SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20710, 7 May 1929, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

Monday, May 6, ■ CBefore his Honor Mr Justice . Smith). PRISONERS FOR SENTENCE. . The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday morning before-Mr Justice Smith. BREAKING AND ENTERING. George Spiers and Anthony Cabral appeared for sentence in a charge of breaking ami entering with intent to commit a crime, Spiers also appearing for sentence on a charge of receiving a quantity or. wheat knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. - M. r C. J, L. White appeared for Cabral. . His Honor said that Spiers’s ■ trouble 111 . fh e past seemed to have been due to drink, and he had not been convicted of a,ny offence except one depending on drink. In view of his drinking habits and-these two offences it .seemed as if he might be getting into a career of, crime. On account of-what the accused’s father had said on Saturday morning however, his Honor had decided to give him a chance, and said he wanted him to realise that it was a chance. He would be admitted to probation for a term of four years On the usual conditions and on the special conditions that be should take out a prohibition order and renew it from time to time during the term of his probation and that he should repay within six months the cost of the repairs to White and Co.’s premises and the costs of the prosecution, amounting to £4l 5s Id. With -regard to Cabral, his Honor said that he had given the case very serious consideration, and had come to the conclusion that his previous offences showed a definite tendency towards crime and that he could not be admitted to probation. His Honor had also formed the opinion that Cabral was the master mind in the offence of breaking and entering. On The other hand, the matter was complicated by the state of his wife’s health, and the case might be met by a short term of imprisonment. It was a lenient sentence in view of the accused’s past record, though his previous offences bad been committed some time ago. He '-wanted Cabral, to realise that if he came ’before the court again he need not expect clemency. He would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. DIVORCE PETITIONS. , DOWNES v. DOWNES. .William James Duller Downes proceeded against Myra Florence Downes on a petition for divorce on the ground of separation for-.three years. Mr- A. C. Hanlon appeared in support of the ■ petition, . ■ ’ The petitioner gave evidence that he was a. painter by trade. He was mar-/ ried to the respondent on' January 27, 1923, and there was one child ■ of. the marriage. . An agreement of separation was entered into on October'3.o, 1025,- and since then they had lived apart. Corroborative evidence, was given by Katherine Downes. . In reply to a question by his Honor, Mr Hanlon stated that the child was a; present in the custody of the respondent. A decree nisi was granted on the usual terms, and the interim cistbdy of ■ the child was given to the respondent". BOYD v. BOYD. Letitia "Margaretta Boyd, sought , a divorce - from John James Boyd on the ground of separation for three years: Mr Hanlon appeared for "the petitioner, and the respondent was represented by Mr J. S, Sinclair, ' • The petitioner stated that her marriage to the respondent took place in Dunedin on March 31, 1902. There were three children. In consequence of some differences she and the respondent entered- into .an agreement of separation in March, 1926., .- , Jessie Ann. Forrester also gave evidence. His Honor granted a decree nisi on the usual terms, with" costs on the lowest scale the respondent. EATC)N v. EATON. .. Evangeline r Eaton brought a; suit, for the dissolution of her marriage to,Charles Thomas Eaton on the ground of separation. Mr A. G. Neill represented the petitioner, and Mr E. A. Duncan appeared for the respondent. The petitioner gave evidence that the marriage took place on July, 6, 1915, in Dunedin, and that a separation agreement had been in force since February 9,' 1926. : She -had had the custody, of the children since the date of separation; Corroborative evidence .was 'given by Mary Hay, mother of the petitioner. . A decree nisi was, granted on the usual terms, with costs on the- lowest' scale 'against the respondent. His Honor made an interim order in favour of the petitioner for the custody of the children. ■ COULTER v. COULTER. , Jane Coulter, for whom Mr R. L.,Fairmaid appeared, proceeded against William Coulter on a petition for divorce on the ground of separation for three years. The petitioner stated that sho and toe respondent were married at Kaitangata in 1002 and lived together until January, 1926, when they entered into a deed separation. They had remained separated since that date. There were no children. Janies Donaldson, father of the petitioner, stated that he signed the deed of separation as a witness. The parties had remained separated. His Honor granted a decree nisi to be made absolute after three months, costs on the lower scale to be paid by the' spondent.STEWART v. STEWART. Alexander Stewart applied for a dissohition of his marriage, to Elizabeth Jane Stewart, against whom misconduct with John Charles Green, who was named as co-respondent, was alleged. The peti-Loner-was represented by Mr W.-G. Hay, The petitioner, who stated that he was a serimpresser. gave evidence that he was married to Elizabeth Jane Thomson on March 21. 1917, There were three children. Until. 1923 he and the respondent got along fairly well. At .that time she commenced to keep company with a man named- Godding. Witness started proceedings for divorce, but did not continue them owing tc the fact that Godding comsuicide. The respondent lived with witness until 1926, when she took up company with a man named Barlow, witness followed the respondent aifdvßarlow one night, and found them on the -lowri Belt at 2 Jo a:m. Witness" inter* yened, and Barlow assaulted him, receiving three years’ imprisonment, with hard labour, as -a result.- The respondent went home three days later, and took all her belongings from the house, abandoning witness and .the children. whom witness had supported ever since. Wit ness then lost sight of, the respondent for about a year, when he hoard that - she was ir. Christchurch. In,July, 1928, she weul t,o the house where, he was boarding, and asked him to take her back, but he refused tp do so. At that.lijie there was no talk about a child having been born in. Christchurch. The respondent then lived in Dunedin for some time, and stayed with. her mother for two or three weeks. Witness then hoard that she-was keeping company with Green, and on making inqni.i ics. he ascertained that she was living with Green in a house in Tennyson street. Witness met Green in Feb. •ruary. The latter admitted that ho was living with the respondent, and said he thought Ik was doing'witness-a good tv n by keeping her away from witness and the ■ chUds'en.. Greek also said lie had heard what witness had saitl at the house in Tennyson street, and that he and the respondent had felt like eomiug out ••ind_ giving Inn. a good thrashing. Ndrah Lewis, boarding house keeper, gave evidence that a couple giving the names, of Mr and Mrs Green .lad stayed -at her housf from December 1 5 till February 9. They were living as man and wife. She identified a photograph as that of the respondent and co-respondent, -liter the petitioner had visited the house she asked the couple to leave. His Honor granted a decree nisi,, on the. usual terms, and made -an order against the co-respondent for the payment of. costs on the lowest scale.

Mr Barrowclough eaid that the applicant had been adjudged bankrupt in 1925, and had since paid 20s in the £1 to all creditors. His Honor granted the order. DISCHARGE REFUSED. _ Thomas William Robinson, farmer, of Milbnrn, applied for bis discharge from bankruptcy. • ■ His Honor said that he had a report from the official assignee, who stated that the applicant when he became bankrupt estimated his liabilities at £352 and his assets at £9Ol. but lie had been able to’ pay only 2s 5d in the £l. His bankruptcy bad been due to his failure to keep books, for which he had been fined. He had previously become bankrupt in 1919,. and ■ had received his discharge in 1920. He again went into a farm when his, financial position was'hopeless. “You seem; to be unable to resist committing yourself to expenditure,’’, continued his Honor, “and it would be a good thing if you learnt to work hard for wages for some time. I think yon ought to realise that you arc not.the kind of man to engage in business on your own account. Your application” for your discharge will be adjourned for one year.” DISCHARGES GRANTED. • On the application of Mr H. E. Bar10\'iCT?ugh (instructed by Messrs Lang and Paterson) an ordei was made for the discharge of Charles . Theycrs,. of Alexandra, from bankruptcy, n Application by William Carroll, of ilalclutha, for , discharge from bankruptcy was granted. The application was supported by Mr Barrowclough (instructed by Mr Hamilton, of Oamaru). RELEASE FROM. ADMINISTRATION. Orders for the release of the official assignee from the administration of estates were granted in the following cases:—J. A. Cowan (Poolburn), T. B. bp inks (Ratanuil, James Carnithers (Tawamn), R. b. Wills (Dunedin), H. P. Campbell (Dunedin), F. M. Hogg (Evan’s liot'E N. Avuudcl (Dunedin), W. L, ~i e! (Dunedin), T. H. Jarvis (Dunedin), N. A. Thorp (Tuapekn West), G. Strong (Clarksville), A. Thomson (Cromcii !’ A-, H' ck - jun, (Portobello). Mrs A. Clarke (Milton), T. J. Butler (Dunedin), U. H. Blackie (Dunedin), George Finch i ®*t an Kjta,). Frederick Edwards (Bal-cluth-a). Wi G. Squire (Mosgiel), Beaumont Richmond CBaklutha), and T. W. Robinson (Milbnrn).