SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2735, 15 August 1906, Page 12

SUPREME COURT.

(MMmMi SITTING'S. Wedkesdax, Av&vst l. (Before his Hon«r Mr Justice Cooper.) THEFT AT i£EXOSB&. Martin Paget and James SPOeorge, -who, a$ «w Ifty sitting of tfcfe court, were found "<G«iilty" of brea&zag and entering at Alexandra, w«De brought up for sentence. Paget ga*e his age as 34 years, and M f G«orge mad him mm 36. Me A.-. C. Baaion xppewped far the accused £•««<*, and Mr J. H. Honking lor tfbfe accused MTCeoqje. Mr Baalan «ud Ais w»« liie caae in which tos Hojqot reserved Ifee queetdon a« to lihe proof of ownership of the property found ia the possession of th* accused for tee damm of the Geort of Appeal. Tfe J^oTxrtSon affieer** report, he «nd«r9tood not recommend probesttoo, but he (M* ™ten) would Ettbmit to the -court that ac nera^g serious, wiffc the exception of this tfSft'-J"?* 11 ««a»n*t tfre •ocuaed, and as*6_n»fi beeuWymol for the Taei two months Z^Q^h w corrmOtar whether i*e »*•! ttonr-fl be^Kfted ip probation. As the »d «iw oharaeter had not hittieeto beS Pr^Siolit foVVWin under Hhe .^r-^^ 6 e * id his * %ißn tl'B remailM also applied-to tbe acowfed M«G«org e . The deposinugikt net view witk fevortr atiyoiae gwen th*4 way tf» jwrition was that l^w^fc had * wrfeand child *> maitfUiin, 1 ««P«ct «h* repor* ohowel IrL i^! UDder ■* <ader °^ th « «>nrt to do se. Htmeror, seamg the aroused had been ZL?t£l t!** *** "»««fl»». 1* th*»u«ht the «a»s insert be met by binding the accused ow to come up when cabled upon if he should mat be temyanrte durrng a en period, or, rf he -wen, **nd*t«d to probation, that 1^ «»««« come under -a prohibition order «. I?? 101 "" d ***« ca " "««« different from the orddjay «nes df breaking and entering iie c«uM quite imd&afkmoi that Ifce xaen, hawng (^ren way to drfnk, r«a-Uy took *« |«-Apßß^ dwang the wurse of a4ratokseb spree. 14 wa» eviden* 4iey fcad tees daiinkmg «*ou4 ATe»nd» fox some dajw brfow «nd «oa» days *a*rthe occuraenoe. A* «, ruie, he infliciwd S°?^SZi^!^t. P*" o * 3sll ***"* upon mm who • e SS Wy > oke • na •»*«"« *B>emises Wth mUeati* ro-V-o43ier pecjple, bIU is this cace be Wxatagb* hs vaight dead somewSMi infferHßtmr wibi tbe aroused. F-ii»t, .«a to Faget: He was * first offendor. tfiou*fa hi» Sonor> taofctlwt to metm iJmt since Jos retaaa f*oiaSoa«r*ftsc*'he bad, IJhen «i*«a to drj*i «nd bad'net Trd «c indttstfteas life: M'George 3 ? B -"**» Position, with the exception 4ttMt->tev ha^srwife affld^ two dbild»en depeooeet ujwn han, -w9ti^i ongfet to Jiave acted •w «dirtß*rem!t-to bun in &» drirfdng habite The-ttwi had ladwady bad iiewrly flireein<mi*^ Mnjwjsoameat. aodie •fljoug'kt the bast cotrrse now was t» •dbiit'isbean to pawbo*mn— riot that Sic w«e teasng domt «ny pxaaoifikfr t&a* to a case <rf faxadfing «nd «mteru*. arfd tbeft probation oy^Rt -to be attorced; but in thin particular .caate, where she orime had been the rssuJt siot of innate dddioiie«ly but of a drun%pn.spre«, it was better piob*bly for the prisoners -*nd 3or tibone dependent upon them *n<} aj*o for the -eomsiuai^, tbat instead of "being seat to go*! for a p*ciDd tirej- should l>e under tne strict jaweillateoe «f the polioe to see_wh««ier Ifegy waere likely 1o Teform or hot. J3& >Vould adiinit eadt prieomer to pxobwtipn for * pooieS ol 12 !»<«««« wiih this tMttpnetwm to "the prc/ba-taon ofBoer : That if dorhcg ■tha* period they j«*e way to da-ink that t» « hnreffdh of the probaieon carder «nd lihey wonM be brftngh^ before tKfe court a»d '«>gr(enced to impxieenmeai. That pro-ba-My would 1 T>e a better deterreat in keeping intern from dtfrnlc tSbtn any profeibiiion order or «oaspalfloa-y ttSring of tkb pledge. In M'Greoege'-s «a«e, Jw -wouM have ix> go to work «t ante, Hhe oouW -get-i*— b* /his Honor) had no doubt ne ootrid— and obey ft» order that had bee* made by- -tbe-dttgwftate fbr-t&e maintentooe of las wife «a*d ftwtifly. If he -would not obey theMOßfler Be «won,:d be not only liable to iamasoausnt by the ssagMtwte, but th*.t fact «I«o wwnld be «• breaA «f the conditions on whaon im was naw ■aSuaiMkd to probrtion. His Sagaer added thwb-he fcad-git^n Ac men a cbasace beoajuse of the special eiFcmnetvnces of tiie caae. On IbW «iiMwiwfkm «f 4aW Grown Prosecutor (Mr J: F. X. «^a«et^ hie Hoeor ordered Paget to pay £t lowed* 'the-oss^s of tfce prosecution, i»yiaaent» of,JOs4« be nade m«w*hsy. M'GeoTge hadvaJready to meet aii oujkr of 4fcem«gi»tMrte. Tbose wu no »se nainngr the conditions too difficult, becau«e tire sun migkt net be able to get work at oi:ce FOHCXBY. Boberi Henderson (32> w«s brought up for sentence on two ehacges of forgery at Ihinedin. Mr Itvrin, for the aoouged, said the orime in tiris oa«e was the ksuH of a- dxinlciug boji.. The roan was a resident of Palmerstozi North, wifeh a wife acd <diild dependiag on him. He war in Sunedte looVingior nmrV. As for the crimes, t&ey -were no d«»rt»t prorated by another lntn, «s -th» accused iitoi' n» local knowledge and 'oroo^S not kscw the names of firms to, sig-i to the cbe^ues. Beyond the fact that he had been, adiiicted to drrnjc,' be had never been convioted. T&ere was no' attempt at imitation in the signing of the cheques. His Honor : It cannot be said th*t the man is of good ohearacter When he abandons his wife and child, and, as the depositiong show, lives in Dunedin in a E*ate of immoral intercourse with another woman. Mr Irwin eaid tivat hitii«rto the man had not been in troub'e, acd he would ask the court to deal leniency with him. There was a chance of reformation. AH that was known against the man woe that he was of drunken habile. His Honor said that, as far as the depositions were concerned, they showed that associated with the prisoner to some extend — to what extent it was impossible to say — in these crimes was a- man named Bain, who had given evidence against the prisoner. "The prisoner bad pleaded guilty to forgery and uttering, and it could not be said he was drenk" when he filled up and signed the cheques; their appearance showed that. The offence of forgery was very common. In some cases it was committed under extraordinary circumstances, or peculiar temptation, by parsons of irreproachable character, and it wkb seldom that in these cases the First Offenders' Probation Act was not applied. BuT -vdien a man was so lost to a sense of decency as to abandon his wife and family and live in a. ste<te of adultery with another woman, and deliberately forged two cheques and obtained the results of his forgery, even though assisted by another man. it would be improper to treat him as a first offender with no established criminal intention He would not pass a severe sentence, however, as this was the man's first offence so far as the probation officer knew. The accused would be sentenced

to nine months' hard labour in Dunedin Geol upon -each offence, the sentences to ran concurrently. TBaEFT AT INVBRCARGILI/. Thomas Harcaurt (29) was brought up for sentence. Mr Hsnlon, for the accused, said that in tttis case he would apply for the benefit of the Probation Act. The accused had made no restitution so far, as he had been in custody. His"* Honor: It is a peculiar case. He has had £105 apparently. Probably he ha-s spent some of it in connection with the arrangement he entered into. Can he make any restitution? If a man does not make restitution for his crime he ought to be punished. ■Jir Hanlon said it might be made a condition of his probation that he should make restitution. There was no doubt the man would be able to get work. The Crown Prosecutor said he had a letter from the accused, who stated his willingness to make restitution and to pay the costs. His Honor said he had some documents with reference to the accused's past career. Nothing w«« apparently known of his previous character. He arrived in Melbourne in September, 1905, and »t Bendigo he was found to be honest -and well-conducted. Prom these facts, it was evident that any report from the probation officer would not be unsatisfactory. The Crown Prosecutor said he believed it would- not be. It was a private prosecution in the: court below, and fhe costs of that prosecii&on £«me to £19 14s Bd, whilst the personal costs of the prosecutor in getting evidence amounted to £12, and the costs of the Crown were £2." Sis Honor said that it was a peculiar caee v only on the border line of orime. There wafc a partnership arrangement, and if Htwcourt expended these moneys honestly on the goldobtahirrjg process, eren ff all the money was last, he would not be criminally responsible. But he seemed to-ha-ve spent money in another direction, amd bfcd pleaded guilty to fraud. Mt Hanlon remarked that that course was taken under advice. Hrs xlonor said that if prisoner .had pleaded that he had simply muddled the accounts he might hero had a chance of being found not guilty. Prisoner would be admitted to probation for a period of two years and six months; be would have to pay the costs of "the prosecution (£B4 14s 8d) by monthly in- | stalments of £4, and make restitution to the prosecutor to lie extent of £50 by payments , of £10, commencing on August 1, 1907. ] THSFT AT DTTHSMN. Harry Anderson (37), who had pleaded •• G-uilty" to a obarge of theft »t Dunedin, was carted on for sentence. | The accused was undefended* and had nothing to say. ! His Honor : I shall deal with you in the i same way- as Wyberg. You and he broke into i a house, ransacked it from top to bottom, and stole -a number of valita-ble articles from it.- The sentence of the court is that you be I imprisoned for three years in the Dunedin F Gaol, and kept to hard labour. ; BREAKING AND ENTERING. j Hugh Fox (17) was brought up for sentence on three charges of breaking and entering at Mosgiel. | Mr Hanlon, who appeared for the accused, said the boy had got into trouble when he ' was not trader ' p^txentaJ control. He used to live with his father, but when he obtained a situation at Moegiel, and his father had to go *» work elßerwhere. he was left in the town- j step. TJ<p to that time- he bad given no I trouble, and the father was shocked to find that during his arbsence the boy had got into trouble. The boy knew the house, having lived in it at one time. Evidently he thought 'he was big enough to smoke cigarettes, and, having no money to buy them, he went to this house and took some. In reply to his Honor, the boy's father said he was prepared to look after his son. He , would enter into a bond for his good j behaviour. I His Honor said he" had noticed for the last ! few years a growing tendency of laxity in I the matter of parental control, 'which invari- I ably led boys and girls into trouble. He did not propose to send this boy to gaol. No [ good could ariae frbm such a course. He | could not admit the lad to probation as there j were three charges against him. Still, he ■ proposed to rel-ease the boy on the father's bond for £50. as a guarantee for his eon's good behaviour for 12 months. Addressing ' the -prisoner, his Honor told him he would j have to come up for sentence when called ; upon, and he hoped his present experience ] would teach him the lesson that crime could not be committed with impunity. DIVORCE AiSTD MATRIMONIAL. (Before ' His Honor Mr Justice Cooper.) TOTHERINGHAM V FOTHERINGHAM AMD ANOTJHSR. Suit for dissolution of marriage. This case wes before the court at the last sitting, in the form of a suit by the husband for dissolution of marriage on the ground of marital unfaithfulness. His Honor asked at the time why the co-respondent was not joined, and Miss Benjamin replied that he was not worth powder and shot. His Honor thereupon directed that the co-respondent — Miohael Morrisey, an expressman — be made a -party to the rait. This was done, and Miss Benjamin now brought on the case afresh. I Evidence was given by the petitioner and j Detective Hunt. j His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute p.fter three months, costs on the lowest scale againet the co-respondent. BATCHOP V. BACCBOP. "WifeV petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. Mr Hanlon, who appeared for the petitioner, Selina Bauchop, said that on the Bth Juce last an order was made by the court for the restitution of conjugal rights. The order was served -upon the respondent Wil- 1 Ham Henry Gaie Bauchop, who had disobeyed it, and said that nil the courts in New Zealand would not make him return to his wife. Evidence was given by the petitioner and James A. Hawkins (law clerk). His Honor granted a decree nisi, with costs j on the lower scale, the decree to be made J absolute after six months, which was. added i his Honor, the usual time in cases of this ' kind. m'kat v. m'kat. Wife's petition for distolution of marriage. Miss Benjamin appeared for the petitioner. Lily M'Kay. There was no appearance of the respondent, George M'Kay. j The parties were married in April, 1897, and , lived together for three years at Dunedin and six months at Ravensbourne. One child was I born. For over seven years the husband had . been an habitual drunkard. About the 20th June, 1901, he deserted his wife *nd child, and left them without means of support. He is now in Wellington, serving a sentence for theft. Evidence was given by the petitioner, Detective Cooney, and Mrs" Allen (petitior.er's sister). ' His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months; costs on the lowest scale ; petitioner to have custody of the child. Vtxtosh v. m'intosh. Wife's netition for dissolution of marriage. Mr W. L. Moore appeared for the petitioner, Christina M'lntosh , there was no appearance of the respondent. Henry M'lntosh. Mr Moore said the parties were married at Roslyn on the 2nd March, 1877. Some

few years after the marriage they were living at Waitahuna, when Despondent left his home to seek work. While he was away petitioner brought her children xtown to Dunedin. Respondent came from the country to his wife, and assaulted her. Petitioner left her husband, and .had never lived, with him since. That was 16 years ago. In all that time petitioner had supported herself and her children. After hearing the evidence of petitioner and her daughter, his Honor said he could not understand the extraordinary delay which had occurred in the, prosecution of the present proceedings. The desertion, it was asserted, had taken place 16 years ago. Moreover, the evidence before the court was practically only that of petitioner herself. The daughter's testimony wae only valuable in so far as it showed her father's disposition. If Mr Mocre thought he cou.d bring any further evidence, he would adjourn the case until Friday next. Adjourned accordingly.