COURT REPORTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6493, 13 April 1908, Page 8

COURT REPORTS.

SATURDAY, APRIL 11.

SUPREME COURT-CRIMINAL \Tkifore bis Honor Mr Justice Cooper.) AX IMPU'DRNT THEFT. William J. Johnston, a young man nhn had admitted stealing a port>n?>nUau containing a quantity of l"\vr«Jl( j ry and oilier valua Me a r tick s from the hall of the New Zealander Hotel, iwis brought up for sentence. He had nothing to urge in mitigation of his punishment. His Honor .said the prisoner had n had record, but it was not Miiilcienily had for him to be dor In red an habit, ual criminal, although from Jii.s record ho Boomed to be on his way to become ono. The. sentence was three jnr.rs’ imprisonment with hard labour. AX EXH.MPLAKY SENTENCE.; A r.iiddlo-ngfd man named John ‘hnitli, alias Wil-on, urged in extenuation of nn unmentionable offence, to which ho bad pleaded guilty at Wanganui, Hint about two years ago ho had In cm kicked on the head by .1 hor.io and had become weak-minded. Whenever ho came to town’ he could not resist the temptation To drink and the liquor wont to his head and rendered him irresponsible for Ids Actions.

il'is Honor characterised the offence as abominable. There were not sufficient convictions against the prisoner for him to bo declared an habitual criminal, but his record showed that he was lending a criminal life, amd mit? who was capable of committing the offence to which ho had pleaded guilty wrus not fit to ho at liberty in any civilised community. Ho would be Bontenoed to the extreme penalty which the law allowed—ton years' imprisonmont with hard labour. His Honor said he would not sentence* pri »- oner to bo Hogged because ho was a man who was not. fit to bo at largo and who should be kept in prison. AX UXSrCLVED PLEA. A middle-aged man named William Larrabce who, at Taihape, had pleaded guilty to a charge of incest was presented for sentence.

Mr M. Myers, who appeared on behalf of the Crown, pointed out that (lie plea of “guilty' bed not been signed by the prisoner. His Honor .said ho thought tho intention of tho Act was that at the time tho prisoner pleaded guilty that plea should bo endorsed upon tho information and signed by tho prisoner, because he could bo allowed to withdraw his plea afterwards. The best course would be for tho prisoner to be sent back to Taihapo and ho could bo brought up for sentence later on when tho error had been remedied.

MAGISTRATES’ JURISDICTION

(Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M.) for drunkenness Lizzio Griggs was fiiuxl 6s, in default twenty-four hours 1 iinpr'SMiMont, and John Stapleton 10s, or f>»rl;y-eigbt hours. Hearing of the case against Wiljiam King, charged with failure to provide for his illegitimate child, was concluded. His Worship intimated that he would give his decision on April 17th. Mr I*. Jackson appeared for the compU'iiiant, ami Mr McGrath for tbe dc\u.riant.

THE COMPANIES ACT,

GEAR MEAT CO. FINED. His Worship delivered his decision in tho caao of the Assistant-Registrar of Con ponies v. the Gear Moat Co., Ltd. Tile defendant company was charged that on January 2nd, 1908, and thereafter until March Gtlh in the same year, it did make default in forwarding to the Registrar of Companies its annual list of members and summary for 1907. Tim defendant company hold its annual meeting on December 20th, 1907, and on December 30th the secretary forwarded to the Registrar of Companies an intended return ns required by section 101 of tho Companies Act, 1903. The information was laid under section 101, subsection 1, which reads as follows:

Every company having a capital divided into shares shall make once at least 'n every year a list of all porst ns who are members of the company on the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which the ordinary general meeting is held, or, if there are more ordinary general meetings than one in each year, then- on the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which tho first of such ordinary general meetings is held. For the defence it was argued that a correct list was forwarded before the expiry of the year 1907, and that as the making of the list on the fourteenth day is directory only, tho defendants wore not liable, and that they have followed tho same practice mince 1903 without objection.

IT is Worship thought there was a default whuro o company held its meeting so late in the month of December in one yoair that tho fourteenth day after foil upon a day in January of another year. Ho did not uhink it was necessary that a company should, send tho list of members to tho Registrar in the same year as that in, which the meeting wits hold. The Act provided otherwise; but whatever Hot was'sent m must be a list of the company’s membora an on the fourteenth day after the holding of its ordinary meeting in the same year. Tho point was merely technical ami the section was not very clear, but the weight of authority was, in His Worship's opinion, on tho side of tho informant. Tho defendant company would bo convicted, but as it had followed its usual practice, and this had boon concurred in by tho informant since 1903, a penalty of Is, without tests, would bo imposed. Air M. Myers appeared for the informant, and Mir Max-tin for tho defendant company.

A KKXCEftr DISPUTE.

His Worship also delivered his reserved judgment in the civil case of the Johnsonvillo Town Board fMr Bunny) v. Broderick Simoon (Mr Weston).

Tho plaintiff claimed damages from tho defendant for removal of seventeen oboina of fencing from a reserve vested in the plaintiff by Proclamation dated April 12th, 1906. Some five chains nf tho fence consisted of old material standing on land open for traffic to tho public, and known as Banister avenue. Tho remaining twelve chains were in good condition, consisting of

a ikkl ami wire fence. Half of thia served Urn purpose of a dividing fence, ami the i sinainini' half stood on land which had been .-old or leased hy iho plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed damaees for trespass over and above the value, of the fence removed. fils Worship said, he did not think the plaintiff was entitled to a new fence on the land known as Banister aver ne, or on that part of the land sold or leased, but as the fence there served the plaintiffs purpose, no great amount could ho deducted fioni the cost of a now fence in order to fix the value of the old one. On the whole it scorned that the defendant had pani into Court a sufficient amount to cover Mie cost of the leucine removed. But ho iub also liable for damages for tresHo had no authority to remove the fence. Ho knew that the fence .toed on the plaintiffs land, and if lie had the interest which ho alleged he possessed in it, be foolishly neglected tr> have the position defined when ilie authorities fixed the amount of compensation payable by the plaintiff to the different persons entitled. Uis action in removing th.c fence without notice was unwarranted. His Worship did not think excessive damages should he awarded, but they should lo sufficient to carry costs. He lined i hem at £5, ever and above the amount pail! into Court, with costs £4 14s.