SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3215, 27 October 1915, Page 62

SUPREME COURT.

His Honor Mr Justice Sim sat in Chambers on the 19th mat. and dealt with the' following matters: Probate was granted in the estates of the following deceased persons:—Alexander Truesdaie, Alexander Robertson Falconer, Cecilia Haig, William Rupert Pyle, William Strachan, James Andrew Townsend, and Bridget Mcenan. Moss v. Brough.—Motion for directions as to service (Mr J. MacGregor).—Summons to be served on defendant. In re instrument Mitchell to Lindsay.— Motion to extend time for registration (Mr Fraser). —Time extended to October 25. In re Assignment by United M. and E. Water Race Company to Bank of New South Wales.—Motion to extend time for registration (Mr Fraser).—Time extended to October 25. Having dealt with the charges against Menzies, his Honor Mr Justice Sim considered a variety of matters of a civil nature that were brought before him in the Supreme Court on the 20th inst. AN APPEAL. The first matter was one in which Thos. B. Purvis appealed against a decision of Mr Young, S.M., delivered at Milton. The appellant had been charged with using indecent language to the wife of William Inglis, who was the respondent in the present instance, within the hearing of children, the alleged offence occurring in consequence of a calf trespassing on appellant’s land. Mr G. H. Thomson appeared for appellant. and Mb Finch for respondent. Mr Finch raised the point that the security for the application to appeal had not been lodged within the prescribed time, the case being heard on February 10, and the recognisance not being entered into until May 4. Mr Thomson said it had to be assumed that everything had been done in order. The security had been put in before the appeal was entered upon. The grounds of the appeal were as to the actual language used, and that there was no evidence to support the conviction. His Honor remarked that the magistrate had not set out the evidence. Mr Thomson contended that, in order to convict, the words complained of should have been heard, not “could have been heard.” No evidence had been called to show that the language, supposing it was indecent, had been heard by persons in a public place. His Honor inquired as to where the language was used. Mr Thomson replied that it had been used in a paddock. It had been used in connection with a calf getting through a fence, which had been described as a regular barbed wire entanglement. The description of the calf, as conveyed by the language, might bo a true description of the animal in its then condition. After counsel had been further heard, hia Honor reserved his decision.