SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22368, 15 September 1934, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

PRISONERS SENTENCED A variety of cases came before, Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court , yesterday morning, three prisoners being sentenced. ADMITTED TO PROBATION. John William Hogan, aged 29, and Eric Albert Edward Scheib, aged 32, appeared for sentence on a charge of breaking and entering and theft from a Store at Cardrofta. . Mr J. P. Ward, who appeared for both accused, said that they Were well-known tradesmen who had lived for a number of years in Central Otago: They, were very sorry for what they mad done, and were prepared to tnake full . restitution. In view of the favourable report of the probation officer, his Honor might see fit to give them a chance. Their only explanar tion of, the act was that they consumed too much drink. Hogan, who was a carpenter, had only one previous conviction, which really arose out of the matter now beforfr the court. ■ He had been sentenced at Cromwell for receiving stolen property. Scheib W4s a plasterer Slid bricklayer who had. a large amount of work on hand. This was his first, appearance in a criminal matter. He ■ admitted that it was inadvisable for him to take drink. Counsel added that the proceedings at Cromwell, had received no newspaper publicity, and the asked the court to consider whether the ■ penalty might be Unduly heavy if the names of the accused were published. The Gfown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. j Adams) asked that restitution of the ' amount stolen in goods and cash (£8 16s) ■' should tea made.

“ I propose to adopt the probation officer’s report and admit you both to probation,” said llis Honor, in sentencing the accused, “but yml. Will Clearly underStand that, should-you again; appear-, be- " fore the court, you will have little hope; ••'bf- eSperlcfloing Its clemency again.” s.tivEach of the accueed was -released,upon i probation fdr a ~period of three yeai‘s. ■ Special conditions were that they should be prohibited during that time, that each r should pay £2 18s .(half the costs of the 1 prosecution)' within 14 days, and that complete restitution should be made V Within. 28 days. HiS Honor added that ■i he would certainly make no order for the Suppression'Of the names of the accused.' ' It was proper, in the circumstances) that the identity of . those who had committed -the crime should be knoWn. ; ; CHANCE NOT ACCEPTED. Robert Kifknees, aged 40, appeared on a charge of breaking .and entering and - theft from a dwelling house at Poolbufn, and two charges of theft. He stated' that he had given the poljce all .the help he could, and everyarticle stolen had been returned.

- ■ Mr Adams denied tliatAhe accused had given aa much help as he dduld. When he found a constable approaching be disappeared into a billiatd room and, in anticipation of search) hid a parcel of jewellery. The articles were not found Until a later stage. He also claimed that a set of carvers was the property of his wife- . ■ ■ ' • ■ '

His Hdttbt said, that the prisoner seemed to have, been drifting since 1931. It Was hot his first appearance before the court for a crime of dishonesty. Probation had been extended, and he had failed to observe its terms. On the major chfttge KirknesS was Sentenced .to 18 months’ imprisonment with hard labour, and on each of the others to six months’* imprisonment, the sentences to be Concurrent. DIVORCE CASES In the adjourned ease in which Lucy Isabel Todd, for whom Mr A. G. Neill appeared, petitioned for a divorce from William Todd) evidence With respect to a Separation order was given, and his Honor granted a decree nisi to be moved absolute in three mouths. The petitioner was given the custody of the youngest child of the marriage, and the respondent was ordered to pay costs. Decrees were made absolute in the following William Ledger* wood v. Hazel Catherine Margaret Ledgerwood, I vie Kathleen Johnston v. Talbot Leslie Norford Johnston, . In the latter case the petitioner was given the custody of the .children, PROVISION FROM ESTATE In a case under the Family Protection Act concerning the Will of Benjamin Throp, Oswald Ralph Throp was the plaintiff and Frank T'hrop and others the defendants. The plaintiff was represented by Mr D. A. Solomon, and Mr A. C. Stephens .and Mr J, M. Paterson appeared for the defendants. Mr Solomon said that he Was pleased to be able to inform the court that an amicable settlement bad been reached. The estate of the deceased was very large. It had been sworn for probate at £125,000 and it had been revalued at an cveh larger figure. The plaintiff, a struggling farmer, had suffered losses through >■ floods and the financial depression. He had a wife and six children, two of whom had involved him in considerable ex-

pense through illness. Under the will r he received only a life interest in the farm on which he -was at present living, 1 this being settled on his wife and chil- ; dren on his death. Unfortunately the 1 stock, which was his own property, was heavily mortgaged to. a local stock and station flrm t and he owed £llOO in unsecured debts, all of which were for farming requirements or the bare necessities of life. The arrangement of whicU

his Honor Was asked to approve was that ..the plaintiff’s unsecured debts should be 1 paid in full, that hie indebtedness to the : stock firm should be reduced to £IOOO, . and that £3OOO should be settled on his - wife and children. Counsel submitted a draft order on these lines, and both Mr Stephens and Mr Paterson agreed that it should be made. His Honor said that he was glad to hear that the members of the family had themselves been able amicably to adjust the matter. He made an order in accordance with the draft submitted.

CLAIM OF NEXT OF KIN Amy Agnes Cunningham, of Western Australia, was the plaintiff in an unusual case in which she claimed that she was the sole next of kin and was therefore entitled to the estate of James Henry M'Donald', Who died in New Zealand in 1928. Mr Solomon appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Adams for the Public Trustee. Mr Solomon said' that M'Donald died intestate, and the administration of his estate had been placed in the hands of the Public Trustee. By. means of an originating.summons the plaintiff iiad_ put forward her claim that she was the sister and next of kin of M'Donald, and was .entitled to the estate. His Honor, when >the case first came before him, ordered that the registrar should institute inquiries. The registrar had made his report. which supported the claim of the plaintiff, and the court Was now asked to adopt it. ■ Mr Adams said that the Public Trustee had never doubted the woman’s claim, but there had been sufficient discrepancies in the testimony to justify him in not acting without an order of the court. His Honor commented on the “ extreme propriety” of the action of the Public Trustee in requiring that the plaintiff should establish her claim through the court. There was ample warrant for the registrar’s statement many discrepancies were disclosed. He thought that the proper conclusion had been reached. His Honor made an order declaring that the plaintiff was the sole next of kin and was entitled to the whole estate.