SUPREME COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 3557, 16 May 1922, Page 41

SUPREME COURT

Monday, May 8. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) In Bankruptcy Mr Moore on behalf of F. E. Jones, bankrupt, applied for an order for immediate discharge He said that' the creditors recommended bankrupt for his discharge . It was a case op-pure hardship. His Honor said the Assignee’s report was favourable and there seemed no reason why Jones .should not get his discharge. An order was made accordingly. Victor Bernard Portman claimed from the official assignee in bankruptcy of Harry Knewell damages etc., for false representation. Mr O’Shea, acting for “Messrs Scott and Mellish, appeared for the claimant and Mr Moore for the assignee. Mr O’Shea asked for an adjournment to enable him to file an affidavit in reply. His Honor : You sue the Official Assignee for a claim against a bankrupt. Have you ever heard of such an action, Mr O’Shea? Mr O’Shea admitted he had not, but pointed out that he was simply acting by instruction of his principals. His Honor said it was absurd that anybody should think of bringing an action as the present. The only thing to do was to make an order staying all further proceedings in the action. The plaintiff was ordered to pay three guineas disbursements and costs. In Divorce. Elizabeth Jane Thomson v. James Mahon Thomson. This was a motion for a decree absolute. Mr Hanlon appeared for the wife and Mr Irwin for the husband. Mr Hanlon said he had given the statutory 21 days’ notice and respondent had done nothing. The decree nisi was made absolute. Miscellaneous. Sarah Cecilia Ayers v. James Joseph Ayers. Petition for permanent maintenance. Mr Hanlon appeared for the petitioner and Mr Irwin for the respondent. Mr Hanlon said that before divorce proceedings were taken the respondent was paying his wife 25s a week! Mr Irwin and he agreed that there was no reason why that should not still be paid. If His Honor were agreeable to make an order for that amount that would be acceptable to both parties. His Honor said it was usual to make such an order at the same time as the decree nisi was made absolute or immediately after Mr Hanlon's said aplication had been made to the registrar to make ihe decree absolute. His Honor said be would make the order as soon as he know the decree nisi had been made absolute CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, May 9. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) The quarterly sittings of the Supreme Court opened before his Honor Mr Justice Sim on Tuesday, 9tli inst. HIS HONOR’S CHARGE. In addressing the grand jury, his Honor said there were only three cases to occupy their attention on the present occasion. He thought they would not have any diffiultv with any of them. There was a case in which a man named Forbes was charged ■with committing an indecent assault at Beaumont on March 4. They would have the girl before them and hear her story. Taking that story as told by her in the lower court, there seemed to be no doubt that the accused did commit an indecent assault, and that a true bill should be found against him. The most serious case on the present occasion was that in which a man named Day i 3 charged with the crime of manslaughter in connection with the death of a little boy, Harold James Moody, who was killed on March 16 last by being run over by a gig, the horse in which was driven by the accused. The circumstances in which the limning down occurred might be gathered from the story told by one of the men who were in the gig with the accused on the date in question. His Honor read the sworn statement of Benjamin Franklin Hore, who detailed the events of the afternoon, including visits to three hotels prior to the accident. According to this there had been a considerable deal of drinking going on, ar.d the suggestion of the -Crown was that accused was so drunk that he should not have been driving at all. In order to find a true bill they must be satisfied that he had been guilty of neglect of some legal duty. It was the legal duty of every person who drove along a public road to take reasonable care to avoid collision or running over any foot passengers. If there was a breach of that duty which resulted in the death of any person, then the person who was guilty of the breach of duty was guilty of the crime of manslaughter. If Ihe evidence showed that the occurrence was a pure accident without any fault or neglect on the part of the accused. there would be no fault at alt. That was suggested by the evidence of Hore, but the .evidence of a tram motorman, who saw the accused driving shortly before the boy was killed, suggested that it was a case simply of driving. According to the motorman Ihe reins were clear altogether of the horse’s tail, and! it was a cast- simply of furious driving on the part of a drunken man, who was not fit to be in charge of such a vehicle. If they believed the evidence of the motorman it certainly seemed to be a case in which they would (find against the accused. The only other case was one in which a man named Ward was charged with arson in connection with a dwelling-house at St. Clair, belong-

ing to Mrs Semb. The circumstances in which the charge was made appeared from the evidence of Mrs Semb. Accused had been boarding with her, and when he was working he worked at the wharf. He was asked to leave on account of his drunken habits and because his board had not been paid. He persisted in coming about the place until Mrs Semb threatened to ring up the police. He said, “You will not do that for nothing,” and threatened her with an axe. When she returned later with assistance the scullery was found to be on fire, and accused was sitting behind a tree in the garden. He thought a true bill should be found against accused. After retirement the grand jury brought in a true bill in each of the* three cases. They were thereupon discharged. A REGRETTED THEFT. Edward Hedley Kitchener Hughes appeared for sentence on a charge of theft of money from the , Post Office Savings Bank, to which he had pleaded guilty in the lower court. His Honor said the case seemed to be one in which he would be justified in releasing prisoner on probation. He seemed to have yielded to a sudden impulse to steal the money, and almost immediately to have repented, not making use of the money or concealing the fact that he had stolen it. Prisoner would be released on probation for a term of two years. One condition would be that he paid the costs of the prosecution (£2 2s) within one calendar month. HABITUAL CRIMINAL, Edward Stephen Laws, alias Thomas Hunter, the young man who took the Post Office Savings Bank book of a companion at the Leviathan Hotel who befriended him, came up for sentence on two charges, forgery and uttering, to which he had pleaded guilty in the lower court. The accused had nothing to say, and was .not represented by counsel. Mr Adams stated ..that £59 of the moneyhad been recovered. J There was a record of previous convictions against the accused, who, at the time of the present offences, was undergoing a term of 3.2 probation on a conviction of theft at Invercargill. His Honor: He seems to have qualified himself to be declared an habitual criminal. Mr Adams submitted the record to the accused, and announced that the accused acknowledged the various convictions. His Honor imposed a sentence of two years’ imprisonment on each of the two offences. The sentences to be concurrent. As part of his sentence the accused was declared to be au habitual criminal. A DANGEROUS CRIMINAL. Arthur Domenic Plunkett, who had plea-ded guilty in the lower court to two charges of breaking, entering, and theft, and to a charge. of entering with intent to commit a crime? came up for sentence. The charges related to the breaking and entering of the Milton railway station an-d the refreshment rooms, and to the attempt on the railway station at Beaumont. Mr B. S. Irwin, for the acused, said that in November he was sentenced at the Supreme Court, Dunedin, to a term of 'imprisonment in Invercargill Gaol. While waiting to be transferred to Invercargill? he escaped from the Dunedin Gaol in company with a prisoner named Aitchison. Plunkett would ,not have escaped by himself. For soma months.he.was a fugitive, living in the backblocks of Central Otago, and it was while he was a fugitive from justice that he committed the offences to which he bad now pleaded guilty. He seemed really to have had to rob to live. Probably ho regretted having made his escape. , His Honor: He could have given himself up. Mr Irwin said that Plunkett appeared to have thought about that. He must have lived a particularly strenuous life for three or four months. After lie was recaptured he gave the police all information and every assistance. As a small boy he had lost one of his arms, and this had affected his being able to work, the result being that he seemed to have got into a habit of laziness. His people, who were very respectable, had lived all their lives in Dunedin. They were very anxious to assist him and do what they could for him, ber, there were at least three or foulcharges that could have been laid against him at the time, the total defalcations amounting to just under £SOO. The charge on- which he was sentenced related to about £3 50. It was a complicated offence. Plunkett was living with some people in the country, and the title of the property was in the name of an old lady. Plunkett approached' a monyelender and obtained money from him upon a mortgage of the farm, coupled with a bill of sale over the stock. Before doing this he had to forge a transfer of the interest in the farm to himself. There was in all some eight documents forged, with eight separate loans, mortgages, hill of sale, and a promissory note. It was a case of forgery carried out to its utmost. Mr Adams, concluding, submitted that, the man had blossomed into a dangerous criminal. The Probation Officer had nothing to say. His Honor said the case did not seem to be one in which prisoner should be ordered to be detained for reformative purposes. In. view of all the circumstances he thought the proper course was to inflict a term of imprisonment on each charge. On the charge of breaking, entering, and stealing from the Milton Railway Station, he would be sentenced to a term of three years imprisonment; on the charge relating to the refreshment room two years, and on the Beaumont charge two years, the sentences to be cumulative. - THREE YEARS FOR BIGAMY. James Alexander Johrston appeared for sentence on a charge of bigamy, to which he had pleaded guilty in’ the lower court. He had nothing to say, and was not represented by counsel. Ml- Adams said the accused was arrested in the first place on a charge of failing to maintain his wife. His first statement to the polioe was that he had not married her at all. Inquiries were made and the other wife was found. On his own statment the prisoner made no inquiries as to whether liis first wife was living or not. There were no children of the second marriage. His Honor: The woman believed that prisoner was a widower when she married him. Mr Adams said he did not know, but drew attention to the fact that in the marriage certificate tlxe prisoner was described as a batchelor. His Honor: He seems to have rather a bad record. According to the police report he had been convicted of a number of offences. This seems to be his first experiment in the way of bigamy. Mr Adams: One charge was in respect to an assault on a female. His Honor: As there are no mitigating circumstances and the prisoner has a bad record a substantial term of imprisonment should be imposed. Prisoner is sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, with hard labour.

INDECENT ASSAULT. William Arthur Forbes was charged with indecent assault on March 4, at Beaumont, on a girl under 16 year of age. The prisoner pleaded guilty and nothing to say. Mr Hanlon, who appeared for the accused, said he was in a half drunken condition at the time. He met the girl in a shop and there was no question tli at afterwards he committed an indecent assault. He was a New Zealander, bom at Riverton 29 years ago, and afterwards working as a carter at Otautau till 1916 when he went to the war. He was away about three years and was. badly wounded in the head, neok, and shoulder on two occasions by shrapnel. He was treated in hospital and convalescent home for some considerable time after his return to New Zealand. When he took drink now it had most serious effects on him. He did not think that there was anything against him when he \yas sober, Since the offence had been committed he had taken out a prohibition order against himself and that had had some effect. He asked His Honor to take into consideration the accused’s presious good character, his war service and the fact that he was more or less under the influence of drink which affected him very seriously. Mr Adams said' that, judging from the girl’s condition when she reached her friend’s home, the assault must have been of some violence. » v His Honor said he thought it was in the interest of the prisoner .that he should be under the control of the Prison Board to give him au opportunity to cultivate habits of sobriety. He would be detained for reformative purposes for three years. The Prison Board would lie able to release him as soon as it was satisfied that he was fit to be at large. ARSON. Joseph Francis Ward, charged with arson at St. Clair on May 2, pleaded “ Guilty.” In response to the usual question, he said “ I have nothing -to say. I know nothing about it; I was drunk at the time.” Mr Adams said he had nothing to add to the police repart His Honor said the prisoner had evidently committed the offence while in a drunken condition. The best course would be to put him under the control of the Prison Board for a time. He would be ordered to be detained for reformative purposes for a term of three years. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. Thomas Day was charged with committing manslaughter by killing the child Harold James Moody on March 16 last.—Mr Hanlon on behalf of the accused pleaded " Not Guilty.” He execused his right to challenge to the extent of objecting to some seven jurymen. All witnesses were ordered out of court. Mr F. B Adams, Crown Prosecutor, opened the case on the lines of his Honor’s charge to the Grand Jury. Mr Hanlon pointed out to the jury that it behoved them to be particularly careful to see whether the Crown had carried out its duty, and whether it had been able to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused had been guilty of the crime of manslaughter. They had already been told that the onus of proof lay on the crown. If this was a runaway and the knocking was entitled to be acquitted. His Honor in summing up said it was for the Crown to satisfy the jury that the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the accused.. The jury retffed and returned after 25 minutes with a verdict of not guilty. The accused was thereupon discharged. The Court adjourned till Thursdaymorning. CHRISTCHURCH, May 10. Thaddeus Edward Doody appeared to answer a charge of manslaughter. Th evidence showed that Doody and Cornelius O’Neill, who were both under the influence of liquor, started to fight in the street at Rangiora. John O’Neill, a brother, interfered, and was pushed down by accused. He fell on the pavement, fractured his skull, and died the following day. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.—A number of prisoners who had pleaded guilty to charges in the lower court were sentenced. Mary Hargreaves (theft) was admitted to three years' probation. William Thomas (theft), described as a bad character. was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Robert Stanley M’Causland and William Thomson (breaking and entering) were admitted to three years’ probation. Eugene MTormack (theft) was similarly dealt with. Frank O’Donnell, aged 174 years, was given three years’ reformative treatment. Ernest Robert Powell (theft of a'bicycle) was ordered one year’s detention. James Dundonald Cullen (breaking and entering and theft) was admitted to two years’ probation. John Kennedy (four charges of horse stealing) was ordered one year's de tention, and Thomas Wilson (breaking and entering and theft) two years’ detention.—• Clarence Bovey was found guilty of failing to comply with the terms of a probation order, and was sentenced to two years’ reformative treatment. CHRISTCHURCH. May 9. At Ihe Supreme Court, Edward Horne, on a charge of theft of a bicycle, was acquitted. Robert Dasler was tried on a charge of manslaughter of Edward Darrell in Christchurch on March 6. Darrell died in hospital as the result of a fracture of the skull, received, it was alleged, in a fracas in a right-of-way. Dasler was acquitted. CHRISTCHURCH, May. 12 Edward William Harris, manager of the United Motor Company at Kaikoura, and James John Gibson, the company’s foreman, who were found guilty yesterday on charges of receiving stolen motor parts, were brought up this morning for sentence. The jury recommended that leniency be extended to Gibson. Harris was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, and Gibson was ordered _to come up for sentence when called upon. WELLINGTON, May 9. In the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Reed, Venables Matthews, who is serving a sentence of., seven years for indecent assault on little girls, pleaded guilty to a further charge of a similar nature, and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with the present sentence. PALMERSTON NORTH, May 9. The quarterly sessions opened to-day before Mr Justice Ilosking. There is only one criminal case, i.n which the accused, a fisherman at Foxton. is charged with arson, and breaking, entering, and theft. The grand jury returned a true bill except. on the charge of arson, in which case ■no bill was returned. PRISONERS SENTENCED. WELLINGTON, May 12. At the Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court, John Arbuckle was sentenced to four years’ reformative treatment for embezzling the Miners’ Federation’s funds. Henry Grell and Sidney Grell, for breaking anil

entering, were each sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, and declared habitual criminals. Arthur Brown, for indecent assault on a male, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. Lawrence Egmont Windsor and Joseph Frederick Windsor were sentenced to four years’ reformative detention for breaking, entering, and theft. Arthur Gorham, for receiving stolen goods, was sentenced to three years’ hard labour. Mervyn John Cudby, for breaking and entering, was sentenced to three years’ reformative detention. In sentencing Arbuckle, the judge stated that the sentence might be revised by the Prison Board upon his convincing them that none of the £2OOO was stowed away. Giving such information might lead to the board’s recovering some portion of the money gambled away. Arbuckle pleaded that he drew insufficient remuneration. He had to pay £3 10s weekly for expenses and travelling! and _los fortnightly for dues, leaving an insufficient balance to maintain his wife and children. Hoping to retrieve his position he used the first £l€o for gambling, and got deeper in debt, until finally the money was irretrievably lost. The jury, in finding the verdict, attached a rider severely condemning the Miners’ Union officials’ lax and careless methods of keeping accounts and handling money. AUCKLAND, Mav 12. At the Supreme Court Charles John Williams was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 16 years of age. and one year each for horse-stealing, forgery, and false pretences, the sentences to be’ concurrent. Barney Elias was fined £3O, in default three months’ imprisonment, for selling indecent pictures. AUCKLAND. May 9. The criminal sessions opened this morning before Mr Justice Stringer. In his charge to the grand jury his Honor said that there were 23 cases, mostly matters of dishonesty. A true bill was returned in the Pioiroa murder case AUCKLAND, May 10. At the Supreme Court Thomas Fearon, aged 25 years, whose anneal against conviction for theft from the person and receiving was dismissed by the Appeal Court, was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, with hard labour. CONSTABLE HARGREAVES FOUND NOT GUILTS'. AUCKLAND. May 12. The charge against the watchhouse-keeper at the City Police Station, Constable Fielding Hargreaves, of having assaulted and caused bodily harm to an arrested man was heard. The evidence for the defence was that the injury (a broken jaw) was not sustained at the station; that accused touched complainant on the head, but the action could not be described as a blow. The judge emphasised the importance of the case, which was one on which a verdict should not be found against accused except on the most convincing evidence. The witnesses on each side had testified to dif- 1 ferent sets of facts. It had also to be remembered that the man had been arrested for drunkenness, and no doubt would have been somewhat hazy in mind as to what had taken place. The jury, after a short retirement, found a verdict of not guilty. It is understood that the trial of Dr Liston will not commence before Tuesday.