SUPREME COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 3276, 27 December 1916, Page 23

SUPREME COURT

Thursday, December 21. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) PiUSONEB FOR SENTENCE. William Thomas Burridge was brought up for sentence on a charge of breaking and entering- at St. Clair, and also with stealing a bicycle, to both of which charges he had pleaded "Guilty" in the lower court. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Win. C. MacGregor, K.C.) stated that Burridge was a married man with a wife and four children. A maintenance order had been made against him in March, 1915, for the support of his wife and children, but he had never contributed to their support. Ho had' spent a good deal of his time in gaol. Ho was a cook by occupation. He started his criminal career in 1905, when he was before the court on a charge of theft. He had been in the Roto Roa Inebriates' Home. Ho had also attempted to commit suicide. He was liberated from gaol in Christchurch only on the 2nd inst., and in the course of a few days ho broke into a house, and came to Dunedin on the proceeds of the property which ho stole.

His Honor sentenced prisoner to three years' imprisonment on the first charge, and declared him to be an habitual criminal. On the second charge he was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, the two sentences to bo cumulative.

APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE. His Honor gave his decision as to an application for a change of venue in connection with the trial of Thomas Tait, who had been committed on a charge of forgery to the >Supromo Court, Dunedin. What had been sought by Mr Lcc, who had appeared in support of the application, was a change from Dunedin to Oamaru. His Honor pointed out that it had been contended by Mr Lee that the magistrate had no power to select Dunedin as the place for tho trial of accused, who was charged at Oamaru, but in the circumstances was bound to commit him for trial at Oamaru. His Honor said it was clear, however, from the case of Rex v. Power that the magistrate had a complete discretion in tho matter, and that the exercise of this discretion could not be controlled by this court. The present application could not be treated, therefore, as an appeal from tho magistrate's decision, and it was not necessary for him to express any opinion as to the reasons which moved the magistrate to take the course which he did. It was contended by Mr Lee-that tho fact of tho sittings in Oamaru being a week earlier than those in Dunedin was sufficient to determine tho question in his favour. His Honor said he was not satisfied that it would have been sufficient for the purpose, even if aceused had hcen in custody, But ho was not in custody, and it was not suggested that tho delay of a week would operate in any special way to his prejudice. The question of additional expense had also been raised, but the increase was so slight as not to he worth considering. Applicant had failed to establish that it was expedient in the interests of justice that the place of trial should he changed, and the application would be dismissed.

WELLINGTON. December 23. In tlic Supreme Court, to-day Mr .Justice Edwards sentenced Ernest, Harold Holliday to two years for theft, three years for indecent assault, and five years' reformative treatment: the terms to he cumulative. Andrew Benedict Drosdowski was placed on probation for two years for forgery, and ordered to pay £3 12.-: 6d. costs of the prosecution. Thomasp Doekscy, who pleaded truilty to 15 charges of false pretences since 1911, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on the charge of false pretences, and the same term on each of four charges of forgery (sentences to he concurrent), and was declared an habitual criminal.