SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19964, 4 December 1926, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

Friday, December 3. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) FALSE DECLARATION. Cedric William John Parsons, who had been charged at Cromwell with making a false declaration under the Marriage Act, appeared for sentence. Mr J. C. Parnell, who appeared for the young man, said Parsons made a declaration to the effect that the girl ho had married was 16 years of age, whereas she was only 14. There was very little in the case, and the man had done very little wrong. His Honor: Do not continue on that line, Mr Parcel!, unless you wish me to inflict a more severe punishment than I intended. Please do* not suggest that the matter should be treated as a joke. Mr Parcell: The man has not done very much wrong. He is a first-class boy. ITia Honor: If vou will be so silly as to continue .that line of argument, you will drive me to inflict more serious punishment than I intended. Mr Parcell said Parsons had quite a good character in the district. The Crown Prosecutor said it was difficult to understand why Parsons should make the false declaration, when ho could have married the girl bv stating her real age. His Honor: Could she contract a marriage at 14? Mr Adams replied that she could have married at 12. His Honor; Yes, that is so. A boy of 14 could marry and a girl of 12. This, said Mr Adams, might seem strange to our modern ideas of these things, but -t was nevertheless a fact. Under those ages mentioned a marriage was not void, it was only voidable. 'iho girl apparently bad the necessary parental consent. His Honor pointed out that the girl was under the age of consent mentioned m the Crimes Act. That, however, did not seem to have any bearing on the present case. He would impose A Tine of £5, remarking that it was not usual to grant probation in such cases. Mr Purcell gave an undertaking, in reply to his Honor, that the fine would be paid. SENTENCED FOR THEFT. David Charles M’Gill, who was not represented by (ounsol, appeared for sentence on seven charges of theft and on a breach of his probation order. The Senior Probation Officer (Mr F. G. Camming) said that M’Gill was placed on probation for three years on May 25, 1925, and the conditions were that he had to make restitution of the money taken from the Provident Life Assurance Company, and also the costs of the prosecution, but very little of this money had been paid. M’Gill went to Invercargill, but he mysteriously disappeared from there, and there was considerable difficulty in locating him. The department looked upon the breach of the probation order as a very serious matter. M’Gill had had a magnificent chance, and he had failed to make good. His Honor said that as far as the fresh charges were concerned, he would give M’Gill a term of three years for reformative purposes, and a similar term for a breach of his probation, the sentences to bo concurrent. BOARDING-HOUSE CASE. In the case in which Elizabeth Madeline Lynch sued Grace Wilson for damages on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation, Mr H. E. Barrowckmgh said a settlement had been arrived at. Mrs Wilson had undertaken to pay £350, the amount received from Miss Lynch for the sale of the boarding-house. She was also prepared to resume the business and to pay oosts. Judgment by consent was entered up accordingly, with costs against defendant, witness’s expenses to be fixed by the registrar. A CLAIM BARRED. ' In a case in which Louisa Graham claimed £2OO against a deceased estate, for wages alleged to be<;dne, and in which a nonsuit was granted by the magistrate who hoard the case, his Honor made an order barring the claim, and granted five guineas costs against the plaintiff. Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. N. Haggit for the administrator (Alfred Anderson) in respect of the summons.