SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3101, 20 August 1913, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

IN* BANKRUPTCY. Friday, August 3. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) MOTIONS FOR DISCHARGE. Orders of discharge were granted to William Hanger, ot St. Bathans, carrier (Mr J. I. Fraser); Wil'iom Henry Kear, of Glenomaru, farmer (Mr Bedford); and Daniel Harney, ot Oamaru, labourer (Mr J. I. Fraser' for Messrs Hjomng and Davey). In the case of Herman Ntsbett, of Dunedin, carpenter, Mr W • EMoore, who appeared in support of the motion, said tliat he understood Mr Irwin intended to oppose, but lie was not present. Bankrupt was now in Auckland, and the affidavit had arrived only that morning. A few minutes later Mr Moore said that Mr Irwin had withdrawn his opposition. He was not opposing tho discharge. —His Honor : There is no reason for withholding the discharge?-—Mr 'I. D. Kendall (Official Assignee) : No, your Honor, The meeting of creditors lapsed for want of a quorum. —An order of disharge was made. Tho remaining motion was in regard to Richard Westell Capstick, of Milton, bootmaker, for whom Mr D. Reid appeared. Mr Kendall said he did not oppose tho discharge. The affairs were not wound up yet, ‘“’but close upon it. There wore only a few outstanding book debts, and he thought tho estate would pay about 10s in the pound. The bankrupt had done everything to facilitate winding up his affairs. —Order of discharge was made. His Honor fixed November 7 as tho date for next sitting in Bankruptcy. IN CHAMBERS. Probate was granted in the estates of the following deceased persons : —Edward James Dawson, William James Shanks, Susan Manuel, Alexander Guir, John Guthrie Robertson, Janet Thompson, and Maria Connolly. Letters of administration wore granted in ro Frank Wilson (deceased). The following chamber business had been disposed of by his Honor previously: Motions for probate (ail of which were granted).—ln re Catherine Hardy, Mary Maria Knox, Charles Ellis, Sarah Milburn, Jane Bolton, Archibald Clark, Jane Dryburgh, John Henderson, V\ illium M‘Donald, Walter Henderson, sen., Rebecca M’Donuld, Edward Francis Stuckey*, Mary Ann Kerr McClelland, George Coker, John Rose, Janet Chalmers Stevenson, Walter Hislop, John Jack, Christina Fraser, James Hazlett, Sarah Anne Langlands. Letters of administration wore granted in rc Ellen Jamieson, Charlotte Silvias, Jane Elliot Scott, William M’Guckin, and John Binnie (will annexed). IN BANCO. In re John Dunstcr (deceased). —Perpetual Trustees v. Solicitor-general. Originating summons for directions as to distribution o. balance ot estate. —Mr Payne for plaintiffs; Mr Woodhouse for Uto faodcitor-generul.— The iacts were that John Dunstcr, of Dunedin. tailor, died on November 12, 1911, leaving property valued at £1350. The Perpetual Trustees, Estate, ami Agency Company was appointed trustee. Deceased gave Ins property upon trust to two s slots: Sarah Moore, wile of John Moore, of Camberwell, England, -furrier, and Mary Duuster, ot Great Manchester square. London, spinster. The trustees had caus'd lull inquiries to be made, with the resub. that they had ascertained that both sisters were dead, and that the only issue of Mrs Moore was John Henry, who had also died in November, 1910; that was before the death of testator; leaving two illegitimate children. In New Zealand these children would inherit, but inEngland they did not. Being convinced that there was no next of kin the trustees hail ■ decided to take out an originating summons under rule 51. of tho Supreme Court Code, joining the Solicitor-general. The questions submitted to the court were whether tho inauiries made, as shown by affidavits filed, were sufficient to establish the fact that tho legatees under the will were both dead, and that no next of kin could be found, and to this the court answered yes; and to whom, if the court was satisfied on the first point, the executors should pay over the not residue of tho estate. To this second question the answer was that the money should be paid to tho Minister of Finance, as representing the Crown. —Mr Payne stated that the trustees intended bringing before the Minister the question <f recognising the two illegitimate chi'dren His Honor said that the documents seemed sufficient to show that the estate went to the Crown. Mr Woodhouse agreed with this view anil mentioned that the illegitimate relatives, while they had no legal claim, might be entitled to some consideration, and their position would be brought before the Crown authorities. His Honor agreed that that was a right course. In rc John Thomas Wright (deceased).— Johnstone and Another v. Wright and others. —Mr Brent appeared for plaintiffs; and Mr Woodhouse and Mr C. G. White for the defendants. —Tlrs was an originating summons to determine who was entitled to moneys payable under two policies of insurance on the life of deceased on which certain deeds of settlement had been executed ; also to determine who was entitled to give a discharge to tho ’nsuranoe societies.—After hearing counsel the court held that the settlements were both valid and subsisting, and appointed the executors of the will of John Thomas Wright (deceased) to give a discharge of the said moneys. An order was also made as to tho persons entitled to the policy moneys under the settlement. CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Monday. August 11. (Before ills Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Tho Criminal Sittings of the Supreme Court were commenced at 10.30 a.in. GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury empannellcd consisted of A. Sinclair (foreman), S. O. Battersby. George William Gibson, Bin. Dunford. sen, Albert E. Cohen. James A. Leo Smith jun., R. B. Moss. David hindlay. Jas. H. Li -;, 11. E. Shaddock. Walter Logie, Chas. it. Smith, T. 11. 1 hompson, J. J. Purdie. Peter*' Jlereus. Frederick Beadle, Jno. Elvidge, and Leslie Coombes. ADDRESS TO GRAND JURY. His Honor, addressing t'u* Grand Jury, said he was glad to stare ti.at i:s labours that morning would he comp; •. y light. There were six persons charged with various offences, and three men wr re charged

with assault and robbery. It was a very old story of men drinking together in a public house and finally committing robbery on a man whom they saw had money upon him. The jury would have no difficulty in dealing with that case, nor did he think it would have any difficulty over the other cases. There was a case where the accused was charged with attempting to commit an unnatural offence, and there was also a charge of indecency. The jury would have the witnesses before it and be able to judge of their credibility. There was a case where a man was charged with attempting to commit an offence on a child, and a’so with indecently assaulting her. If the evidence corresponded with the depositions the jury should not find any difficulty with the case. There was another charge of a man abducting a girl under 16 years of age. and he was also charged with another offence in connection with the same girl. The offence of abduction was defined by section 229 of the Criminal Code, which made it an offence to take an unmarried girl under 16 years of age out of the custody of her father, or mother, or the person who had a right to her custody, with a certain intent. It was immaterial whether the girl went away with her consent or at her own suggestion. There could bo no doubt that if the evidence corresponded with the depositions, the accused had taken the girl out of the ha tics of her parents, and that his intention was that she should live with him. Ats a matter of fact, they had lived together before. Ho (his Worship) did not think the (fraud Jury would'havo any difficulty in any of the cases. TRUE BILLS. The jury found true hills against all the persons committed for trial; -Edward ilson (alias Robert Jones), 11 alter Duff, Patrick Ryan. David Morris, and Martin Carroll, and Albert Percy Olding. prisoners for sentence. During the absence of the Grand Jury his Honor passed sentence on several prisoners. ASSAULT AT DUNEDIN. George Anderson Duncan, 44 years of age, came up for sentence on a charge of assail.t committed at Dunedin. Mr Scurr, who appeared for the prisoner, directed his Honor's attention to the circumstances of the case. Prisoner had boon in company with a man named Owens and a woman named Bcrkely, and he had been rather good to the woman when Owens had deserted her. An assault took p'ace and some injuries were inflicted upon Owens, but they wore not of spcli a serious nature as to prevent him from getting about tho day after the occurrence. The prisoner had committed the assault with a hook such as was commonly used by wharf labourers while at their work. It was submitted that this hook was used more with a view of getting hold of Owens rather than of inflicting any injury upon him. He (Mr Scurr) would like his Honor also to take the character of tho people with whom the prisoner had been associated into account. The court might be told that the prisoner was a bad character, but he was a very hard-working man all the same. It was admitted that he had a list of previous convictions, but outside drunkenness be was a good worker, and he (counsel) would ask that hi.s client be dealt with as leniently as possible. 'I ho Crown Prosecutor (Mr Fraser) said that prisoner was a native of Victoria and Lad come here when young. Tho character given him by the police was that he drank and associated witii women of bad character. There wore two convictions against him in the lower court for assault —one at Oamaru and the other at Clyde—and ho had been sentenced in the first case and fined in the second, with the alternative of seven days’ imprisonment. Mr Scurr pointed out that his client had been in gaol since June 21— nearly two months. His Honor asked what age Owens was — they said he was an old man? Mr Scurr replied that ho did not look more than 50 years of ago. Ho had seemed very sorry for himself a,rid had tried to make himself out to bo very old. His Honor; The sentence of the court is that prisoner ho imprisoned for three months with hard labour. forgery. Henry Burke (31 years) was brought up for sentence on four charges of forgery committed at Oamaru. Tho Crown Prosecutor said the report of tho police at Oamaru was to the effect that prisoner had been about Oamaru for about three years, and prior to that he had been a steward on the boats. He was born in London and left for Australia about 15 years ago, and had been in New Zealand about six years. Nothing was known against him beyond sly-grog selling He was a quiet and inoffensive man. hut only when lie was cut of work he resorted to Jv-grog selling. The forgeries had all been committed over liquor. His Honor: No one seems to have been a penny the worse for Ids transactions. The Crown Prosecutor: No. sir. His Honor: 11 is object must have been to get a good stock of liquor in hand. The Crown Prosecutor: More than that, he got it in such a way as not to arouse suspicion. If lie had got it in 1 is own name his place would have been raided. Ho was convicted on October 30, 1910. for keeping liquor for sale and was fined £lO. On May 27 of this year, also at Oamaru, he had received a sentence of one month’s imprisonment with hard labour for a-similar offence, and at the same time had been convicted of a breach of the Licensing Act and fined £5. He was then selling liquor by the bottle in the street, and was then what wa.s popularN known ns *' a lighthouse keeper.” His Honor: Ho has been eight weeks in gaol. Mr 11. M Murray, head gaoler: From' July 3, His Honor: Looking at the previous convictions for sly grog-selling the object for this particular offence seems to have been committed to enable him to carry on the business of sly grog-selling. 1 don’t know that this is a ease for probation. At the same time, although what ho did conics within the definition of forgery, it is a very different tiling, as lie points out in ids statement*, from such a crime as forging a cheque* with the intention of defrauding someone. No one could bo defrauded bv the act of accused. It is a case for ;> comparatively light sentence. Tho sentence of the court is that the accused be imprisoned for three months, with hard labour, on each of the four charges, the sentences to run concurrently. THE MARRIAGE ACT. Peter Wadsworth came up for sentence on a charge of having made a false declaration under the Marriage Act, the offence having been committed at Dunedin Mr (’allan, who appeared for prisoner, said there could lie no doubt that Wadsworth had committed an offence against

the Crimes Act, but the facts showed that in the circumstances he had behaved very well. He was under a moral obligation to marry the girl. He was an engine-driver; his business took him in the neighbourhod of the girl’s father’s farm; and when he began to pay attentions to the girl the father interiered, saying that Wadsworth was not good enough to enter the Todd family. Alany men would have run away from such a responsibility, especially in face of the opposition of the family. This man faced it, and married the girl. Ho was not aware, and probably most of the public were not aware, that there was a procedure by which the court might be asked whether tho consent of a parent to the marriage of a minor was being unreasonably withheld. The way lie took was to make a false declaration. It might also be said that when the detectives approached the accused he was perfectly candid about the whole affair. The father, Mr Todd, had a notion that if lie acted promptly ho would prevent the marriage. When lie found what lie had brought upon the parties he was anxious to quash the whole thing, but he was too late. There wore, however, these significant facts: that in the lower j'ourt he became one of tho bondsmen for Wadsworth. and Wadsworth .gj>as now living in Wyndham on terms of perfect reconciliation with Todd. Without ilio admissions made no conviction could have been proved against accused. His Honor asked if there was not something in the Marriage Act that made such a marriage void.

.Mr Callan expressed the opinion that there was not

His Honor said lie hoped be was wrong, and, after looking into the Act, said that section 47 stated expressly that such a marriage was not void. He asked the Crown Prosecutor if he admitted the circumstances as stated bv Mr Callan.

The Crown Prosecutor replied affirmative, and said it was only right (o admit that accused boro a very high character—at any rate during the last four years.

His Honor: I think the proper course would be (o inflict' a fine of £5. whichjvould pay the cost of the prosecution. Ho is fined £5 * BREAKING AND ENTERING. Thomas Tangney, who had pleaded ■‘Guilty” to a charge of breaking and entering and theft at Ringway, near Otautau, on Juno 19, was brought up for sentence. The accused asked for leniency. lie had been in trouble before, but on being discharged from gaol had been thrown amongst lus oid associates. Now he wished to leave the country if given a chance, and his father had promised to pay his passage money. In answer to his Honor, Hr Fraser said the accused had been in prison since Juno 20. There were two previous convictions against him —one for breaking and entering and theft at Otautau in May, 1907, and the other for theft and forgery at Invercargill on November 28, 19li, On the first occasion he wus ordered to come up for sentence when called upon, and the second time lie had been sentenced to nine months’ reformative treatment The police report gave his character as bad. Accused was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labour. ABDUCTION. Iho first trial of the day was then entered upon, the accused being Albert Percy Hiding, who was charged with abducting a girl named Clara Amelia Perry, and with undue intimacy with the girl, 'lie pleaded ‘‘Not guilty.” The Crown Prosecutor said it was immaterial whether tho g'irl was willing or unwilling in the case of abduction, if she was under 16 years of age, or even if she solicited to bo takeij away. As to tho second count, the parties had been living in Wellington in April of this year—the girl, her father ami her mother. Tho parents had had occasion to leave Wellington for three weeks, the girl being then in service, and a month over 15 years of ago. Accused had taken her to a boarding-house, and they had boon together there for tho three weeks. If that was proved, it had to be admitted that accused was guilty on the second count. The g;r! apparently wrote asking accused to take her awa,y, and he had yielded to her request and took her to Christchurch. Accused had written to the mother of the .girl on June 19, making certain statements about tho girl, and that he was still of the same mind as ho had been when ho went away, and that was that lie was willing to marry tho girl. It was all he could do to right the wrong he had done. The pair had been arrested at Chr.’steluireh on the day they arrived there. Nellie Thomson Perry, the mother, produced the certificate of her daughter’s birth, and said that she was tho eldest of four. When witness left Wellington for a holiday, she left Clara in a situation. When idle returned the girl was gone. On one occasion accused said that if witness would sign the registry papers lie would marry the girl. Ho afterwards told witness that ho had been living with- the girl for three weeks. ’1 ho landlady of the house to which witness went with a constable said that they were a married couple. Witness took tho girl homo. The whole of the parties subsequently came to Dunedin, and as a result of what happened wTiiosci laid an information for abduction. John Forest Perry. <-ln f. and father of the giri, narrated the circumstances <f the ease, stating that in all the interviews between him and the prisoner, until the last, the prisoner declared that he had married the girl. In cross-examination by prisoner, this witness denied that ho had .ill-treated the girl when she lived at home. Clara Amelia Perry said that ehc was 15 on January 6. When her father and mother left Wellington'in April she left her situation and went to a house with the prisoner as his wife for three weeks. After that they were just ‘‘walking out.'’ When they came to Dunedin she stayed with her parents till the morning of July 16. She corresponded with prisoner. In her letters she addressed him as “My darling husband,” and said she was willing to go to him at Christchurch whenever ho liked. She left home on July 16, and joined (tiding at the Dunedin Railway Station. He had cent her a wire, and they met on the railway station. They were together for about an hour, and made an appointment for the following morning. Hiding took tickets for both for Christchurch, and went to the People’s Palaee, where they had tea. Hiding was arrested at tea. Old ng wanted her to wait for 12 months. until she was 16. but she wrote and said .she would not wait, because they were always growling at her at home on account of the accused. Cross-examined: She wrote to him that if ho did not come for her she would either go away or do away with herself.

Detective Regan also gave evidence. Accused said tho Court would see that he had done all that was in his power, and that Ins intentions had been honourable. Ho had written to the girl asking her to wait until she was of age. but she had not been happy at homo and ho had thought it his duty to take her away, and he did so. He had told her on several occasions that it was impossible to take her away as she was under age, but she had said that she would do away with herself, and so he had to take her away. The jury retired at 5 minutes to 1. At 1.40 p.m. his Honor returned to take the verdict, which was “ Guilty ” on both counts. Sentence was deferred. UNNATURAL OFFENCE. Walter Duff was charged on throe counts with having on July 22, at Dunedin, attempted to commit an unnatural offence, that ho committed assault with intent to commit such offence, and that he did commit such offence. —Accused, who was not represented by counsel, pleaded *’ Not guilty." After tho hearing of evidence, his Honor summed up, and the jury retired at 3.25 p.m. On returning 20 minutes later they returned a verdict of '' Guilty ” on all throe counts. Sentence was deferred. ASSAULT WITH INTENT. Edward Wilson alias Robert Jones was charged on three counts with on or about June 25. at Dunedin, having assaulted a young girl with intent to commit a serious offence, with having committed an indecent assault, and with having committed common assault. Prisoner, who was not represented by counsel, pleaded “ Not guilty." After hearing evidence the jury retired at 4.45 p.m.. and returned at 5.15 with a verdict of “Guilty" on all three counts. Sentence was deferred. Tuesday, August 12. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) The criminal sittings were resumed at 10.50 a.m. The first case called on was that in which Patrick Ryan, David Morris, and Martin Carroll wore indicted for having at Dunedin, on July 9, used personal violence towards Ernest M’Giashan and robbed him of £5, a. tobacco pouch, a purse, arailway ticket, and a left luggage ticket. Accused all pleaded ‘‘Not guilty.” Carroll was represented by Air Hanlon, and Ryan by Mr Scurr. The Crown Prosecutor (Air Fraser) said tho case belonged to a somewhat common class of crime, tho story being that a man from the country came to town with a little money, ami met with two or three men who formed a concerted plan to rob him. In the present case there had been undoubtedly a certain quantity of liquor consumed by prosecutor, and also by the accused, APGlashan came to town from Ashburton on July 8, and when ho left Ashburton he had about £8 in his possession, which was reduced to about £7 when lie reached Dunedin. He put up at the Leviathan Hotel, and on tho morning of the 9th. when near Hastings’s Hotel, met the three accused. Alorris asked M’Giashan for 2s, and also asked him to shout, and M’Giashan foolishly agreed to do so. Accused did not want to go into Hastings’s Hotel, and they went along Cumberland street to the Law Courts Hotel, whore they appeared to have had three or four rounds of drinks for which M’Giashan paid, tendering £l, and receiving the change. M’Giashan went to the rear of the premises, and was followed by Morris.' M’Giashan then went in an express to the Oban Hotel, Morris accompanying him. APGlashan had a drink with the expressman and placed a second pound note on the counter, and while the change was lying there Ryan and Carroll entered. Tho men appeared to have had a few rounds of drinks at the Oban and thou left. Carroll suggested that they should go to tho European Hotel, but APGlashan refused to go there. About this time APGlashan purchased some cigarettes. M’Giashan then wont to Asher’s lane with Carroll to sec a woman named Cecilia Chatterly, whom APGlashan appeared to have known previously. Ho was sitting on the doorstep with her when Ryan anil Alorris approached. Carroll joined them, and the men went up the lane together. Morris’s house was No. 3 in Asher’s lane. They half persuaded and half pulled APGlashan into Alorris’s house. Cecilia Chatterly apparently warned him not to go. He was, however, taken there and robbed, and his statement was that the three accused robbed him. That was the outline of the story as told by prosecutor, and it was corroborated in part by the statements of tho barmen and Mrs Chatterly, besides which there was corroboration in the separate statements made by tho three accused. APGlashan, during ii s evidence, said that lie was a labourer. When the three men got him into Morris’s house they put him down on the hi d and Carroll held his hands back over ins head, Alorris held his feet, and Ryan put Ids hands into Ids (M’Glashan’s) pockets and took all ho had. They came across a ticket in his purse, and Alorris sad. “That’s what I have been looking for.” It was a ticket for a swag. Morris then opened the door and said. “Now, get out.’’ Evidence was also given by Cecelia Chattorlev, who said that APGlashan was not quite sober, but he was quite capable of knowing what he was doing; John Turner (barman in the Law Courts Hotel). George A. Tan id worth (barman at the Oban Hotel), and Plain-clothes Constable Hall. Mr Scurr, addressing the jury, sad that the ease for the Crown was not a strong one. There was nothing, apart from APGlashan’s own evidence, to show that he had had the money ho said he had. He had to borrow 5s on the morning of the 9:h. and that would not ho the action of a man who had £7 in his pocket. Aloreover. there were several discrepancies between the story he had told in the 1 over court anil Ins evidence that ilav, A man who made so many mistakes ns he had made was not a reliable witness, and he wa- the only person who offered a title of cvalci c L » as to a robbery. .Tim jury could hardlv believe that when being robbed he d'd not orv out. He submitted that it was no ease for a conviction. Mr Hanlon said that the charge against the men was one of the most serious in the calendar. The Crown had to prove its case, and unless the evidence was conclusive tho men were entitled to an acquittal. What evidence had they? 'Take the evidence of the barmen. It showed nothing except that they did not supply the men ! with too much liquor. If they could n L ] rely upon the evidence of M’Giashan. then i tho cast went by the hoard. Could they rely upon APOlashan’s evidence? I here, were several discrepancies in the stories he told in tho lower court and in iho Supremo

Court. From one end of his evidence to the other there had been nothing- but contradictions and doubts. Where they expected to find his story corroborated they found it contradicted. Counsel subm.ttcd that M'Glashan did not know in which house or where ho lost Ins money, and t.vat it was only in the morning, when ho wakened up from his drunkenness of the night before, that he found that his money had gone. Then, finding that he had not a sixpence left, he went to the police. Even after that his story was not corroborated, because when the men were found they’ had not the money on them. He subunited that, on the evidence, the prosecution was hopelessly weak, and that: it would bo a monstrous thing to cast three men into gaol on that man's evidence and v.itn each poor corroboration. , , His Honor summed up after lunch, and the jury retired at 2.25 pm. After an absence of an hour, they returned with a verdict of “Not guilty. The prisoners were discharged. VNX AT URAL OFEENU.E. Walter Duff, who had been found guilty on three counts that he attempted so commit an unnatural offence, that lie committed assault with intent to commit such offence, and that he did commit such offence, was brought up for sentence. The prisoner had nothing to say. Mr Eras eg said that he came iioin Victoria in June, and nothing was known against him by the police. , . Accused was sentenced to five years imprisonment with hard iaboui assault with intent.

Edward Wilson, alias Robert Jones, was brought up for sentence for having assaulted a voung girl with intent to commit a serious otience, with having committed a serious assault, and with having commuted common assault. Prisoner handed in a short statement in which he asked for leniency on the grounds that he had been under the influence o! liquor at the time and that lie had a wile and three children. Mr Fraser said that, there wore four previous convictions against the accused. On August 8. 1904, at Dunedin, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for theft from the person; on June 6, 1905, at limaru, to 12 months’ hard labour for assault; on May 25, 1906, at Timaru, to two years’ hard labour for theft; and on Juno 20, 1911, he had boon convicted of theft at Dunedin and ordered to come up for sentence when culled upon. A report from Detective Connolly stated that the accused was addicted to liquor and gambling. IPs wife had been working about town to keep herself and the children in food and clothing. Wilson had done little work for some time, and what he earned he spent partly in drink and partly in gambling. Ills Honor said that the prisoner hud been convicted of a brutal and cowardly assault upon an unfortunate crippled child. lie said that ho was under the influence of drink and did not know what he was doing. That lie was under the influence of drink was not unlikely, but the evidence showed that he was not incompetent through drink, that he was able to speak, that he was able to carrv the child, and that when he dropped her 'he was perfectly capable of running away. “ The offence is one of a very serious kind,” continued his Honor, “ and a term of imprisonment in my opinion is not suflicient to meet your case, Ihe Legis'aturo lias provided that for an offence of this kind (logging in addition to imprisonment may be inflicted. It seems to mo that if there ever was a case where a flogging ought to be inflicted for a cowardly and wicked assault it is in this case. The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned for seven years with hard labour and receive a flogging of 15 strokes.” ABDUCTION. Albert Percy Olding came up for sentence on a charge of abducting a girl named Clara Amelia Perry, and with having undue intimacy with the girl Mr Fraser said that nothing was known tf the accused bv the police. , His Honor said that he had considerable difficulty in this case, because, so far as the abduction was concerned, the girl had represented to the accused that she was very unhappy and badly treated at home. It was on that representation, whether it were true or not, that the accused had been induced to act. His letters seemed to show an honest desire on his part to many the girl, and also on the part of the girl a real affection for him. There had to bo considered the fact that be had committed the other offence prior to the abduction. If the abduction stood alone his Honor would have been inclined to admit accused to probation, but it did not stand alone.

Mr Fraeer said that tho girl’s parents were not prepared to let her marry the accused at any future date. Hie Honor said that so far ae the ahducUoo was concerned there were a good many

mitigating circumstances. The principal I offence was that which took place in Wellington before the abduction, and that should not go without a punishment of some kind. | Prisoner would be sentenced to imprisonment for six months with hard labour. CIVIL SITTINGS. Thursday, August 14. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams). BATGER V. ROBERTSON. This was an action tried at Invercargill on Juno 5,6, and 7 before his Honor and a jury of 12. At the trial eight issues were submitted to the jury, and were all answered in favour of the plaintiff, a verdict being returned for plaintiff for £BBB, subject to certain questions of law. Tliese questions all came on for argument before his Honor, Mr Win. C. MacGregor appearing for plaintiff and Mr Stout, of Invercargill, for defendants. The plaintiff was John Batgcr, of Invercargill, 'grain merchant, and (he defendants Robertson Bros., of Auckland, grain merchants. In his statement of claim, plaintiff stated that —(1) About November 2, 1910, defendants agreed to sell to him 2500 sacks of A Grade Garton oats at 2s lid per bushel; (2) that it was a condition of the agreement thaf the outs should be delivered by the defendants to the plaintiff free on board at Bluff; (3) that the plaintiff had duly paid to the defendants the whole of the purchase price of the oats, amounting to £'1195 6s 3d ; (41 that the defendants had delivered under the contract 654 sacks of the oats, and no more; (5) that the defendants had wrongfully failed and refused to deliver to the plaintiff under the contract the remaining 18A6 sacks of oats —the contract price of which amounted to £BBB Tin’s sum having already been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, the plaintiff, therefore, claimed to recover £B3B, or, in the alternative, damages for the nondelivery of the 1846 sacks of oats in terms of the contract. The statement of defence admitted paragraph 1 of the statement of claim, denied paragraph 2, admitted paragraph 3, admitted paragraph 4, so far that defendants had delivered to plaintiff in terms of the contract 654 sacks of oats, but denied that no more had been delivered, and denied paragraph 5, defendants alleging that they hud delivered to plaintiff the whole of the oats purchased by him. They also asserted that about November, 1910, the oats, the subject of the contract referred to in paragraph 1 of the statement of claim, were stored at Bluff, and that they duly transferred to plaintiff the store warrant thereof, and the plaintiff accepted the same, and that the property in the oats passed to the plaintiff, by whom storage charges were thenceforward paid. Defendants said further, _ that about June. 1911, plaintiff dealt with and received 654 sacks of oats, and that about April, 1912, he dealt with and received the remaining 1846 sacks, and that they (the defendants) had fully performed the contract alleged in paragraph 1 of the statement of claim. Defendants said si ill further, that if plaintiff ever had the right, which they denied, to reject the oats, lie had lost such right, and had accepted the oats, and was estopped from questioning the qualify of the cats, or stating that the oats delivered to him were not of the description sold. The jury had found in connection with the issues laid before ,-it that defendants [ had agreed to sell and pia ntiff had agreed | to purchase 2500 sacks of A grade Garton : oats at 2s per bushel, that it was a I condition that the oats were to he delivered ! free on board at Bluff, that plaintiff had j paid the purchase .money (£llß6 6s 3d), that i defendants had delivered 654 sacks of oats, that they had failed or refused to deliver | tho remaining 1846 sacks, that the 1846 sarks shipped on board the Star of Canada were not A grade Garton oats, that 20 per cent, were not of such a grade, end that plaintiff was entitled to recover £B3B. Mr Stout moved for a nonsuit, or judg- ; ment. for defendants on three principal grounds. First, that the property in the oats had passed to the plaintiff Batger. and that consequently the risk of lose was not defendants’. Second, that tho contract was an entire one and the plaintiff couM not now recover back his money, taring accepted part of the oats. Third, that the plaintiff by accepting the oats h< d mst his right to reject the shipment, and could only bring an action for damages for brctch of contract. Mr MacGregor argued on the other hand first, that, tile oats had never been proprietary to the contract, and consequently that the property in tho oats remained in the defendants, on whom the risk of loss accordingly lay. Second, that Ihe contract was a severable one and that the plaintiff could accordingly recover hack the money 1 he had paid for the oats which the jury

had found did not answer the description in the contract. Third, that the plaintiff had a rigor to reject the goods, and had duly rejected the goods within reasonable time as found by the verdict.of the jury. A number c4' cases were cited on both sides, and his Honor intimated that the questions raised presented some difficulty and that ho wou cl take time to consider his judgment. DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS. Tlie following are the petitions in divorce to come before the Supreme Court shortly : (Before a Common Jury of Twelve.) Albert Joseph Thomas (Adams Bros.) v. Esther Thomas and John Palmer (Irwin and Irwin). —Dissolution of marriage—misconduct. James Wilson (A. A. Finch) v. Elizabeth Heath Wilson and Henry Jones. —Dissolution of marriage—Misconduct and claim for £IOO damages. (Before the Judge alone.) Andrew Fleming (A. C. Hanlon) v. Esther dive Fleming and Lawrence William Jillings.—Dissolution of marriage— Misconduct. IN CHAMBERS.- “ Sitting in Chambers on Wednesday his Honor granted probate of the wills of James Irvine and Matilda Turnbull, and granted letters of administration in re Alice Blacker, George Sutherland, and • Margaret Weipers, and in Geen v. Geen the originating summons was ordered to be served on Ernest Goen and T. J. Geen. His Honor has also granted probate in re Charles Duke, Sarah Ann Gifford, a.nd John Christie, and granted letters of administration in re Martha Brain, while in tho estate of Robert M‘Leod Patrick leave was given to carry on the farm.