SUPREME COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 3352, 12 June 1918, Page 44

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Tuesday, June 4. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) FALSE PBETENCES. John Alexander Robertson was called on for sentence on three charges Oi. false pretences. He was undefended.—Mr \V. O. MacGregor, K.C., aopeared for the Crown. The Rev. Mr Axelsen said that the accused was under his control in the Presbyterian Home six or seven years ago. Since then he had been with his parents, who were very respectable people. He was a highly excitable young man and in clincd to bo hysterical. Mr MacGregor said the case was an extraordinary one. Not fonly did the accused get articles by false pretences, but he turned them into cash and spent the money. , - , r His Honor: I suppose his story of entrusting a man with £BO to put. in the bank is a fable? " Mr MacGregor: The police do not believe it. It is probably romance. His Honor said, looking at all the circumstances of the case, he would not bo justified in granting probation, ine accused would be ordered to be detained for reformative purposes for a term of not more than three years.

FOBGEET. William Chapman Dochcrty was called on for sentence, having pleaded guilty in the lower court to two charges of lorgery. He was represented by Mr Scurr. Mr Scurr said tho accused was 42 years of age, and had a wife and four children. The offences to which he had pleaded guilty were committed during tho course ot a drinking bout, which had lasted about 10 days. Some years ago he had the misfortune to sustain a serious injury to his head, and was then told by his medical adviser that he should not touch liquor. He asked that the accused be released on terms prohibiting him from taking liquor and compelling him to refund the money. His Honor: What has he done with it? Mr Scurr: He had none at the time of his arrest. He says himself he thinks he gave it away. He could not have spent it on drink for himself. Mr MacGregor said that the accused had admitted certain other offences to the detective but the persons concerned did not wish to prosecute, and as the amounts were small no action was taken. His Honor said there was no sign of drinking when the accused went through the transaction with Irvine and Stevenson. It was a clumsy forgery. Even Mr Stevenson's name was not spelt correctly. Mr MacGregor said that when the accused came from Sutton ho knew that Irvine and Stevenson owed Mr Kennedy money, and ho tried to collect the money on his own account. __ _ _ _, In reply to his Honor, Mr F. G. Gumming (probation officer) said he had no report. He could not recommend probation. His Honor said if there had been only one case he might have been justified in dealing with the accused under the First Offenders' Probation Act, but there were not only the two forgeries in connection with the fraud perpetrated in respect to tho cheque of Irvine and Stevenson. There were other charges of fraud in connection with other persons. It was impossible to believe that tho forgeries wero all committed by the accused in a drunken burst, and he must inflict a term of imprisonment. The accused would be sentenced to six months' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent.

WANGANUI, June 4. In the Supreme Court the jury disagreed in the second trial of William Fox, charged with attempted rape at Waiouru. The Crown Prosecutor applied for a third trial, which the Chief Justice has ordered. The venue has not been fixed. WELLINGTON, June 4. In the Supreme Court the hearing of the charge of the theft of £565 4s 2d, moneys of the Woodville County Council, preferred against Martha Hutchins (late county clerk) wr.s resumed. The accused, on being further examined, still persisted in the statement that ehe was blackmailed by a certain man who had since

died at the front, and also that she paid money «to another man who was levying blackmail from her. 'J his man is also dead. and the Crown produced evidence that his health was such that he could not have acted as alleged by the accusal. Mr Justice Kdwards remarked thai the case was ri painful one, but the court could not view lightly such serious offences. He could not credit the accused's story of blackmail. She would bo sentenced to two years' reformative treatment.