SUPREME COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 3519, 23 August 1921, Page 19

SUPREME COURT

CRIMIXAL SITTINGS. Tuesday. August 15. The quarterly criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were commenced on Tuesday morning before his Honor, Mr Justice Sim. His Honor, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said that the calendar on the present occasion comprised charges against four persons, two of these being offences against the peison, and the other two being offences against property. After a short retirement the Grand Jury returned a true bill in each case. RELEASED ON PROBATION. Francis Paranthoine was charged that on or about March 18, 1921, at Port Chalmers, lie assaulted Henry Erasmus Sexton so us to cause him actual bodily harm. The accused pleaded guilty. Air Dalian, for the accused, drew attention to the conflicting accounts of the occurrence' given by the different witnesses. The probation officer said that Paranthoine was a- good worker. He was a man who took some liquor. He had a large young family. He (Mr Cummings) would be glad to do what he could in the interests, of the accused, whom ha recommended could be placed on probation. His Honor said the the whole trouble evidently arose from bad temper on the part of the accused, lie did not think Paranthoine intended to knock Sexton down the hold, and taking the whole of the circumstances into consideration he considered it a, case in which he would be justified in releasing him on probation. Tlie accused would lie released on probation for a term of three years, one condition being that he abstained absolutely front alcohol, taking out prohibition orders from time to time during the period. Tlie accused would also be ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution, £l4. One year was given in which to make the payment. FALSE PRETENCES. James Cameron Brown was charged on three separate informations with obtaining money from Duncan F. Wark, licensee of the Grand Hotel. Dunedin, by means of false pretences, to wit, the issuing of valueless cheques. The accused, who pleaded not. guilty, conducted his own defence.

The Crown Prosecutor, addressing the Court, said that while the accused had an account into which moneys were being paid with fair regularity, and from which moneys were be.ng withdrawn with equal regularity, they had the fact that no fewer than 65 cheques had been dishonoured cheques. The accused could not at any time have had reason to believe they couict be met by the account. It was lor the court, upon the evidence, and particularly upon the features of the case to which he had referred, to decide whether or not there was an intention to defend. The accused did not call or give evidence. He addressed the jury at considerable length, explaining that lie was engaged as a commercial traveller working on a commission basis. The accused asked j if his action in going- openly to Australia and working with the police in New Zealand were those of a man anxious to obscure himself. The jury retired at 2.25 p.rn., and returned half an hour later with a verdict of "Guilty” on the first two charges and "Not guilty” on the third. SERIES OF THEFTS. Benjamin Shiver was charged with: (1) On May 6, 1921, stealing un overcoat, the property ot \\ ilham Wallace Callenders (2) on or about May Y, breaking and entering a motor garage and stealing an opossum rug, a Petone rug, and an overcoat, the property of William Kobt. Brugh; (3) on or about May 19, stealing a bicycle, the property of Henry Edward Scott; (4) on or about May 19, stealing a bicycle, the property of Albert ’Ernest Tyrrell. The j accused, who was not represented by eoun- j sei, pleaded not guilty to each charge. Evidence was given by W. W. Callender, I W. R. Brugh, Abraham Israel, A. E. | Tyrrell, Daniel M‘intyre, and Acting I Detective Royeroft. The jury, after a brief retirement, re- . turned a verdict of guilty on each charge. The foreman added that the prisoner appeared to be of rather weak intellect, and the jury was of opinion that this fact should be taken into consideration in passing sentence. His Honor: You are quite right in re- j spect to that. 'The police report dis- i closes the same thing. The prisoner was ordered to be detained for reformative treatment- for a period not exceeding five years, bis Honor remarking that he would thus come under the control of the Prisons Board. Wednesday, August 17. YOUTHFUL burglars. George Salvon Thomas (19) and John Andrew M‘Williams (20), who had been committed for sentence by the lower court on six charges of breaking and entering and theft, had nothing to say. On the charges of breaking and entering each prisoner was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour, the sentences to be concurrent with those already imposed. As part of the sentence each accused was declared by bis Honor a habitual criminal. On the charge of escaping from custody, the prisoners were sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, this sentence also to be concurrent with those previously imposed. PR OTECTI .\u G UI r. ELESS PUBLICANS. James Cameron Brown, who had pleaded in the lower court at Napier to a charge of false pretences, had nothing- to say. His Honor; On this charge he will be sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. Brown also had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed upon him on the two counts of false pretences upon which he had been found guilty on the previous day. Ilis Honor: The prisoner has now qualified himself as a habitual criminal, and I think it is desirable in the interests of poor, simple, guileless publicans that if it is possible lie should be kept in custody for the rest of his life. On the charge upon which he was convicted he will be sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour, to commence on the expiration of the sentence just imposed, so that if he gets another opportunity of obtaining money by false pretences it will be by the grace of the Prisons Board. ANOTHER HABITUAL CRIMINAL. Frederick Edward Clarke, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of theft from a dwelling, had nothing to say. The Crown Prosecutor drew attention to the fact that the man who had been robbed by the prisoner was an old-age pensioner. He did not know whether the court could re-coup the old man. His Honor: I am afraid this court cannot do that. Docs the prisoner admit his record '{ the Crown Prosecutor: Yes, your Honor llis Honor imposed a sentence of 11months’ imprisonment, with hard labour, and declared the prisoner a habitual criminal. He added: “On this occasion we seein to have an usually large number of habitual criminals.” CHARGES OF FORGERY. Thomas William Ellis, who had pleaded guilty in the lower court to three charges of forgery, came up for sentence. Mr Moore, who appeared for the prisoner, said it would be seen from the depositions that these offences had been confined to a period of three days, during which the prisoner had been drinking heavily. The writing on one of the cheques showed that it must have been signed by a man who was under (he influence of liquor. The Probation Officer said that prior to these occurrences Ellis’s record had been decidedly good, and he (Air Gumming) was strongly of opinion that if he were given an opportunity he would not only make good personally, but would make restitution of all the money owittg. His Honor said that in view of this strong recommendation .by Mr Gumming he felt justified in ordering the prisoner to be released on probation for a term of three years One condition was that he must abstain from alcohol and take out a prohibition order which he would have to renew from time to time. He would further be required to pay £l to the Probation Officer to be applied to the reduction of the £SO outstanding to the persons who had cashed the cheques. The prisoner would further be ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution (£5 8s 4d) by November 1. RELEASED ON PROBATION. Sebastian Samuel Crawford Vallis, who bad pleaded guilty in the lower court To charges of theft, as a public servant, appeared for sentence. Ilis Honor said it, was very rarely that the provisions of tlie Probation Act could be extended to cases of (his kind where

a person had betrayed liis trust- and robbed his employer. The circumstances of the ease were somewhat peculiar, and the Probation officer had strongly recommended probation. In view of that recommendation and the youth of the accused, and also the fact that complete restitution had been made, he thought he would be justified in releasing the prisoner on probation. He would be placed on probation for a term of three years, and would Ire ordered to pay forthwith the costs of the prosecution. amounting to £3 3s. During the period of his probation lie would be required not- to enter any billiard room or to play billiards. AIOSGIEL SCHOOL FIRE. Doris Mary Al'Keagg came up for sentence on a. charge ot arson at Alosgiei. Ilis Honor said that as the girl had already been under the care of the Salvation Army since her arrest he thought she should be left there. !sihe would be released on probation lor a term ot me years on condition that she remained in the Salvation Army Industrial Home at Wellington during that period. AUCKLAND, August 17.* At the Supreme Court William Llewellyn Trevethick was sentenced to reformative treatment for a term not exceeding three years, for obtaining goods valued at £32from the Farmers’ Trading Company by falsely representing tnat he was tlie son of a. shareholder. Helen Sinclair MacDonald, aged 17, who admitted two charges of counselling the forgery of her brother’s'" name on an Auckland Savings Bank account, was imprisoned for three months, with a recommendation that she be placed in an Industrial Institution. John Robert Draffin, aged 23, who was stated to have resisted for live months overtures by MacDonald to iorge her brother's signature, was admitted to probation i’or three years, and ordered to restore the money drawn from the bank amounting to £l4 16s, and pay the costs of the prosecution amounting to £3 18s. Flora Ellen Waite was sentenced to one month's hard labour for concealment of birth. This was the outcome of a discovery of the charred remains of an infant in the prison laundry. Alatina Taar, who admitted obtaining £22 from the Registrar of the Native Lands Court by impersonating his brother, was, admitted to probation for two years and ordered to pay £6. costs of the prosecution within three months. NEW PLYAIOI. Til, August 16. The Supreme Cdurt sessions opened today, Air .Justice Saltnood presiding. In his charge to tlie grand jury, his Honor! said he regretted to note that all the cases for the present criminal sittings concerned sexual offences. True bills were returned in all cases. William W'ebborly, who pleaded guilty to incest at Kapouga in May last, was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, with hard labour, bis Honor, in addressing the accused, pointing out that the crime was the most abhorrent of offences. II:lda 1,. Davev. a young married woman, who /had pleaded guilty in the lower court to the theft of about £4O, was admitted to two years’ probation. IN DIVORCE. (Before His Honor, Mr Justice Sim.) Before proceeding with the case Nicholson v. Nicholson on Saturday morning, Ins Honor Mr Justice Sim heard two undefended divorce actions. NEWMAN V. NEWMAN. Mary Ann Newman v. Perry Newman. Petition for divorce on the ground of misconduct. All- J. S Sinclair, for the petitioner, said that the parties were married on April 1, 1803, at tlie Registry Office, Dun-: edin, and there were three children of the marriage. They lit eel together until 1915, when the respondent went into camp at Wellington. He was there for two or three months, when lie was discharged on account of bad health. He returned here and lived with his wife until February, 1919, when the petitioner was ordered to the country for the benefit of her health. While she was away the respondent sold the furniture in tile house and disappeared. The petitioner was unable to discover his whereabouts, and on June 1, 1920, she was granted a separation and maintenance order. It was later discovered that respondent had been living at \\ ellington with another woman. His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to make it absolute at the end of three months, petitioner to have the custody of the children; respondent to pay costs on tlie lowest scale. MILLER V. MILLER. John Miller v. Ellen Alilier. Petition for divorce under the Amendment Act of 1920 (tite parties had been separated for not less than three years under a deed of separation). Mr Solomon, K.C., with Mr C. J. Payne, aj peared for the petitioner, and Mr \\. L.* Aloore for the respondent. Afr Solomon said that the respondent had put in an appearance, but had tiled no answer, and Air Aloore did not intend to oppose the application. The parties were married in 1886, and lived together for about seven months. 'I hen they separated, but they Jived together ag-ain for six years. Then they found they were an illassorted pair, and could not live happily, and they had remained separate ever since. It had been agreed that maintenance should be allowed the wife in excess of what she had hitherto received. The petitioner had nothing whatever to say against the respondent, and he had honourably maintained his obligations under the deed of separation. The amount of maintenance now agreed upon was £1 a, week. . . His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to move to make it absolute at the end of three months. When made absolute, Ilis Honor added, provision as to permanent maintenance could be inserted. Petitioner would be ordered to pay respondent’s costs (£5 5.5) and disbursements.