pari mutoiia with tho Supreme Court Acts. They were mero money Bills, and did not affecc the constitution of tho Coart. Tho House of Representatives might have objected to any Interference with them by tho Legislative Council. There was nothing, ho thought, in the Supremo Court Act itself which had the effect of controlling the plain words of section sof that Act. He was, therefore, of opinion, that the judgment of tho Court should bo for tho defendant. Mr Justice Williams considered it clear the provisions of tho Aot of Settlement and 1 George 111. were nob in force here at the time of tho constitution as a separate Colony. There was in tho Constitution Act nothing to takeaway the general power of appointing given by the ordinance of 1841, which was, however, subject to a refusal by the Legislature to provide a salary. The Supreme Court Aot of 1858, had re-enaoted the general power of appointment contained in the Ordinance of 1841. the only material alteration of the law being that in future appointments were to be during good behaviour. The general power to appoint judges given by that Act, had not in his opinion been controlled by the Civil List Act of the same year. Section sof the Supreme Court Act, 1882, was no more than a re-enactment in slightly different terms of tho provisions of the Aot of IBSS. Tho appointments of Mr Justice Chapman and Mr Justice Richmond had both been rondo before their salaries had really beeu ascertained by law. Those of Mr Justice Gillies and himself wore ia the same position. It could not be said that a any of these oases there had been any real infringement of any constitutional con. veotlon or principle, but nevertheless the appointments had been made before salaries bad been actually provided by law. It was said that a general power of appointment in the Governor was destructive of the independence of the Benob, There were two answers to that: first, that the Court could not mould legislation to suit its views ; secondly, that there wore checks upon the exercise of the power of appointment, namely the power of the Legislature to refuse a salary and the power to remove on address of both Houses. He held it clear that there was no power in the Governor or Executive to pledge Parliament to.vote a salary, and that Parliament would bo quite within its rights in refusing a salary In any case in which it thought an appointment annecessary or improper, Tho office was also determinable on an address by both Houses, though though there had been no misbehaviour, and if the Parliament did not choose to voto a salary, and thought it unseemly that the office should be hold without salar}'. It had it in its power to put an end to such a state of things, lie was of opinion that judgment should be for the defendant.

Mr Justice Denoiaton thought that the sole power of fixing and establishing a Judge’s stiiary was in the Legislature, and that it bad never been supposed that an appointment would be made without a previous fixing of the salary. The Legislature had, however, in set terras given power to do so, and the appointment was, in hi# opinion, a legal ono.

Mr Justice Cooolly did not think it nocessary to add much to the judgment of the Chief Justice, with whioh ho agreed. He thought (he proper construction of section 5 of the Supreme Court Aot, 1882, was that the Governor might appoint Judges from time to time “as vacancies occurred.” The sections as to salaries not being diminished and as to the superannuation allowances showed tho intention of tho Aot, If there were any irregularities in former appointments they had been validated by the Aot of 1382. A power which might obviously give rise to a Constitutional scandal like tho present could cot; bo considered to have been intended to Ibe given. The principle well established in England had been intended to be applied here. In bis opinion, therefore, the appointment in question was not made according to law, and the commission ought to be cancelled. Mr Chapman asked for costa. The Chief Justioe doubted whether there was any Dower to grant costs, but asked whether there wan really any necessity to make any order. Mr Gully, for the Afctorney-Qeneral, waived all objections * to an order being made. The Chief Justice said iu that case the Court would make an order, but tboy must not be taken aa deciding that there was power to do so in such a case, except by consent.

Mr justice Richmond said the caao was a mixed ono of scire facias and quo warranto and it was doubtful whether in either olass of oases the Court bad power to order costs agaiosft the Crown. Mr Gully waived all objections. Mr Chapman asked that the Court should fix a lump sum. Mr Gully would consent to an order for costa on the higboxt scale in tho Supreme Court and taxed costs in tho Supreme Court. Mr Chapman pointed out that that would not nearly be an indemnity to the defendant.

The Chief Justice agreed that that was so, and suggested ithat Mr Chapman should confer with the Atborney-General and apply at another sitting. Mr Gully then suggested that an order should be made as offered by him, reserving a right to Mr Chapman to apply again, and it was then agreed (hat this course should be taken.

Mr Gully then applied, tsador section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act, 1832, for leave to the Attorney-Gioneral to appeal to tho Privy Council. The Court granted the leave so far as it had power to do-so. Mr Chapman contended that it ought to bo one of thoterms that tho salary of Mr Justice Edwards should be paid in the meantime.

To-this Mr Justice Richmond replied that there was a third party not before the Court, namely, Parliament. The Court then adjourned to Wednesday, tho 17th Jane next, at 10.30 a.m. CRIMINAL QUARTERLY SESSIONS. Monjoay, Juse 1. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) The Wellington quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court opened on Monday before His Honor the Chief Justices The following gentlemen were sworn in ns grand jurors : Messrs A, McDonald Cooper (foreman), James Boon, Francis Siday, S. C. Vickers, H. Damaut, C. W. Benbow, Donald L, Tamer, D. T. Stuart, James P. Brandon, John Wait, Henry D. Atkicson, Egbert Feist. William A. Waddell, William F. Pardons, William D. Buttle, Charles M. Luke, George L. Cuningbam, John Q. W. Alfcken, John JD. Wrigglesworth, Edward Whitehead, John H. H. Jack, James Blaohlock, William G. Tustio, sad Arthur Dorset.

His Honor, in delivering bis charge to the Grand Jury, remarked upon the small number of cases on the calendar, but pointed oat that several of them had peculiar circumstances connected with them. These

circumstances he would direct their special attention to. Alluding to the charge against Charles Stone of rape upon a woman who was alleged to be a servant in a brothel, in contradistinction from ono of its regular occupants. HisjHoaor pointed out that in such an offenoe was committed even upon a woman of bad repute, it was equally criminal as though committed upon a well-con-ducted woman. In any case, if it come to o question of the credibility of a witness, the Grand Jury usually left such matters to the common jury for decision. Then there was o case of burglary, in which the prisoner broke iuto the house at aa hoar of night, necessary for tho constitution of burglary, it felonious intent existed. If be went into tho house with some other improper motive, oi if ho was intoxicated and knew not what he was doieg, or if he thought he waa"entitled to go to whoro ho cboso to sleep, then no matter how deserving of punishment ho might bo for each conduct, ho was not; guilty of burglary. The accused was not ac:usad of taking anything, but merely of making |a noise and throwing things about. From Caatlo Point theie came a case of larceny and arson conjoined. It was said tliat tho proprietor of a left £it fastened up whilo he went to Eketahuna. On hia return ho found there had been an alarm of fire, and some of his neighbour# had broken in and found the house on fire. Shortly afterwards some o! the contents of the value of £35, wero traced to the accused person, who admitted that he took thorn and that he set fire to the but sug gested that he did so at tho instigation of tho popriefcor. A young woman of eighteen years was indicted for stealing a box under somewhat peculiar circumstances from the Railway Station at Palmerston North. The box belongedjto a passenger from Wellington, who got out himself at Otaki and sent it on. Accused pointed it out as part of her luggage, and it was taken to her lodg' ings. Two or three days afterwards she broke 'it open and took away oomo oEthe property, but she alleged that she did bo by mistake. Assuming that she made a mistake at first, still, whenever she became aware that the property was not here, the act became larceny just aa much as if she hud wilfully taken another person’s property in tho first instance. A caao of forgery in the calendar was peculiar. It appeared that a woman in Christchurch received a telegram from a person in Wellington of tho name of Noble, asking that £1 bo sent him. The woman in Christchurch, knowing a person of tho name of Noble, sent a telegraphic money order for the amount. Tho accused (Ellison) went to tho Telegraph Office and asked whether there was any telegraphic order for Noble. He was told there was, and that it was too late for him to obtain payment that day, bat ha would bo paid if he called next morning. The fol’owing morning tho accused and the real Noble went to the office, and the prisoner represented himself to bo the Noble or whom the money was intended. Noble, however, was said not to be his real name, and as be signed a receipt for the money (though it was nut paid to him) he was indicted for forgery. The cases against Mr Coleman Phillips, for alleged offences under the provisions of the Land Aot, were then referred to by His Honor who pointed out thot there were two indictments against Mr Phillips, both for misdemeanour. Oao charged with having incited certain persons (ladies) to wilfully make false declarations; tho other charge was for aiding and abetting these persons in wilfully committing a breach of the provisions in the l and Act, that a person was not to apply for laud on deferred payment or perpetual lease except exclusively for his own use. The Act required that any person applying for land on perpetual lease or deferred payment had to make a statutory declaration, stating amongst other things, that ho or she applied for the land exclusively for his or her own use. There was no doubt about all the applicants concerned in the present case having signed this declaration in the presence of a Justice of the Peace. They bad been examined before the Magistrate—three or four of them were ladies, relatives of Mr Jacob Joseph—and they one andall said they did not know what was in the declarations, bub simply signed because Mr .Samuel, secretary bo Mr Joseph, and father of one of the applicants, told them to do so. Looking at the declarations, tho Grand Jury would probably understand that they did not read them, because they wero all on printed forms, having many blanks in them, Manifestly, no consideration was given to them either by applicants or, probably, by the Land officers themselves, because they were in the alternative, being framed to meet different sets of circumstance#. Of course, if the applicants wilfally made false declarations, each of them was guilty of a criminal offence. When before the Magistrate they declined to answer certain questions, because they considered tho answers might criminate them. They did say, however, that they merely signed the papers because Mr Samuel put them before them, and that Mr Phillips was not there, and they did not see him at all on the subject. Mr Samuel stated that he got the forms from Mr Phillips, aud in accordance with Mr Joseph’s instructions placed them before the ladies and got their declarations taken. Mr Samuels had also said that there had boon some vague talk- between him and Mr Phillips to the effect that the land was being taken up for family settlement.* It was not clear as to who had taken the papers to the Land Office. The land was granted in the names of the applicants, and remained so until a letter was received by the Land Board from Mr Phillips (who wrote in the names of James Mills and Rachael Joseph) from which it was concluded that he was dealing with the land as hia own. An enquiry was thereupon held, and the land declared forfeited. If the evidence led to the conclusion that tho names of the applicants were used simply to got land for some other person, that was one kind of transaction ; if, on the other hand, it showed that the persons whose names were used were not aware of the nature of the transaction, and yet that the land was really meant for them, that was a different kind of transaction. Fur instance, a father might avail himself of the Laud Aot for the benefit of his son or daughter. He would say to bimrelf— ** I wili apply in my child’s name for this land, and I will improve it and comply with the regulations, aud when it is improved, in a few years’ time it will bo a valuable property, and he or t’he can have it.” Thera wa* nothing in the Land Act to prevent that, or to mako it illegal or improper. The father would probably get the forms and fill them up. and then get his ohild to sign them. Of course it would be more proper for him to explain fully the contents of the paper, but even if bo did not, tho transaction would not amount to what was called dammyiam. It would be a real application for the benefit of the applicant, or by tho applicant for his oi her own benefit. But if tho father used his children’s names to enable him to obtain for himself more Had than the law allowed him to hold, that was quite n different kind of transaction. As Burning the Act to bo framed for the purpose of meeting dummyism, the latter transaction would bo called dummyism. The prosecution held that Mr Phillips was □sing the names of different people in order to get land for himself. Of course if the applicants stated they did not know what they wero signing, and tho jury accepted their word, then, however improper their action might bo, no offence of false declaration was committed by them. But though the applicants were not guilty of making false declarations, it might nevertheless he perfectly, true that Mr Phillips wished them to do so. If he had done bo, ho had committed a misdemeanour under tho first indictment. The second charge against Mr Phillips was one of greater difficulty. He (the Chief Justice) had gone through the Land Aot very cart-folly, but could not find any direct or indirect prohibition against the transaction which was supposed to be illegal. The Aot contained nothing expressly prohibiting a person from taking up land for tho benefit of another. In regard to deferred payment land there was something that went near it—viz., tho provision disqualifying a person who had at the timo of application made any agreement to transfer Ills section—this was quite a different thing. As, however, the indictment might be upheld up >a some provision of the Aot be would advise the Grand Jury that, In the event of the facts being sufficiently proved, they should leave the question of law to be argued after the case came before the petty jury. The reason be suggested this was because one section of the Aot was framed as if the Legislature were under tho impression that they had provided against applications for land, not for applicants’ own benefit—section 30 providing that “ any person guilty of wilfully committing any breach of the provisions of ibis Aot regarding land disposed of by perpetual lease or on deferred payment by obtaining such lands not exclusively for his own use,” is liable to three months’ imprisonment; and aiding and abetting was similarly punishable. The first thing tho Grand Jury bad to decide was as to whether there was evidence of the applicants having had tho intention of obtaining laud not exclusively for their own use and benefit. Should they find that ihoy were not, then in that case Mr Phillips oonld not bo guilty of aiding and abetting in something that was not done. Still, of course be might be guilty of inciting them to do it, though the aot was not carried but. Tho Grand Jury then retired. TRUE BILLS.

The Grand Jury returned true bills in following oases : —Arthur Ellison, alias Dunn, forgery ; Walter Partridge, burglary; James Mcloneaa, alias Harry Morlay, arson and larceny ; James Cleary and Michael P. Cronin, larceny; Charles Hugh Trainor, larceny ; Amy Jackson, alias Emily Brooks, larceny ; John Jacob Junger, shcepstealiog ; and Coleman Phillips, breaches of the Land Act. LAUOENY. Amy Jackson, alias Emily Brooks, aged 18, pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing on April 17, a box containing a quantity of male attire, belonging to Charles Young Hollis. Several previous sentences for false pretences were recorded against her. His Honor sentenced her to 12 months, with hard labour, in the Terrace Gaol. James Cleary and Michael Patrick Cronin, were indicted for the larceny of a quantity of clothing and offeefs, the property of George Cren, from tho E.M.S. Kaikoura, on May 19tb. Both pleaded not guilty. Mr Coates, who appeared for Cleary,

applied to have the oases tried separately, and Cronin’s was taken first, Mr H. Gully prosecuting. The prisoner was undefended. Tho following jury were empannelled Messrs John Barton (foreman), John Montague, Thos, Scatohard, B. W. Marshall, E, Watkins, Hy. Cummings, W. Tyrell, D. Braid, G. King. U. M, Lyon, Thomas Howartb, and Jno. Kilminster. An outline of the case for tho Crown has already appeared in our oolums. After bearing evidence the jury retired at 12.55, and did not arrive at a decision till about a quarter to 5 o’clock, when they returned a verdict of not guilty. The following jury were empannelled to try the case against James Cleary:—H. Gabey (foreman), W. Freeman, A. M'Cullook, James Murphy,. Charles Masters, S. Tilly, Charles Boyd, D. McKay, C. T. Perry, Thomas Lurz, D. Malone, and James Oliver. Mr Coates appeared for the prisoner, and the same evidence was called in support of tho charge. Thoju.y retired at 4.23 p.m., and after an absence of half an hour returned into Court with a verdict of not guilty. Both prisoners were then discharged, and tho Court adjourned till next day at 10 a.m.

Tuesday, June 2nd. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) The criminal quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court were continued on Tuesday morning at 10 o’clock. SIIBWSTEALTNGt Johan Jacob Junger pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with having stolen one ewe, the property of James Clement Nicholls, at Eketahuna. Mr H. Gully appeared on behalf of the Crown and Mr Skerrett defended the accused. The following jury woro empanelled ; Messrs Donald MoKane (foreman), Roiuhold Hoffineiater, Chas. T. Perry, Joseph Blrkett, Thomas Sketchard. Thomas Howartb, James Howard, lames Olliver, William Freeman, james Murphy, Charles A. Wilson, Alfred G. Castle, and Henry Cummings. The following were the outlines of the caso for the prosection. Tho accused, a sofctler on the special settlement block, Ekotahuna, h:»a property at about a mile from Mr J. C. Nicholls’ property—the dividing section being covered with felled bush, The accused has oattlo only on his property. About April last a Mr Ure, manager for Mr Nicholls, missed some sheep visiting Junger’s property on the 7th of April, found what he took to be preparations for sheep killing. On the 10th he again visited Junger’s bouse and discovered traces of tho recent butchering of a sheep, there being parts of entrails lying about, and a akin bearing Nicholls’ brand placed under a bag. A warrant having been obtained, the house was searched, and in a kerosene tin was found pieces of roughly cut up meat. Junger was arrested on a charge of sheep stealing. When at the police the accused told Ure that ho might have given him another chance, to which Ure replied, ** You’ve had enough chances already. Accused then stated it was the first time ho had stolen any sheep. The witnesses called for tho prosecution were Messrs James Clement Nicholls, Alexander Ure, Henry Herbert, and PoliceConstable Roche, of Eketahuna. Mr Skerrett, in opening the case for the defence, addressed the jury at some length, and then called the accused to give evidence. Tho witness, in reply to Mr Skerrett, stated that he had found sheep in ft dying condition iu bis creek, and as his dogs were inclined to worry it, he out the animal’s throat, and skinning it, took Us flesh as feed for hia dogs. After skinning the sheep he placed the akin carelessly near a log. The meat was not good enough for himself to eat. He did not think he was doing wrong, and bad not denied having killed the sheep. He had picked the sheep oat of the creek about two days before, and gave it a chance of walking away ; but it was too weak to do so, and got worse. Tho other witnesses called for tho defence were Messrs Thomas Baylisa and William Xitflmins, who gave evidence of the good character held by the accused in tho district where he lived.

His Honor the Chief Justice briefly summed up, and the jury retired at 1 p.m., returning to Court at 12 minutes to 3 o’clock with a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner wao discharged. A NOLLE PROSEQUI,

Charles Hugh Traiuor was indicted on a charge of stealing a saddle, a stirrup iron and two girth", the property of Mrs Monrad, oU March 28th, at Palmerston North. Ho pleaded not guilty. The following jury were empanelled: Messrs H, M. Lyon (foreman), Wm, Hy. Blanco, E. E. Watkin, S. Tilly, Chas, Boyd, G, H. Bidding, David Brand, Walter Tyrell, Alox. McCulloch, A. J. K-ingsbeere, William Fitohett and Geo. J, Parker. The prisoner was undefended. The facta of the case were as follows : Mrs Monrad, who had been visiting Sandon on March 28th, and on returning to Palmerston North put up at an hotel and left her horse, tied up, outside, with saddle and girths on. These were missing,, and later on discovered in a cask, coopered up, near the premises of the prisoner. The cask in which the. saddle and girths were found was headed up in a tradeamanlike manner, and it was pointed out that the prisoner was a cooper by trade. His Honor enquired of the Crown Prose* outor whether he had any other grounds to go on than that of the goods being found near the prisoner's premises. He did not see that the mere fact of the cask being headed up in a tnvdesmaulike manner, connected with the fact of the prisoner being a cooper, was sufficient to inculpate him. There was soother mao on the premises as well. He would like to know whether Mr Gully had any authority to quote with reference to a person being con* eiderecl guilty of tho theft of goods because they were found on or near bis premises. Upon reading tho depositions he saw a difficulty ia applying to the case the pre sumption of law requiring a man to account for the way io which goods oamo into his possession. The C/own Prosecutor said he was prepared to enter a nolle prosequi. There being no evidence olfered, His Honor pat it to tho jury as to whether they found the prisoner guilty or not. The Foreman : Not guilty. The accused was thereupon discharged. ANOTHER NOLLE PROSEQUI.

Walter Partridge was indicted with having burglariously entered the house of Mr Thomas McCarthy on the 7th of May. He pleaded not guilty. His Honour said he bad road the depositions, but agreed with the Crown Prosecutor that unless there was other evidence to be produced thoro was not enough for a jury to oonviot, Thsre was no evidence of felonious interest, but. of course, the accused had no right to enter the premises, and should have been punished by the Magistrates.

Mr Coatee, who appeared for the prisoner, stated that had evidence been required be was prepared to place a witness iu the box who would swear that the accused had entered tho Royal Oak between 10 and 12 o’clock on the night of the alleged burglary, and could not have left those premises without his knowledge.

A jury having been empanelled as a matter of form the Crown Prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi in this case also. The jury returned a verdict of not guiltj, and the prisoner was discharged. The Court was then adjourned till 10 a.m. the next morning.

Wednesday, Junk 3, (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.)

Upon the Supreme Court resuming yesterday morning, Mr Martin Chapman, on behalf of Coleman Phillips, indicted for breaches of the Land Aot, applied that the case might be tried before a special jury. Bethought His Honor would agree that the case was one entitled to be so tried.

His Honor enquired whether there were any instances where a special jury bad been granted for a criminal case iu New Zealand.

The Registrar mentioned a case against Wbitelaw, custodian of an asylum, for embezzlement, ia 18SI. Mr Chapman quoted another case tried at Hokitika last year, where a special jury was granted at the instance of the Crown. He also pointed out that section 85 of the Juries . Act provided for special juries in criminal cases of misdemeanour, and its words were the same as in the English Juries Aot, under which it was not even necessary to apply to the Judge. His Honor enquired whether Mr Chapman was suggesting that every person had a right to be trud by special jury, Mr Chapman said that In that Coart he apprehended it to be so. He also quoted precedents showing- that notice of intention to apply for a special jury iu cases of misdemeanour was given at Assizes. He submitted that the present case was eminently one for a special jury, as it was brought upon an entirely now kind of indictment—tho first of its kind in New Zealand.

Mr GuMy, Crown Prosecutor, admitted that the Court had jurisdiction to grant the application. Tho question was whether the case was one which ought to go before a special jury. The other cases cited were quite different from this one. In that of Whitelaw the Crown consented. In that of Allen, there had boon two abortive trials in the District Court, and it seemed proper that the case should be taken before a different tribunal, besides which Mr Justice Denniaton seemed to ho influenced by the fact that the motion came from the Crown. His Honour should hesitate to grant this application, because it might be viewed as an application to make a class trial. Defendant belonged to the class from which a special jury would be drawn. He did not, however, mean to suggest that a trial before a special jury would be unfair. He only wished to show that the matter onght to be cautiously considered. There was nothing in tha case itself to enggest any reason why it should be taken outside the recognised mode of trial and submitted to a specially-constituted tribunal. It was true that there were difficulties in the case, but they were rather difficulties for his Honor than for the jury. Tho obvious result of the granting of the application would beta create a precedent that every person coming up for trial on matters of more or lees importance could if he thought he would have a better chance of acquittal be tried before a

tribunal taken from the special jury class, Soch applications would be made, and would have to be granted, which would not be satisfactory to the administration of the law.

After further discussion hia Honor reserved hia decision until 3 p.m. Upon resuming his Honor said he baa considered the matter, and looking into the claims had come to the conclusion that this was a case in which a special jury might be granted. It was bard to say what cases came within the meaning of the Juries Act, but as the present charge was one of a special nature be would grant the application, lie bad ascertained that Mr Justice Conclly, who was at the Bar at the time, romembere that a special jury was allowed in the case of Mr Acton Adams. There bad been several instances of a special jury being allowed in cases of felony. He looked upon the present case as one of State prosecution, and therefore decided to grant tho appliestl°ln reply to Mr Gully bis Honor said he thought tho date of the trial should k® fixed as early as possible, and thought Thursday next would do. After a little discussion among the counsel, it was suggested that Wednesday, tho 17th, should bo fixed for tho trial, and this was agreed to by his Honour. FOBGKUY. Arthur Ellison, alias John Dunn, was indicted for the forgery of tho signature or William Noblo to a receipt for £l, given to tho Telegraph Depaitment. Mr Coates appeared for the prisoner, and submitted that tho first and second counts in the indictment were bad, in that they charged the forgery of a receipt, whereas no money had been received, and therefore there could be no receipt. The indictment ought to allege the forgery of an order for fcbc payment of money. His Honor said he oould not know that. Neither he nor Mr Coates could tell what evidence tho Crown would produce. Mr Coates then submitted that the third and fourth counts were identical with, and wore part and parcel of an offence of which the prisoner had already been convicted, and forwbich be was now serving a sentence. In respect to that, he put in a special plea setting forth that prisoner was convicted on tho 14th of March of sending to Christchurch a telegram for money purporting to bo signed by William Noble. His Honor said that a receipt was often signed before any money passed He could not agree that the two transactions were identical, though they were no doubt connected. . , ~ . flis Honor having thus ruled, Mr Coates consulted with bis client, and then informed tho Chief Justice that ho had advised the prisoner whatcoursoto follow, but he had decided not to follow the advice. He (Mr Coates) would therefore withdraw from the defence. , Tho prisoner then took up his own defence, and in reply to His Honor stated be still wished his special plea disposed of. A jury, of which Mr H. Gaby was chosen foreman, was then empanelled to find a verdict on the special plea. The prisoner, addressing the jury, stated that ho had already been convicted of sending the tele* gram, and ho considered the present charge applied to the same transaction. His Honor directed the jury that they were called upon to decide whether or not the two transactions were identical, if they were the prisoner could not bo twice punished for the same offence. The jury retired for a few minutes. Upon being sent for by His Honor, who wished to make an explanation upon a point raised by Mr Gully, the foreman stated that the jury had decided tbit tho transactions were one and the same, and therefore found the prisoner not guilty. Hia Honor said the distinction appeared very intelligible c to him. His Honor then reviewed the whole case in detail, and told tho jury that if they still considered the charges to bo the same, notwithstanding what he bad said—he could not help it. Tho jury then retired for a second time, and during their absence the Chief Justice referred to text books, with the result that he intimated to the Crown Prosecutor that the best way of getting out of tho difficulty was to withdraw the question from the jury, to whom it ought not to have been referred there being no evidence before them. The jury was again sent lor, and hia Honor, addressing them, said he had gone into the matter, and la consequence he proposed to free them from having to decide on the plea, there being no evidence to go to the jury. They would not therefore have to decide upon tho matter, but the case would have to proceed, upon the trial or tho issue whether cp not the prisoner was guilty. Of course, if is were the general feeling of the jury that as the Crown had had one “shot” nt the prisoner they ought not to have another, the Court might take notice of it, , , The Foreman intimated that the jury were of that opinion. They considered the matter was one transaction, though there wore two oases. . Tho Crown Prosecutor, addressing the Judge, said that under the circumstances he did not propose to offer any further evidence. He wished it to be understood, however, that he only stopped the case si he considered the jury had given him a dia. tinot intimation that they would not convict, and so it would be useless to proceed. lie evidence being offered, the jury for. mally returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged on the indictment. This closed the criminal calendar, ana the Court adjourned till 10 a.m. next day, when civil business was taken.

CIVIL SITTINGS. MEEK V. ATTWOOD. AN INTERESTING COURTSHIP. GIVE ME BACK THOSE PRESENTS. The civil sessions of the Supreme Court were resumed ou Wednesday morning at 10 o’clock, before His Honor Mr Justice Richmond. - The case taken was that of v. Attwood, in which the plaintiff, William Joseph Meek, settler, of Wellington, sought to regain possession of a quantity of jewel* lory which he alleged he had lent to the defendant, Alice Attwood.

The following jury wore empanelled ; Messrs James Wilson (foreman), George Lambert, W, E. Halliday, and Arthur Smith.

Mr Gully appeared for the plaintiff, 'and Mr Hall for the defendant.

In his statement of claim plaintiff alleged that on or about the 10th of December last ho lent the defendant, at her request, ihe following articles of jewellery : —One gold ring, eob with pearls, value £3 ; one gold ring, sot with live diamonds, £4O; one necklet and locket, set with diamonds and rubies, £ls ; one bracelet, set with diamonds and rabies, £l2. He also alleged that theee articles wero lent to defendant on her departure for Christchurch, on the understanding that in the event of her not returning to Welliogton in January last and marrying him, the articles were to be returned j that the defendant having refused and failed to marry bira, had detained the jewellery and wrongfully converted it to her owu use. The present action was therefore brought that the defendant should be ordered either to give the articles back or pay their value, £7O, and £3O damages for their detention.

Mr Gully, opening his case, explained that had his client been able to obtain his rights otherwise the action would never have been brought. The following letter from the defendant to the plaintiff was read by Mr Gully in the coarse of his address : “25, Hereford street, “28th January, 1891.

“Dear Mr Meek,—You appear very much surprised at my last letter to you, and 'want to know what my trustees and myself are thinking about to suggest such a thing to you- I am sincerely pleased that they did suggest it. as it has shown me what I bad to expect if 1 married you. When a young woman marries a man so very many years older than herself she does so with the idea of improving her position in life - not making it worse, as I can plainly see would bare boon the case with me had I been unfortunate enough to have married you. Also, let me tell you that my trustees had no idea whatever of making money by drawing up deeds of settlement, &0., &c. t or of troubling themselves in any way about your affairs. They are quite too busy to hive time to attend to saoh trivial matters. Before I left Wellington a few and very intimate friends advised me to have a settlement before I married jou, saying that it was only right, considering the disparity In our ages. However, I did not take their advica, and would not have thought any more of the matter had not my trustees, being sensible men, advised me. You have also deceived me about the houso you live in. You told me you would not ask me to live there, but would rent me a more suitable place. Now you say you consider it quite good enough for mo, as you and your children a*o satisfied with it. That may be. loan only say some people are easily satisfied. Your idea of one purse in your house did amuse me. There would be only one, but that one would be yours. I’m afraid, my dear Mr Meek, that you were marrying me only that I might help to support yon and your two children. I really must decline the honour, choosing, if I must share it, to do so with some cue more suitable. You would expect me to attend the same church as yourself. How you have changed, to be sure. One time you would go to anyone I liked. You know that X'have been brought up to the Church of England, and decidedly would not leave it* to attend another for you or any man. I have a great objection to chapels or meeting houses of that sort. Too muoh scandal and gossip retailed for my fancy. 1 am very entry you have been to so much expense in the way of olutbos. Shall I send you a P. 0.0. for the amount ? I would take them off your hands, bat the present fashion forbids the divided skirt for ladies. Enclosed is a 2d stamp, in place of the one you had to put on my previous letter. Am sorry you had to pay for it, especially since 1 know you have so little to spare on each things. Shall I send you your trinkets by post, or is there any one boro whom I could leave them with until you were down this way? They might go astray if I sent them through the post, and that, I know, would grieve you. Thanks very much'for the silk dress. lam afraid it would not be worth the postage to

Wellington, as It is almost worn out. I must close now with very kind regards, thanking you for your very kind offer, but am obliged to decline the honour. “Alice Attwood.” The plaintiff was the first witness called, and gave evidence to the effect that he and Miss Attwood were staying at Mrs Moore’s boardinghouse, Cuba street, last October, he being then a widower with two children. Whilst there he proposed to Miss Attwood, and. being accepted, things went along smoothly for a time. He bought an engagement ring at a cost of about £3. Defendant placed it on her finger hereelf. Mias Altwood appeared to like tho ring until he showed her a quantity of hia Ute wife’s when she complained tho ring hart her finger, and asked him for one of the diamond rings in bis collection. She told him she was going to Johnsonville to viait her sister, and asked him to lend her the ring,' which he did. She was away at Johnsonville two or three days, and on her return gave him back the ring. He kept it a couple of days, and she then asked him for it again. Whenever she went out for a walk with anyone she always asked for the ring. The defendant received from him several articles of jewedery before she went to Christchurch on tho understanding that when she returned she should marry him. It was distinctly agreed that the articles were only to be lent her. The engagement being broken off he telegraphed to her, asking her to send the jewellery hack through the Rev W, Donaldson, of Christchurch, who eventually wired to him stating Miss Attwood bad declined to give him the articles, and referred him to her solicitor. He had never received any letter from the defendant after January 28th.

Cross-examined by Mr Hall, the witness stated he was 06 years of age, and bad met Miss Attwood at Mrs Moore’s boardinghouse. Ho proposed first, and made inquiries about her afterwards. She told him she had an income cf £SO, derived from property left by her father. Ho informed her that ho bad property. After bis engagement ho left Mrs Moore’s and took up hi* residence in a house of his own in Hanson street, where defendant several times visited him. When be gave her the engagement ring Miss Attwood told him sho did not wkh to wear it for a while, as she did not wish people to know they were engaged so soon after the death of witness’ wife. The diamond ring the defendant was so anxious to wear cost £4O, and the pearl ring £3. Mr Hall here asked the witness whether he was not proud of being engaged to such a young lady as Mi-38 Attwood.

Witness : A what! Call her a young lady, I should say sho was 33. She told me several ages ranging from 22 to 25. I think 26 was the last I heard. Why, if she pub a pair of speos on she’d look at least 60. (Laughter.)

At this point Mr Hall, who had not ap* peared well, suddenly fell down in a faint, and the Court adjourned till 2 p.m. The Court resumed at 2 p.m., when Mr Hall continued the cross-examination of the plaintiff. Witness stated that the defendant had said she had kept house for her father, but she did not say that they kept a servant. He promised her that oho should shore his property with his two children if she married him.

Mr, Ball here read a letter fnm the defendant to tho "plaintiff, in which she stated that she would not be able to marry for some nine or ten months, as she wished to have her father’s estate wound up first, so as to be not altogether dependent on her husband. She would not ask him to wait, but would like him to do so. Cross-examination continued, the’ witness stated that the defendant had written other letters subsequently of quite a different tenor. He also stated that the bracelet which was put down in the statement of claim as valued at £l2 coat h J m £25. Tho price iu the statement' must have been a mistake. The values he put on the articles were the prices he gave for them. Ho could not produce the invoices of them. The letter'produced, dated January 19bh, 1891. was his. In it he stated he had been much disappointed, as ho had, engaged a person to come and take care of hia children, and now that if she again put off their marriage ho would have to beep the person another fortnight. The young lady he had engaged to look after hia children woa now hia wife, and she was in his house when he wrote to defendant on January 24tb. The letter referred to was to tho effect that he would never make a settlement on the defendant, and stating he would keep all his property under bis own control, and at hia death it would be loft to those moat deserving of it. Those about him would be treated according to their treatment of him. Ho also state! in this letter that if the defendant married him she would have no servants, no larger house, and no buggy. Witness (continuing) stated that he did nob consider this making a white slave of his wife. His bouse property was valued at £I6OO. Ho had nob proposed to hia pro* sent wife when he wrote this letter. He proposed to bis present wife on the date when be received the final letter from the defendant.

Re-examined by Mi- Gully, witness stated that be bad been married tv* ice, and found matrimony ■ a . success on both occasions —a great success this second time. His present wife was quite satisfied with him, and did not ask for a settlement. He was clear that the jewellery was ouly lent to the defendant. He had never had any suggestions from her of the property being hers. He would swear the articles wero not presents to the defendant, His present wife did not consider she was being treated as a white slave, notwithstanding the fact that she bad neither servants'nor a buggy. His idea of marrying again was to obtain a protectress for hia children.

in reply to Mr Hall, the witness stated that his present wife’s age was 20. Annie Meek (aged 14) daughter of the plaintiff, was called, and gave evidence that she bad often seen Miss Attwood wearing the diamond ring, produced. Miss Attwood had told her the ring was not hers, but she was to have it if she married witness’ father, and she (witness) was to have the other. The defendant did not ✓’fton speak of the ring, By Mr Hall : She recognised the articles of jewellery produced. They were her father’s, but she had. not seen Mies Attwood wearing them. Her father had told her that he had never given the ai tides produced to Mias Attwood, Her father had told her (witness) that she would have all his jewellery. This closed the plaintiff’s ease. Mr Hall, opening the defence, stated he would call the defendant, and also Mrs Moore. The defendant’s evidence would show that she, being a native of Christchurch, came to Wellington for the purpose of getting medical advi;e. She stopped at Mrs Moore’s boarding bouse, where she met the plaintiff and his children. Defendant would show that Meek bad asked her to marry him, and she assented, but on condition that their eogagemeut should not be published for the time being. Later ou it was decided to publish their engagement, and plaintiff gave her a ring. The plaintiff wont to Dunedin, and on his retnrn, finding that the defen* daut was not wearing the engagement ring, asked her the reason. She told him that it hurt her, and he thereupon promised her a diamond one. # It would also be shown that plaintiff had given Mias Attwood other jewellery.

Alice Attwood, the defendant, being sworn, deposed that she was a native of Christchurch, and both her parents were dead. She came to Wellington to visit her sister at Johneonville and to get medical advice. She went to Johnsonville in November 1889, and afterwards went to Mrs Moore’s boardinghouse in Cuba street in February 1890. Mr Meek came to lodge at Mrs Moore’s a few weeks after bis first wife’s death—either in August or September. She bad her meals in a private room, but Mr Meek aud bis children dined with Mrs Moore and others in the house. Mr Meek and children shared the eiltingroom with her. Mr Meek had shown her all his jewellery daring the first week of his residence at Mrs Moore’s. She had also seen (he silk dress. He had not told her of his house property until after their engagement. When Mr Meek asked her to marry him she consented, but told him not to speak of their engagement for the time being, as lb was so soon after hia wife’s death—and also because they were staying at the same place. Plaintiff went to Dunedin, and during his absence she told Mrs Moore of their engagement, and showed her the pearl ring. Before be went to Dunedin, the plaintiff asked her to look after his 1 children, who were, however, really under Mrs Moore’s care. When plaintiff came back, he asked her why she was not westing the ring, and she told him that it hurt her and that she did not like it—she bad baen led to expect a very nice ring, and this one was not such. Plaintiff then told her she might haye cue of the two diamond rings, one of which was for his daughter Annie. He brought the two rings from his safe, and let her obooso one. She chose one, and he then said the other would bo for Annie. Nothing was said about his only lending the ring to her. Plaintiff left Moore’s honao shortly afterwards at her request. Plaintiff put the diamond ring on her engagement finger, but did not say (hat it was only a loan. She wore the diamond ring subsequently. She had hoard that Annie bad been crying and saying that her father was giving her (witness) all her mother’s jewellery. She spoke to plaintiff about this, and he told her not to trouble, as eveu if ho had not given her the jewellery it would not be Annie’s. Defendant gave the ring back to plaintiff one night when they bad some words. This was when ho came back from Dunedin, and he was inclined to question her as to her going out. She placed the ring on the table, and left the room. Next day Mr Meek apologised, and gave her the Hag again, the supposed ha put the ring on bar finger again. Since then plaintiff never bad the ring again. He later on pressed her to have some more of his jewellery, and she chose the bracelet, bat refused the necklet and locket, which, however, he left with her. Plaintiff made no conditions about the return of these articles. She went to Christchurch, and intended to return in January last to get married. Bbe had spent some £25 in getting things preparatory to her marriage. Finding the plaintiff had deceived her as to hia house and other things,'she

wrote breaking off the engagement, her first impulse being to return all the jewellery according to recognised custom under such circumstances. She received an insulting letter from the plaintiff, in which he reminded her of what he had given her and demanding them back. She burned the letter, and after consideration determined not to return the jewellery, especially as she bad been put to great expense. She believed be wrote the letter referred to in order to prevail upon her to break off the engagement. Sho was 24 years of age. Cross-examined by Mr Gully ; She had never been engaged before, though she was 24 years of age. She did not think the pearl ring good enough, and if Mr Meek said it cost him £2 sho did not believe him. She had made no enquiries as to plaintiff’s position, but he had enquired and found out that she had an income. It was at the instance of her trustee that she wrote to the plaintiff asking for a settlement btfore marriage. Annie Moore was the next witness, and corroborated the main details of the defendant’s evidence.

In cross-examination, witness stated that Miss Attwood bad worn the diamond ring regularly after it was given her. Siegfreid Kobo (called' gave evidence as to the value of the articles. The pearl ring, ha thought, would not be of greater value than 30s to 35s ; the diamond ring was, .at the outside, worth £25 at tho present day, bob be would not like to buy it at that figure. The locket and necklet was not worth more than £5 or £6 ; the bracelet was, he thought, worth £7 10s. These were present values, but the articles might have been worth more years ago. This closed the case for the defence, and Mr Hall addressed tho jury.

Mr Hall went over the outlines of the case, pointing out the extraordinary nature of the plaintiff’s claim for the return of jewellery given by him to the defendant as hi betrothed.

Mr Gully having replied, His Honor summed up, pointing out that there was a conflict of evidence, but there was no doubt that if a man hands over jewellery to a girl to whom he is engaged the presumption is that the articles are presents. If the engage, mont is eventually broken off the man has no legal claim to the jewellery he has given to his erstwhile betrothed, but of course it is generally the custom for a girl under such circumstances to return all presents so received, If the jury were satisfied that the articles in the present case were only lent to the defendant, then the plaintiff would sue ceed » but if they were of opinion that tho jewellery was given as presents, then they would have to find for the defendant.

Tho jury retired at 6.35 p.m., and returned to Court at 6.20 with a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. Judgment was entered accordingly, the question of oosts being reserved for decision by tho Judge.