SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3205, 18 August 1915, Page 48

SUPREME COURT.

PRISONERS FOR SENTENCE.' SHEARING AX D ENTERING. Douglas Ferguson, aged 17 years, was brought before Jiis Honor Mr Justice Sim on Monday morning for sentence on two c-narges 01 breaking anti entering to wlntn he iiad previously pleaded guilty. The Crown Prosecutor stated that prisoners parents resided at Timaru, and his father trad been communicated with by the police, but no reply had been received. He loft home having seemingly become smitten by a young girl engaged on the stage, and he followed her to Dunedin and Christchurch. He spent a good deal of money on her, and it was suggested that he had committed these offences to supply her with more money. He went to Christchurch to meet this young person. On November 26, 1910, he had been convicted at Timaru of theft and had been cautioned and discharged. On December 5, 1910, he had been convicted of breaking and entering, and was discharged. On February to, 1912. at Timaru he had been convicted of theft and discharged with a caution. On August 20, 1914, ho had been convicted of trespass and ordered to come up for sentence when called on. It was apparently a case where prisoner should have been sent to a reformatory under the Industrial Schools Act. A Salvation Army officer, who had communicated With the lad’s parents, stated that they were anxious to hat e him sent to the Prison Brigade Home, Christchurch. His Honor said that in view of the previous convictions it was impossible to treat prisoner as a first offender under the Probation Act. Under the circumstances the best course would be to detain him for reformative treatment, and afterwards release him to go to the home referred to. He would be ordered to be detained for reformative treatment for a period of not more than three years. FIXTURES. The following fixtures with regard to civil actions and divorce proceedings were made by his Honor Mr Justice Sim yesterday : ... Brown v. Bell, claim £5Ol for injuries by a motor car. —Mr Nichols stated that since the writ had been issued defendant ] la d filed. Last week a proposal of . settlement had been made, but whether it would be agreed to depended on the creditors, who were to meet the following day. There was every chance that the case would bo settled. —Case ordered to stand over. Durrv v. Durry (divorce))—Mr Scurr bavins: stated that respondent did not now intend to defend, the case was fixed for Thursday next. King V. King (divorce).—Mr Scurr mentioned that this case had been before his Honor at last sittings, and had been adjourned on the understanding that it would come on at the present sittings, or that it would be struck our. Petitioner now desired to go on, and notice had been served that ho had changed his solicitor, and that he (Mr Scurr) had been appointed.—His Honor asked if the parties wore willing to dispense with a jury, as there wore difficulties in getting one, and leave the case to be heard by him alone. —Counsel agreed to this course, and the case was sot down for hearing next Monday. Gibson v. Wilson. —Claim £154 6s lOd damages ihrough refusal to complete agreement. Fixed for Thursday week. M'Kowen v. Gunn.—Clair £BS. balance eliio under an agreement. —Fixed for Friday. , Corporation v. Soarlo.—Claim for the possession of premises.—Mr Wirt. 0. MacGregor- K.C.. stated that there had been a payment for rent into court under a statute concerning which there was a good deal of doubt. If required to bo argued.— Fixed for Mednesday. Commissioner of Stamps v. Bogg and another. — Claim £6Bll 15s sd. for death duties.—-Mr Wnt. C. MacGregor. K. said that an arrangement was. being made for the case to be heard at Wellington.— Ordered to stand over. TTazlett v. Hazlctt (divorce). —Fixed for Thursday. Gardner a- Gardner (divorce). — f hero being some difficulty as to getting a witness, the 'case was ordered to be mentioned **''■Russell v. Russel! (divorce). —Fixed for Thursday,