SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2985, 31 May 1911, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Thursday, May. 18. (Before his'Honor Mr Justice Sim.) THEFT FROM A CHINAMAN. Theodore Frederick Scott was indicted that he did, about the 12th February, at Palmerston, steal from the dwelling-house of Harry Louie the. sum of £7 3s, the property of I-4-ry Louie. There was a second count of %ft. ■.• ■„■'.. , i_. Mr CaltalT appeared for accused, who •pleaded "Not guilty." T L«,^ The Crown Prosecutor said Harry .Louie was a Chinese fruiterer, carrying, on business at Palmerston, and he was well known to accused. Accused -was a friend of the prosecutor, and was familiar with his premises* and had kept shop for him when the latter went to town. Accused went to prosecutor's place on Sunday, 12th February, about 11 o'clock in the forenoon, and eat down, first on a chair and then on the counter. Louie went out for water, leaving accused sitting on the counter. He (Louie) went over to the station lap, and, lecking round when on the platform, could not see accused sittdng on the counter. Accused left the shop a.few minutes after Louie's return,-and came back about mid-day and got some fruit. That day the Chinaman had £ll in a box in his room, and Baid that accused knew where he kept his money. A little later Louie missed £7 3s. A man named M'Lean would give evidence and would say that Louie and Scott were in the shop when he got there, and that he left them there. Accused knwv where the money was, and had, an opportunity of taking it. The matter was investigated by the police, and Detective Ward, a careful officer, questioned accused, y.'ho made certain answers which were written down; and the statement was signed. The Crown Presecufcor read this statement, which set out that accused was a baker's apprentice, and admitted having taken £2 10s fmm the box, but that was all he had taken. The Crown # Prosecutor said the amount accused took was immaterial. The question was: Did he take any money? Evidence was aiven by Harry Louie, William M'Laren, Detective Ward, and Constable Taylor.

Mr Callan intimated that he intended to call evidence, and said that accused would say that the statement was made by him, but that Detective Ward's general answer to the last question—a denial that compulsion was used—was not true; and he would describe exactly what the threat and what the inducement was. Accused, being sworn, said it was not true, as a matter of fact, that he had taken £2 10s. Detective Ward bad said to him : " Are you sure you did not take this money?" and he (witness) replied "Yes." The detective then said: "Well, Scott, if you own up to it, and say you took the money, there will be nothing more about it.' He also said: "When I go back to town I will tell the clerk—l don't know whether he said the clerk, but he said somebody in the office—that you were sorry you took the money, and don't know why you took it, and you will pay it back the best way you can." The detective also Baid: "If you don't own up to it you'll have to go before a magistrate in Dunedin, and you 11 be damned. You will not only disgrace yourself, but your father' and mother. ' This was said to witness several times.

The Crown Prosecutor: Detective Ward commenced bv telling vou to tell the truth ]>o vou say that?—Accused : Yes. The Crown Prosecutor: What did ho say? —Accused: He told me to tell the truth. The Crown Prosecutor: Yes, or vou would be damned? —Accused : Yes.

The Crown Prosecutor: And you promptlv told a lie. Don't you see? I say "you told the truth, and yem say you told a, lie. Com« now, Rcott, you are not a child. Don't you think yen had better own up? Witness made no answer. The Grown Prosecutor: Why did you rf-xside to plead guilty in the court below? Why do von change your mind, and not plead guilty here-? .Witness: J don't remember pleading guilty in the lower court. The Grown Prosecutor: Accused was to plead cui'ty. and Detective Ward did not ftttend the sit.fins- of the court, and the case v,-f,s dismissed, and accused had to be rearrested.

Mr Callan'(to accused): Do you adhere to the evidence you have given to-day? Witness made no answer.

His Donor: Is it true that you did not take the Chinaman's money?—Accused: Yes.

His Honor: You did not take a penny of his money? —No. Mr Callon called E. L. Burt, the employer of accused, and then addressed the jury. The Crown -Prosecutor having replied, and his Honor having summed up, the jury retired at 3.45 and returned at 4.30. The Foreman said: "We find the prisoner guilty on his own confession of stealing £2 10b. We strongly recommend him to mercy on account of his youth, and on account of the Chinaman keeping his money in a place where the lad had knowledge of it, this constituting a temptation. Theodore Frederick Scott, who had been found guilty of theft from a dwelling, was brought before his Honor for sentence. Mr Callan referred his Honor to the facts elicited in evidence, to the recommendation of the jury, and to prisoner's youth. The Crown Prosecutor said there was nothing in the police report against accused's character.

His Honor: I think it is a case in which the First Offenders' Probation Act might apply. The only difficulty in .'applying- the act arises from the fact that prisoner, after having confessed he was guilty, pleaded not guilty in this court, and endeavoured to commit a second offence by committing perjury. Probably he is not altogether responsible for that. Someone suggested it to him, and I feel justified in applying the benefits of the act. He will be released on probation for two years, but he must pay within seven days £2 10s to the Chinaman, Harry Louie, and also the ocsts of the prosecution (£ls 19s). The Crown Prosecutor: It has come to my knowledge that the story he told yesterday was the story he originally gave the solicitor, and to which he persistentlv stuck. His Honor: Accused has money in the savings bank, according to the evidence yesterday, and can pay these costs. FORGING AND UTTERING. John Greig, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of forging and uttering at Gore, was brought before his Honor for sentence. Prisoner pleaded for leniency, and said he was the worse of drink when he committed the offence. The Crown • Prosecutor said accused's character was reported by the polio© to be fair. There was one conviction for drunkenness. ;

His Honor: Although he lives in a prohibition district ho seems to be able to indulge in excessive drinking. The Crown Prosecutor: Yes, that is not impossible. His Honor: What was the exact amount he got? The Crown Prosecutor: He got 14s in cash and goods to the extent of £1 6s — £2 in all.

His Honor: His character is reported &s good, and the report of the probation officer is favourable, and 1 think I will be justified in admitting him to probation. He will be admitted to probation for two years, one condition being that he pays £2, by instalments of 10s a month, to Mary Ann Houlihan, and thereafter pays the costs of the prosecution (£2 2s) by : like instalments. Another condition is that during the period of probation he abstains from drinking alcoholic liquor. ATTEMPTED THEFT OF GOLD*. Thomas -Ross was brought before his Honor for sentence' on a charge of attempting to steal gold from a tail race at Lawrence. Mr Hanlon, who appeared for prisoner, said it was a very stupid offence, as prisoner could not possioly have taken away gold tailings valued at £l9. It was quite obvious that prisoner was drunk at the time. He was not 'hen working, and he went to the sluice boxes to get a few pennyweights of gold, so as to procure money with which to buy drink. That was what" the people in the neighbourhood thought he was after. He was the son of an old miner and the youngest of a respectable family. His one failing was that at times he indulged in drink. Many residents of the neighbourhood had signed a petition asking that he bo dealt with leniently. The Crown Prosecutor said that Mr Hanlon had been misinformed as to the prisoner's character. The nolice reported that he was born here, and had lived in Lawrence; that he was a labourer, 32 yearn old, of indifferent character, lazy, and fond of drink. He ha-d been suspected for a long time of tampering with sluice boxes. He was selling gold, and had no claim. As for the petition, some people would sign anything. His Honor said that he would give Ross a chance. He would be ordered to pay a fine of £2O, and to be imprisoned till the fine was paid, the term of imprisonment not to exceed three months.

IN DIVORCE. Thursday, May 25. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) PIDGON V. PIDGON AND ANOTHER. This was a husband's petition for' dissolution of marriage on the ground of misconduct, the petitioner being George Walter Pidgon, the respondent Margaret Eva Pidgon, and the respondent Charles Bruce. There was rro appearance of either the respondent or co-respondent. Mr J. F. Woodhouse, who appeared for the petitioner, said that Pidgon was a working man, employed on the Drainage Board works. He was married to the petitioner in Dunedin cm the Bth of June, 1904. They afterwards went to Timam, where the co-respondent boarded with them. Next they went to live at Clinton, and in the month of December last Mrs Pidgon, with her husband's consent, left to spend a holiday in Christchurch. Her husband was not aware of it at the time, but it appeared tliat she. went no farther than Dunedin, where she met the co-respondent. She went back to Clinton, and then, about Chi istmas time - she returned to Dunedin and again met the co-respondent. The petitioner found this cut afterwards, and now brought these proceedings. The respondent end co-respondent were photographed together. The petitioner, in his evidence, said that he had made inquiries, and believed that the respondent and co-respondent were now living in South Dunedin. Evidence was also given by Laura Mabel Fraser (board-ing-house keeper). A decree granted, to become absolute after three months; costs on the lowest scale against 00-respor.dent . HARRIS V. HARRIS. In this case the wife, Elizabeth Harris, was the petitioner, and sought a dissolution of her marriage with Arthur Hortom Harris on the ground of misconduct. Respondent did not appear. Mr J.. F. Woodhouse appeared for the petitioner. He said that the parties were married at Cromwell in March, 1897. About 1903 they went to Gore, where the respondent was employed as a draper. About 1905 the petitioner went to stop with her people at Cromwell until the summer, and the respondent went to live at the house of the mother of the girl with whom the misconduct was charged. He next took a house for himself and took this girl as housekeeper. The respondent afterwards moved to Feilding, in the North Island, and while he was there he wrote a letter to his brother-in-law confessing misconduct. Mrs Harris had not seen him since. She got a maintenance order against him for the payment of £1 a week for the support of the children", and it was paid for a time. The other girl, who had three children, was believed to be back again in Gore, and the .man couild not be found.

Evidence was given by petitioner and Euphemia M'Nulty. A decree nisi was granted, to become absolute after three months; petitioner to have the custody of the children; costs against respondent. JOLLY v. JOLLY AND FOOAKTY. William Sheen Jolly petitioned for a dissolution of marriage with CharlotteJolly on the ground of misconduct, William Fogarty being made a party to the petition as co-respondent. Mr C. N. Sourr appeared for the petitioner. He said that the parties wore married in Bunedin on the 31st Maroh, 1897, and lived Jiappily until the year 1900. Twc children were born of the marriage. In 1908 the respondent went out frequently at night, saying that she was going to mind somebody's children. One night Jolly went to this person's place to find if his wife was there, and he found that she had not been there, nor had she teen there on any of the other nights. One night when he returned from town with his boy he found Fogarty in the house with his wife. He asked her what it meant, and she produced Fogarty's photograph. She afterward* took proceedings against the husband for the maintenance of the two children, when she admitted misconduct, and the ma.gistra.te refused to make an order.

Evidence in support of the petition was given by the petitioner, Constables Dark and Butler, and Daniel Berry.

A decree nisi was granted, to become absolute after three months, petitioner to have the custody of the chi.ldrerr; costs on the lowest scale against the co-respon-dent.