SUPREME COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 3544, 21 February 1922, Page 18

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, February 14. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) His honor, in addressing the grand jury. *aid that the calendar on this occasion comprised charges against 11 persons. This was quite a-n unusually large number for the Dunedin district. On this occasion there were no fewer than four charges of attempted murder; there was a charge of committing incest, a charge of arson, and there was a case in which a man was charged with having unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 16. There were two cases of indecent assault and a case in which a young woman was charged with disposing o£ the dead body of her child with attempt to conceal its birth. lie did not think they would have any difficulty with any of them —that in each case the evidence would justify them in bringing in true bills against each person. He would take the attempted murder cases first. The first case was one in which a young man named Arthur Joseph Milligan was charged with attempting to murder at Milton two persons named Perry—father and son. There were two charges against the accused Hie attempt took place on November 30 last. On tbe day previous young Perry had been married to Gladys Milligan, the sister of the accused, and apparently the accused did not approve of the marriage According to the evidence the accused on the night of the marriage threatened to shoot the whole of the Perry family—he was going to wipe the whole six Perrys olf the face of the earth. Then on the following day, so witnesses said, Milligan rode up to the house on a bicycle and from a rifle fired three shots towards the Perrys. Father and son were hit. When arrested Milligan told the constable that he had fired, but did not know whether he had hit anyone. George Deverrney was charged with attempting to murder one Dowling. Both were farmers and neighbours at Middlemarcih. Trouble arose over a coat that had been hung on a fence, and Constable Bandy, who was called in, said that accused called out “I will shoot you,” and did actually fire three shots. The firing seemed to have been deliberate. Edmund Traherne was charged with attempting to murder one Wilson at Cannibal Bay, in the Owaka district. Wilson went to Traherne’s house, and they had some drink, and there was a quarrel. Traherne offended Wilson by calling him a bastard. W’ilson told Traherne that if he called him that again he would hit him. Traherne repeated the word, and Wilson said that he thereupon struck Traherne twice. Traherne would not get up and then asked Wilson to put him to bed. Wilson did so. Traherne, according to Wilson’s evidence, said he would go to a constable and lay an information. Wilson offered to convey him to the constable. Then Traherne put his hand under the mattress, drew a revolver, and fired The shot missed. Wilson ran into a bedroom, and Traherne fired at him through the window. That was Wilson’s story. There was another charge of attempted murder, this being against Joseph Switalla, the offence charged being the attempt to murder his step-brother with an axe, there being no provocation. Robert, Brims, of Kurow, . was charged with carnally knowing a girl 14 years of age, and also with attempting the same offence. The girl’s story was eorrooorated bv (mother girl aged 15. who was present at the time of the major offence. It seemed that the girl consented, but that was no defence in any way. There was a case in which James Muir Fraser was charged with attempting to commit a rape upon a girl, also with indecently assaulting her. The girl met Fraser, whom she did r.ot know, and allowed him to walk with her up Stafford street, and on her story a prima facie case was made out. Norman Lindsay Geary (aged 20 and his sister, Fanny Plinemoa Geary (22) were charged w ith incest at Tahakopa. The evidence was in the main the testimoi.y of Detective Beer and a constable and a confession by each of the accused as to their conduct on an earlier date. Ella Columb was charged with concealment of birth. The accused said that the child never moved nor cried, that she therefore concluded it was dead, and that she buried it in a paddock. There was a case in which Michael Joseph M'Kenna was charged with an offence upon a boy. In the lower court the more serious offence was charged. The change before the court now was of indecent assault. That the boy consented did not lessen the offence. James Dee was charged with wilfully setting fire to Anderson’s butcher’s shop at Mosgiel. From the depositions it. appeared that Anderson went out, leaving the place locked: that Mrs Armstrong and Mr Davidson found the building on lire in two places, and put cut the fires; that they saw a bundle of rags in the fireplace of one room and a chair set there to keen the rags in place; that accused was found in the house, doing nothing to extinguish the fives. Accused’s story was that he went to buy meat, and, finding no one answering, went in to hunt about for someone and that he struck a match to light a cigarette and threw dowr. the match, which might have caused a fire. That, however, would nor, account for there being two fires. There was no suggestion thai Doe had a grievance against Anderson. If the Grand Jury thought the inference warranted that Dee wilfully fired the place it would be their dut.v to find a true bill. The Gland Jury found a true bill in every case. I’RISt>NERS SENTENCED Thomas \\ ilkinson. who had pleaded guilty to charges of breaking and entering and theft, was ordered to lie detained for reformative purposes for a term of three years. * Arthur Homy Douglas, who had pleaded guilty in the lover court to charges of theft and foi gory. was released on probation were that In abstain from liquor altogether and lake out a prohibition order against himself, and renew it from time to time, lie was also required to pay the costs of the prosecution .£3 12s) within one month. Michael Joseph M'Kenna pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent assault on a boy. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to 12 months’ imprisonment, with hard labour TEN YEARS' HARD LABOUR. Arthur .Tones Milligan pleaded guilty to tempting to minder Johi I trderirk Perry fcnd James Edvard Ashley Perry at Milton t>n November 30 last.

His Honor said that the crime to which the prisoner had pleaded guilty was a very serious one, for which he was liable to a substantial term of imprisonment. It might be that accused, as Dr Lyth had reported, required hospital or sanatorium treatment, but of course that had nothing to do with him in imposing punishment. The proper authorities could deal with that. The sentence of the court would be imprisonment for a term of 10 years, with hard labour. INCEST. Norman Lindsay Geary and Fanny Hiuemoa Geary pleaded guilty to a charge of incest. Air Hanlon said that, the girl was 22 years of age and the male 21. He recognised that in cases of incest it had been the practice with his Honor to inflict in many cases the miximum penalty, but he took it that his principle applied more to cases in which a parent committed incest with his child. His Honor said that in cases where he had inflicted the maximum penalty it had been those where a father had taken advantage of his child. Learned counsel, continuing, said that this case had been brought about by the environment of the whole family. Accused had been born at Portobello, but had gone when very young to live in the. Gatlins district. Here the family had increased to 10, and they all lived huddled in a bush hut of three rooms; ordinary propriety and decorum were thus out of the question. The probation officer had found that the mentality of both the accused was considerably below the average. Learned counsel submitted that it was not a case in which the court should deem it its duty to inflict the maximum penalty, but that some other method might be found to give the youngpeople a chance to have their morals improved. Ensign Coombs said that the girl when 9montbs old went to live with her grandmother, and she lived with her till she was about 20 years of age. She then met her brother and was as a stranger to him. The family had Maori blood in them. During the three months that she had been in gaol awaiting trial she had been of good clean habits, but where matters of the opposite sex were concerned she had no control. She believed that if the girl were sent to the Salvation Army home in Wellington, away from temptation, the influence of good women would help to awaken that part of her nature which seemed dormant. Mr Gumming said that the accused were decidedly below normal as to mentality. He was unable to recommend probation ip the ordinary way. There were possibilities in the young man, and he would be glad to take the responsibility of trying to develop them Eacli of the accused was ordered fo be de tained for reformative purposes for a term of three years. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. Ella Columb pleaded guilty to a charge of concealment of birth. His Honor ordered the prisoner to come up for sentence at any time within the next three years, and to be placed in the Mount Magda! a Home until such time as the authorities were prepared to release her. A TT E MPTE D A fUR DER. George Deverrney was charged with, on December 28. attempting to murder William Griffen Dowling, and on a second count of attempting to do him serious bodily harm. Mr Hanlon appeared foa the accused. The jury retired at. 2.25 p.m., and returned at 3.35 with four questions, one of which the judge said could not be answered, and one of which had nothing to do with the case. The others were answered as far as possible by Constable Bandy, and the jury again retired at 3.45. The jury again returned at 4.15 with a verdict of not guilty on the first count, but guilty on the second count —that he did with intent to do grievous bodily harm discharge a shot gun at Dowling. In finding accused guilty on this count the jury added that it was done under great provocation, and recommended accused to mercy. Accused was remanded for sentence. ARSON AT MOSGIEL. James Dee was charged that about January 2, at Mosgiel, he committed arson by setting fire to a dwelling house, the property of Charles Best Heazlewood. There was a second count of having, on the same date, wilfully damaged a bedstead bedding, wearing apparel to the value of £25, the property of Nicol Wallace Anderson. Air W. G. Hay appeared for accused. The jury retired at 5.10 p.m., and returned to" the court in 25 minutes with a verdict of not guilty. Wednesday, February 15. (Before his Honor Air Justice Sim.) SEXUAL OFFENCE. Robert Brims was charged that on August 18, 1921, at Kurow, he did unlawfully have carnal knowledge of a girl 14 years of age, and on a second count with indecently assaulting the girl on the same date. He was also charged with that on or about August 25, he. attempted to have carnal -knowledge of the girl and that, on the same date, he indecently assaulted her. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Air Hanlon. The Crown Prosecutor (Air F. B. Adams) said that the accused was a storekeeper at Kurow. lie did not propose to go into the details of the case, but would leave the jury to draw their own conclusions from tho evidence he would submit. The evidence of the girl herself and of a girl companion about the same ago went to show that the alleged offences took place at the back of accused’s shop, and that accused had given each girl a blouse and some chocolates. For the defence evidence was given by accused, William Chisholm Grant, George Alexander Green (shearer), Alfred .Elsden Smith (builder), and Catherine /Allah Brims (wife of the accused). Mr Hanlon addressed the jury for the defence, erhici.-ing the evidence for the prosecution, and pointing out discrepancies. ills Honor, in summing; up, said that (he girl against whom the offence was said to have been committed was 14 years of age. Tile fact that a girl consented did not constitute a defence, unless she were of the same age, or older, than the person charged. There was a conflict of evidence on the point of when the blouses were given to the girls, and learned counsel maintained, therefore, that their evidence was not to bo relied oil. That was a matter for the jury to decide. The companion girl gave a circumstantial account of what took place between tho accused anil flic oilier girl on the following Thursday, mid the oilier gill said that it did not | lal;c place al all. All that her midenco w i nf ia pis.\i on that occasion was that

the accused committed air indecent assault. I hat, of course was a very serious differ-

ence. It was for the jury to say what importance they should attach to the difference. What was the answer of the accused? It was a flat denial of the whole story save that he admitted that he gave these little girls a blouse each. Slo that if the story told by the accused was true these little girls had been conspiring to tell this story of misconduct. There was apparently no motive or reason in the world for. them to conspire to tell this story in the lower court and support it here. It was very hard to believe that accused would make the gift of blouses to these girls unless he had designs on them. It was not suggested that they were good customers of his. Thev were asked to believe that out of pure generosity and goodness of heart he gave these two blouses. “Well, gentlemen, if you can believe that you can believe a great deal.” It was a matter entirely for their consideration whether he gave the blouses out of pure generosity. -the jury retired at three o’clock, and returned at five o’clock with a verdict of guilty on the second count (indecent assault on August 18) and not guilty on the other three counts. Air Hanlon said that, his Honor had the police report before him. It showed that the was a sober, industrious man. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour.

ATTEMPTED MURDER. Edmund Traherne pleaded not guilty to a charge of attempting to murder George Wilson at Cannibal Bay (near Owaka). There was a second charge of shooting with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Accused was defended by Air Hanlon. Evidence was given on the lines indicated

in his Honor’s charge to the Grand Jury. To Air Hanlon : At the first he and accused were friendly. “The tide was ebbing fast, was it not?” asked learned counsel, “it was nearly low tide —the 18 gallons were nearly gone. Was the new beer nice and soothing and pleasant to take, or was it pungent?” What do you mean by soothing ? asked the witness. Well soothing—all beer is soothing is it not? queried learned counsel. Yes, it was soothing, admitted the witness. His Honor said that in each case in order to constitute an offence there must be intention on the part of the accused. In a case of attempted murder it must be clear that the man intended to cause the death of a. person or to cause him* bodily injure, which he knew would be likely to cause the death of the person attacked. Unless they were satisfied that that was the intention then they were not justified in committing the accused on the first count. On the second count, they .must be satisfied that the accused had intention to do grievous bodily harm to Wilson, and secondly thev must be satisfied that that

was his intention when he discharged the loaded weapon at Wilson. These two elements must be combined. If the accused was so muddied as not to be capable of forming an intention to murder or do bodily harm to Wilson then they must acquit him. With regard to the question of provocation it appeared to him that that did not really come into the question at all. If killing had been done under great provocation then the sub section of the Act applied. It might, however, come into the question in mitigation of the sentence if they convicted the accused. ’The first question was, if they found that the accused was not capable of forming ar. intention to murder or do bodily harm to Wilson then they should acquit him. Secondly if they considered that he had no intent to kill or to do him grievous bodily harm or that he fired with the intention of frightening Wilson they would find him not guilty on that count also. If what the accused said was true —that he did not remember —if that was his mental condition that showed that he was not capable of forming an intention. If they were satisfied that he was capable of forming an intention they must be satisfied that he fired at Wilson. The Jury retired at 5 o’clock and returned at 10 minutes to 6 with a verdict of not guilty. RANFURLY SHOOTING CASE. George Devenney, who had been found guilty on the previous day of shooting with intent to do grievous bodily harm to William Griffen Dowling (with a strong recommends tiou to mercy by the jury) was placed in the dock for sentence. Mr Hanlon said that a number of neighbours of the prisoner were present to give evidence as to prisoner’s character. Prisoner was a bachelor, and 63 years of age. His Honor stated that the police report said that the prisoner seldom conversed with other people, was inclined to imagine things, and was of violent temper. He was very particular about his clothes —he wore very tight clothes. He was always in a hurry. Ah- llanlon said he did not know whether the report was in favour or against the prisoner—the fact of him wearing tight clothes. His neighbours had the feeing I hat they could guarantee his good behaviour ill the future. Dowling had said that he would be very sorry to see the man sent io gaol, but he would not like him to have any ty^arms. His Honor remarked that the jury strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy. The prisoner appeared to have somewhat started the trouble by trailing his coat before Dowling. Air llanlon: Yds —inviting him to tread on it. He is an Orangeman, went on Mr I l’anlon Ills Honor: Oh, I thought it was tho other way round - that Dowling was the Orangeman. Evidence as to accused's character was given by four neighbour farmers. His Honor said that the offence of which prisoner had been found guilty was :u doubt a serious one, but m view of al! the circumstances of the case and the prisoner’s age and the good character he bad borne for so many years, and in view of the strong recommendation to mercy by the jury, he thought that he would i><‘ justified in imposing a pecuniary pen In coming to this decision he was strengthened by the fact that the man Do. ling was not injured in any way. It seemed clear that some of the shots fired could not have inflicted injury. Prisoner would be ordered, to pay a fine of £SO, and to give up his firearms. Mr llanlon to prisoner: Do you consent to give up the firearms? Prisoner : Yes. in the meantime. The Crown Prosecutor to his Honor; He saws in the meantime.

"That’s all right,” breezily remarked Air Hanlon. “I’ll speak to him. At any rale, tho police have the firearms.” Thursday, February 16. (Before his Honor Air Justice Sim.) The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were continued on Thursday. ATTEMPTED Ai UR DER. Joseph Switalla was charged with, on or about December 24, 1921, at Allanton, he attempted to murder Jacob Switalla. There were further charges of intent to do bodily baffm, and of causing actual bodily harm. Ihe accused, who pleaded not guilty, was undefended. The Crown Prosecutor said that the facts were exceedingly simple. The accused and Jacob Switalla were step-brothers, the accused . being the son of 'the old lady, Mrs Switalla, and Jacob her step-son. When they were not working they lived with their mother, and they were there on December 24. ihe family was of Polish descent. About 8 o’clock on Christmas Eve accused came into the room in which his brother was lying on a couch. The first that Jacob knew was that he received three blows over the head. Medical examination showed that these blows had not been given by a sharp instrument. As Jacob was rising from the couch he received a fourth blow on the shoulder from the sharp edge of the axe. Joseph went outside, and Jacob, following him, was hit with a rail. There had apparently been a feeling of jealousy on the part of the accused because Jacob got

on better with the mother than Joseph did. It, was possible also that accused might have been under the influence of liquor. Fortunately no permanent injury had been done to Jacob. On the other hand the injury might have been of such a nature as to cause death. It was a question of with what intent the blows were struck. Evidence was given by Jacob Switalla, Dr J. P. Shaw, and Detective Beer. Accused elected to give evidence on his own behalf, stating that his brother cursed and swore at him, and he cursed back. Jacob rushed at him and tried to throttle, him, and accused got the axe and struck Jacob with it.

His Honor, in summing up, said that he thought the jury need not trouble about the third count, and should confine their attention to the first two counts. They had heard the story told by each of the brothers, and according fo Jacob the prisoner bad made a wholly unprovoked attack on him while lie was lying on a couch. They had heard the story told by the accused that they quarrelled, and that his brother came at him with a carving knife and that he then took an axe. Even if they accepted the story of the prisoner it was clear that the blows were not struck in self-defence. He thought, therefore, that that could be left out of consideration. Their having no justification for self-defence, then it was really a question of which of the two counts they ought to convict prisoner on. Unless he struck in self-defence it was clear that prisoner had committed a brecah of the law. The jury had to decide whether the prisoner attempted to kill his brother or only attempted to do him bodily harm. Prisoner said that he knew what he was doing, so it was clear that he was capable of forming a clear intention. It seemed reasonably clear that prisoner did not intend to murder his brother, because if lie had had the intention nothing could have been easier, armed as he was with a weapon like that. The jury retired at 11.35, and returned at 12.20 with a verdict of guilty on the second count and not guilty on the first count, and with a strong recommendation to mercy.

His Honor said that in this ease the jury had found the prisoner not guilty of ! the more serious charge and guilty of the ! minor charge, with a recommendation to mercy. In view of that recommendation he thought it would be sufficient if prisoner was sentenced to a term of one year’s imprisonment, with hard labour. ASSAULT ON A GIRL. James Muir Fraser was charged with on January 1, 1922, at Dunedin, assaulting a girl with intent to commit rape, and on a second count with indecent assault. Accused pleaded not guilty and was defended by Air Hay. The Crown Prosecutor said that the accused was 20 years of age, and the girl was about the same age. The girl lived at Mornington. The story opened at Dawson’s jewellery shop on January 1, at about 9 o’clock. The girl was standing near the shop, when the' accused got into conversation with her. Who spoke first was of small moment. A man named Harper also came and spoke to the girl. Harper knew the girl. The accused started off home with the girl. Whether the girl or the accused suggested they should go home together did not matter. Harper caught up again with them at Alanse street, and walked with them up Stafford street. The three of them stood talking for some time at the top of Stafford street. About 10.30 p.m. two men were passing along one of the tracks on the belt when they heard a woman call, and a moment later they came upon the girl. She was on the ground, and her dress was disordered. They then saw a short man whom neither could ident fy, j running away as fast as he could. The girl stated that during the struggle, and while the man was holding one of her wrists, she asked him his name. The accused drew out a notebook, and showed her his name written on one of the pages. The girl torn the page out and kept it. There was no doubt that, the girl had been assaulted, and the question was whether the accused was, or was not, the man. It might be suggested that someone else had met the girl after the accused had left her. What motive, however, could the girl have in shielding another man at the expense of the accused. The girl gave evidence corroborating the Crown prosecutor’s statement, and evidence was given by John Edward Harper (labourer), .Tames Baird Shanks (enginefiller). Robert Edgar Hurley (labourer), William Hildridgo Vernon (brother of the girl), and Detective Hannafin. The accused then went into tho witnessbox. He said that he was a labourer, residing at Macandrew road. Hr> was 20 years of age. He saw the girl on Sunday night, January 1, at Dawson’s corner. He was standing with another chap, and the girl said: “Good night.” She said: “How are you getting on?” and he said: “Ail right. How are you?” Witness mistook her for a girl from Aroonlight, and asked if she was just down for a holiday. She said: “Where) from?” and he sa'd : “Aloonlight.” She said that she came from Auckland, and that she was living at Alornlngton with her brother. She said that she was going back in March or April. Three men

came along the road just off the footpath, and she said “Good night” to them. She caJcd out to one of them : "‘l’ll see you I have a bone to pick to you.” Mm then aimed the man (he turned out to oe Harper) why he had not turned up that night. The man said : “Hullo 1 you’te Sot another one to-night. Ivc you wuh six already,” and she made to strike linn with t lie stick. lie (Harper) asked witness if he lived up Mornington, and witness was going to say “No” when the gill nodded her head for him to take her home. Harper asked her if she was going home with him, and she said “No,” that her young man would not let her. She asked witness quietly whether lie would take her home, and he said “Yes.” The girl asked Harper if he would give her his address. Accused gave the girl a bit of paper, and she wrote something on it and gave it to Harper, and also ghve him another note. She saw accused’s name on the pocket book, and she asked if she could have it. He said “Yes,” and she tore the leaf out. Harper asked her where she worked, and she said it was on the paper — that she worked at the Roslyn mills. Just after that Harper left. Before Harper left the third man came back for his walking, stick, and the girl said to him (accused): “Good riddance.” He and the girl went towards Stafford street. Going up Stafford street Harper caught up on them. They stood talking near the top of the street. She asked Harper for his name and address again. Harper showed her some other address. He (accused) went on with the girl up Mornington way. They went up the “Chinese” path, and be put his arm round her waist and she put her arm round his waist. J hey went right up on to the Eglinton road, when ihe girl said he had better not come any. further in case her brother saw him. Just after that ha left her. It was a lie that he pulled her along the track. lie did no indecent act to her. He came down the Mornington tram line, and found it was 12 minutes past 10. Mr Hay and the Crown Prosecutor addressed the jury. .His Honor, in summing up, said that they had heard the girl's story, in regard to her being dragged along the track. If they were satisfied that that story was completely true then accused ought to be found guilty on the first count. The story told by the accused was that they walked quietly up the “Chinese’ ’track to the Eglinton road, that he separated from her there, and that he was not the man who was with her when Shanks and Hurley came on the scene. It was for them to say if the man was the accused. There was no doubt that there was a man there, and that he had been taking liberties with the girl. The jury had to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was that man. The accused’s story involved this —that he left the girl and some other man appeared on the scene and took her down the track and attempted to ravish her. it seemed very difficult to believe that that could be true, and it might occur to them that the accused was simply lying when he said that he was not the man who was with the girl when Shanks and Hurley appeared. It was quite obvious from the

way the girl approached the man and spoke to him —a perfect stranger —taking her own account of the meeting—-it certainly would suggest to this young man that this young lady was not very particular as to whom she associated with, and in all probability he thought that he would be perfectly safe to take liberties with her. She was so willing to be friendly with a stranger as to walk across the Town Belt with him, so he was certainly justified in thinking that she was a girl who was probably not inaccessible. It the jury was satisfied that accused was the man, they ought to satisfy themselves how far the, girl’s story was credible as to what -was done t.o her. Certainly there was a deal of evidence which suggested that she must have consented up to a certain stage, but apparently she was riot prepared to go all the way. Hia Honor read the evidence dealing with what took place on the track. Ilis Honor said that according to this young, lady’s story she was being ravished, and this rape which had started was interrupted in order that the lady who was being ravished might get the name and address of the ravisher. This was really what thev were asked to believe. The accused was holding on to the girl, and was at the same time to get his pocket book out and give her his name and address. The girl’s story was that a determined attack was made on her virtue, which she resented to the utmost of her power. Apparently nobody heard the screams —not even Shanks or Hurley, because all they heard was loud talking. And it was very significant that the first words Shanks heard were, “You’ll disgrace me” (twice). She said this in a fairly • loud voice. Shanks’s evidence certainly contradicted that of the girl when she said that she was screaming, and neither did the evidence of Hurley support her in this direction. Her evidence suggested that she was engaged in an argument rather on the question of sexual intercourse. If what was done was done with the girl’s consent then of course there was no crime. A) the same time they must remember that it was open for a woman (o withdraw her consent at any time, and if the man persisted after it was made plain to him that the woman did-not consent, then the act was unlawful. The jury retired, and returned at an interval of 25 minutes with a verdict of not guilty. SERIOUS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. Leslie Allan Steven, who had pleaded guilty on Tuesday to charges of breaking and entering and theft, withdrawing his plea, of not guilty entered on tbe occasion of Ilis previous trial at Oamaru, came up for sentence. His Honor said: The probation officer has recommended .strongly that probation should be granted in this case. The prisoner docs not (it serve tq be treated in. this way. After some hesitation 1 have decided, however, to grant probation, but not in the way’ suggested. The prisoner is ordered to come, up for sentence for the crime committed in 1919. and in connection with that he is released on probation for a term of three yeans from this date, on the special condition that the prisoner . abstain altogether from drinking alcoholic liquor, and take out a prohibition order against himself forthwith and renew it from time to time. On the other charge the prisoner is ordered to pay a fine of £SO. This will be more than sufficient, to cover the expense to which the prisoner has put the country in connection with the case, including the expenses of the sittings in Oamaru. These sittings were rendered necessary by this oase, as there was no other business at thoso sittings. In connection with this case the prisoner has made the following written statement;

“On the evening in question my yife and T wore visiting at Lindsay’s house. I have frequently to return to work at night. That evening it was necessary that I should return to work. Lindsay and I left in my car to go to my place of work at Meek’s Mill. Lindsay left me there working. He came back about half an hour later and said he had some stuff to take homo, and askecf me to come with him. We went to the premises a short distance away. When we got there the back basement door was open. I remained about the door of the basement. I was never in the shop above. Lindsay came back to me and handed me the articles which were found on me. He went back to the shop above and then came rushing out saying the police were after him. We both ran away. Lindsay, I believe, went home direct, and afterwards escorted my wife home. I went back to mv place of business (Meek’s Mill), and, having seen that everything was right there. I put away my cfir and went to Lindsay’s place for Mrs Steven. Slhe had already left with Lindsay. I then went home and was met bv the police there. As the police had identified me I was willing to plead guilty from the start, but Lindsay thought this would involve him. and 1 did not like to do this, and we thought there was a chance of our both getting off.” This shows that the evidence given by the constable at the trial in Oamaru was true, and that the verdict of not guilty in Lindsay’s case was a serious miscarriage of justice. Mr Hay r said that he would undertake to eee that the fine of £SO was paid. This case concluded the criminal sittings I NT BANKRUPTCY. His Honor Mr Justice Sim sat in bankruptcy on the 13th instant, and had three applications for discharge brought before him. In Re J. W. Reed. In the case of John William Reed, of Cambrians (MTntyre and Reed, coal mine proprietors), Mr Brasch appeared in support of the application, and stated that notice had been given to the Official Assignee only on January 23. but the Assignee had seen the notice in the newspapers, and was well aware the application was goinjz to l>e made. His Honor remarked that that could be treated as being in agreement with the Act and granted the application. In Rf, H. MTntyre. Hugh MTntyre, also of the firm of MTntyre and Reed, ccal miners, of Cambrians, made application for an order of discharge, and was represented by Mr Brasch, who explained that Mr MTntyre had not been aware that an application had been made, and he (Mr Brasch) had had no time to look into the matter. In the ordinary time the application would have been made sufficiently early, but in this case there was a special compilation of time. His Honor said he would adjourn the application to enable it to be advertised. Mr Brasch could advertise it that evening. The application would be adjourned for a fortnight. The Assignee (Mr Samson) stated that unofficially he had heard that some of the creditors were going to oppose Mr MTntyre getting his discharge; but he had not heard officially. His Honor said he would take the application on Tuesday. February 28, at 10 a.m . In Re H. Warren. Henry Warren, of Dunedin, dealer, applied for his discharge and was represented by Mr Payne, who stated that debtor was a returned soldier, and had commenced business by buying stock. Then the slump came and bankrupt had called a meeting of his creditors, and matters had been satisfactory so far as all the creditors were concerned. Warren was now working on a farm. It was a case cf pure bad luck. His Honor made an order of discharge. MATRIMONIAL PETITIONS. His Honor Mr Justice Sim held a sitting of the Supreme Court on Friday, and heard several petitions arising from ruptures between husband and wife. CRADOCK v. CRADOCK. Jane Elizabeth Cradock sought a dissolution of her marriage with Arthur Craddock, on the ground of separation. Mr Ongley appeared for petitioner. The facts of the case were that the parties were married in November, 1914, and a separation order was granted in January, 1916. The parties had been living apart ever since. They were married in Ashburton, but belonged to Oamaru, and there was one child of the marriage. A decree nisi was granted to be made absolute after three months; costs, etc., being ordered against respondent. M‘ALLEY v. M ! ALLEY. Frederick George M'Auley applied for a restoration of conjugal rights from Gertrude Alary M’Auley. Air O’Shea appeared for applicant. Petitioner said he was married to respondent at Dunedin in 1918. and they lived at St. Kilda for 18 months. He went into hospital to undergo an operation to his leg, caused by a gunshot wound. When he left the hospital he went to live with hi® wife, and everything went well for some time, until lie began to get suspicions about a certain man. He accused his wife of intimacy but she denied it. She afterwards said she wanted to get free and refused to live with him. He sold up everything and went to Oamaru, his intention being to go to Sydney. He had arranged to book his wife's passage, but she refused to go •with him, saying she would only drop him there. He returned from Sydney, and the night he arrived he found respondent in company with this man. Some time afterwards he instituted the present proceedings. Further evidence having been given his Honor said he was not satisfied that the right person had been served. He was not satisfied with the identity that had been offered of respondent. The case was therefore ordered to stand down for proper identification. Later another witness was called and after hearing what he had to say his Honor made an order that respondent, return to petitioner within 14 days of the order. BAKER v. BAKER. Lilia Elva Baker petitioned for a divorce from her husband Alfred Baker, on the ground of cruelty, etc. Air W. G. Hay appeared in support of the petition. Retitioner stated that she and her husband had lived in Dunedin. They were married in November, 1901, in Victoria, and there were five children of the marriage, all of whom resided with her. Lhe had had considerable trouble with her hu-band, the main cause lieing drink, lie had not been sober for several years, and hnd gone to Roto Roa Island, returning in eight months at the end of 1921. .She had taken out three prohibition orders against respondent, and he had finally been sent to Roto Roa Island. He was very violent and had threatened

her life. He had lifted his hand to her more than once and had thrown crockery about and smashed things up, and she had had to call in assistance. They sometimes had to lock themselves up for the night. That had happened the previous night. Respondent had not maintained her for some time past. She bad had a business of her own for over five years. Respondent had been a land agent and had lost his license and petitioner had taken up the license. After further evidence a decree nisi was granted to become absolute in three months. PIOTGN v. PICTON.

Helenor Amelia Picton petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Edward John David Cameron Picton on the ground of desertion.—Air xrwin, instructed by Mr Neill, appeared for petitioner. Mr Irwin stated that the parties had been married at Dunedin in 1908, and after living in Dunedin removed to Christchurch. Respondent was there employed a® caretaker for Fullers. lie intimated to his wife that he was going to Wellington to look for work. Petitioner found two photographs in respondent’s pocket, but she did not take much notice of that. Later, however, she became suspicious, and sent for her mother, who was in Dunedin, and they decided to take action to have respondent brought back. He had gone straight to Sydney, and petitioner found him tfiere in company with the woman whose photograph she had found in respondent’s possession in Christchurch. Respondent refused to return and live with her. After evidence had been given, his Honor directed that the case should stand over for a fresh affidavit of service ; also for consideration of the question as to whether or not the wife had forfeited her New Zealand domicile by five years’ residence in New South Wales. The court then adjourned till Monday morning, February 27, at 10 o’clock. AUCKLAND SESSIONS. AUCKLAND, February 14. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened to-day. There are 22 accused jm as many indictments. In charging the Grand Jury, Air Justice Stringer regretted the large number of sexual offences, many I being against young girls, but in no case I was there serious injury, and no child was concerned. The Grand Jury found true hills in all eases but one. The one in which there was no bill was a charge of attempted rape, but a true bill was found on the count of assault. Air Justice Stringer and Air .Justice Herdman are hearing the cases. February 15. Henry Ward, charged with the theft of three oxen at Clevedon, was found guilty, with a recommendation (o mercy, the jury being of opinion that the act was foolish rather than criminal. His Honor imposed a fine and ordered payment of £9 14s to recompense persons who sustained loss after, with the alternative of three months’ imprisonment. Christopher Nevin was charged with assault on William Churchill at Tauranga on November 28, when the latter had left with Airs Churchill a bag of cabbages, to which proceeding the accused forcibly objected. The jury found a verdict of guilty on the charge of assault, causing actual bodily harm. Accused had denied any improper relations with complainant’s wife. His Honor said that no doubt the assault had been committed, and no provocation had been established. Accused was a man of integrity and repute. The assault was no doubt animated by a sense of wrongdoing. Accused was not a man of criminal tendencies. Ilis Honor said he did not intend to send him to prison, and imposed a. fine of £25. Albert Davidson, alias John Johnson, was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for receiving. He had been acquitted on a charge of entering and theft at Alangere. February 16. At the Supreme Court William Barnett, charged with the theft of a watch, a chain, a medal, and a sovereign case, and receiving, was committed on a charge of having stolen property in his possession, and was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. February 17. At the Supreme Court, Leonard Nelson, for attempting to steal a lady's handbag, was admitted to probation for two years and ordered to pay .-£lO towards (tie costs of the prosecution. William C’arson, for assaulting his wife’s mother, was ordered to come up for sentence at the next sitting. Alore serious charges against accused were thrown out by the Grand Jury. A young man named Norman James Walsh was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for an indecent assault on a. male. Air Justice Stringer sail that had he not been satisfied that the prisoner was drunk he would have ordered a flogging. NEW PLYMOUTH SESSIONS. NEW PLYMOUTH. February 14. The Supreme Court opened to-dav. In his charge to the Grand Jury, Air Justice Chapman commented on the fact that there were seven cases for consideration. According to his experience this was an unusual number for the district, and worse still, he was sorry to say, many of the cases were of a serious nature. He did not think, however, that this need be taken as evidence of an epidemic of crime, but rather that isolated cases had occurred in greater numbers than usual. True bilks were returned in all seven criminal eases. The court was occupied with the hearing of a charge against a young married man. Henry I. I>. Afaekay, of carnally knowing a girl under the age of 16 years at Stratford towards the end of last year. The jun-to-night brought in a verdict of guilty, with a plea of leniency on account of accused’s wife and child. February 16. At the Supreme Court to-day the jury acquitted William Alfred Gustafson. Captain on the Defence Staff and holder of the D.C.AI , on a charge of misappropriating Defence Department moneys, amounting to £247. An elderly man named James Collingwood, with a number of previous convictions, was found guilty of indecent assault on a girl of five years at Opunake in January last. Mr Justice Chapman deferred sentence till tomorrow. February 19. At the Supreme Court on Saturday, Bernard and Arthur Coulter were charged with breaking and entering at Eltham. The jury disagreed, and a new trial was ordered. Rangi Elers, for theft, was sentenced to six months’ hard labour. Arnold Onslow Sturrock, a music teacher, was found guilty by tho jury after a brief retirement on four charges of unnatural offences. A shocking story was revealed to Mr Justice Chapman, who said he would take a. few day® to consider the sentence.

PALMERSTON NORTH SESSIONS. PALMERSTON N., February 14. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court opened this morning before Air Justice Reed, who congratulated the district on the freedom from crime, only one case being on the criminal calendar. William John Duktiz was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, with hard labour, for theft. WELLINGTON SESSIONS. WELLINGTON, February 14. In the Supreme Court, John Neil, for causing actual bodily harm, received a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment, with hard labour. CHRISTCHURCH SESSIONS. CHRISTCHURCH. February 14. The Supreme Court sessions opened today before Air Justice Adams. There are 12 indictments against 11 persons. True bills were returned in each case. Jeremiah Bradley and Francis Joseph Quigley were admitted to probation for three years for theft. Harold John Edward Barrett was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, with hard labour, for breaking and entering and theft. Charges were preferred against Oscar Trice, of having, at Kahuna, on October 22, attempted to discharge a loaded gun at Albert Newton and Annie Duncan with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and having assaulted each of the parties named. Accused was engaged to thq girl, but she had broken it off because of his jealousy. On October 22 Newton and Aliss Duncan were sitting at tea when accused entered the room and presented the gun at the girl. Newton took the weapon away from him, and found that accused had attempted to discharge it. Accused was peculiar in his manner, but not irresponsible. Counsel for the accused said that accused was a man of poor mentality, and it would he a hard task to prove that he had a guilty intention in his mind when he appeared in the room with the gun. The jury, after an hour’s retirement, brought in a verdict of guilty of assault by pointing a gun at Aliss Duncan. February 16. At the Supreme Court, Alice Lomas was charged with obtaining sums totalling £lB5 from Lazarus Wolfe Balkind, a moneylender. Accused, formerly a proprietress of a boarding-house, apparently had business dealings with Balkind for a number of years. Sometimes she would get an advance and give n bill of sale. Then she would pay it off and get the bill of sale back, then get another advance and give the bill back. It. was in this manner that the charges arose. The case against Airs Lomas was that when she gave the bills of sale to which the charges related the fur niture in the bills was not in her possession. For the defence, it was contended that Balkind had been tendered the nionew but had urged accused to use it to pay olt another creditor. There had been no intent to defraud. 'There was a big difference between unwillingness and inability to pay. Accused was acquitted.