SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3609, 15 May 1923, Page 27

SUPREME COURT.

Friday, Mat 11. 1523. (Before His uonor Mr Justice Sim.) ALLEGED ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. Junes Baxter Kerr and Donald Henry Campbell, charged with robbery with violence from Samuel Car ing. pleaded not guilty. They were undefended b" counsel. Witnesses were ordered out of court on the request of Kerr. Samuel Carling gave evidence as to his coming to Dunedin from Waikouaiti and meeting a man who gave his name as Edgar. The two visited, some hotels and met the two accused in the Empire Hotel. At the request of Kerr he bought two bottles of beer, and the three went down Cumberland street and turned to the right. He went to open on of the bottles, and was caught by the throat. He could not say which of the accused caught him. Witness was nulled down and stunned, and when lie recovered his watch and chain were gone. He identified the accused next morning. Witness was cross-examined as to his actions during the day of the alleged assault. He denied that he was drunk at the time, but did not seam too sure as to what had happened earlier in the day, particularly as to the number of drinks he had had in some of the hotels he had mentioned. His statements regarding times were not consistent with those made in the Lower Court. Asked if he had had any drinks before he went into the box, witness said he had had three. His Honor: Three, is that all? Constable Ellens gave evidence as to the arrest o-f Kc-rr. To Kerr: Edgar laid the charge to the police, arid pointed out the two accused. Constable Snedden told of the arrest of Campbell. To Kerr: The police rlid not know' where the man Edgar was to be found. He had discovered that the man had been working at the Milburn Lime and Cement Works under the name of Edgar. He had not appeared at the Lower Court- on the summons which had been given to him at the detective office. The hearing was adjourned till 10 o’clock next .May. PRISONERS SENTENCED. Rita Margaret Smith, who had pleaded guilty to a charge cf arson, was not represented by counsel. The Grown Prosecutor said she did not seem to be in her right mind. Dr Evans’3 report indicated that the girl was considerably below normal mentally, was feebleminded, liable to violent fits of passion, and was also- a sexual maniac, and should be placed under restraint. His Honor ordered her to be detained for reformative purposes for tire maximum period o£ 10 years. A LENGTHY PROBATION. Leslie Henderson Crawford appeared for sentence for indecent assault on a female. Air Hay, who appeared fori his behalf, said that accused was 20 years of age, and lived at Roslyn. His father, a highly respectable man, had informed counsel that tire youth , had always been somewhat feeble-minded, and had been taken from school, on the doctor’s orders, after passing the Second Standard. The Crown Prosecutor read. the prison surgeon’s report, which stated that the prisoner was mentally below normal, was easily led, and was addicted to a bad habit. Mr Hay added that the father had never had any trouble previously with the youth, and was in a position to look after him, so that a recurrence of the offence would be unlikely. The offence was not a serious one. The Probation Officer (Air F. G. Gumming) thought that he could do something for the youth. The prisoner was admitted, to probation, for the maximum term of five years, and ordered to pay costs of prosecution (£1 11s) within a week. AN OPPORTUNITY AIISSED. Albesrt George Alexander, who had pleaded ” Guilty ” to two charges cf breaking. entering, and theft by day, was unrepresented, and had nothing to say. The Probation Officer put- in a report. The man was doing a term of imprisonment for failure to keep to the terms of his probation. He had had an opportunity to make good, but had quite failed to take advantage of it. The prisoner was ordered to be detained for reformative purposes for a term of three years. PILLAGING CARGO. Fulford Benjamin Underhill appeared for sentence for the theft of bracelets from a ship. He huuded up a written statement to the Judge. The Probation Officer put in the prisoner's discharge book and a letter from the assistant manager of the shipping company written on behalf of the captain of the ship. His Honor said the prisoner asked that the advantages of the First Offenders Act be extended to him, but the offence of pillaging cargo was not one in which such leniency could be extended except in veryexceptional circumstances. The proper course would be to inflict a term of imprisonment, but in view of the prisoner’s previous good character and tho certificate from the captain, he would order hirn to be detained by the Prison Board, so that he might be released shortly and allowed to earn a living outside. The Crown Prosecutor mentioned that inquiries were now being made in Auckland concerning the theft, of goods from the same vessel while she was in port there, and which, it, was suspected, the prisoner was guilty of. The goods had been hawked round there as they were here. His Honor said he would take the case as it stood. Prisoner would be ordered to be detained for reformative purposes for two years. If it turned out that prisoner was concerned in the other matter, and he made any application to the Prison Board, it would be brought up against him. , PROBATION TERMS DISREGARDED. Francis Puranthoiene appeared for senfence for having broken the terms of his probation. Air O’Shea, who represented the prisoner, said the latter was 45 years of age, and had a wife and eight children. The prisoner was placed on probation for three years on a charge of assault, the principal terms being that he should take out a prohibition order against himself; that ho report monthly to the police; and that he pay tho exists of the

prosecution (£l4j within 12 months. He would seem to have been rather remiss in the matter of i-eporting, but had otherwise behaved well, and had entirely refrained from intoxicating liquor. Learned counsel had a list of prisoner’s earnings, which showed that he had earned £225 in 78 weeks. Employers of waterside labour were willing to give the prisoner work, and the secretary of the union had undertaken to see that the money involved was paid. Everybody in Port. Chalmers was trying to extend a helping hand to him. The Probation Officer gave evidence, and suggested readmittance to probation for a further term of two years. Prisoner was a hard-working man, and his conduct had been very satisfactory, but witness had had to report him for failing to report monthly as required. Prisoner was ordered to be released on probation for three years from the present date, on same conditions as on the former oocasion. POSTAL CADET’S LAPSE. Thomas Aaron Hughes came up for sentence for the theft of postal packets. Air Irwin, for prisoner, said that the boy was 17 last February. He liad been a cadet in the Postal Department at Port Chalmers, and it had become necessary to send him out as a letter-carrier. Learned counsel understood that this was an isolated case of theft. His Honor: Are there not other thefts mentioned? Grown Prosecutor : Prisoner admitted having stolen two small sums of 5s 6d and 3s, but has not been chat god. There was nothing in the papers to suggest that he stole anything further. Mr Irwin went on to say that the prisoner’s parents were highly respectable people. He had been under the observation | of tile Probation Officer since his release on j bad, and his conduct has been quite satisfao- ; tory. io his Honor: The money had not been paid, but would lie. Ilis Honor said that it was not usual to release on probation a Government official guilty of theft, but in view of the youth of the prisoner and the special circumstances, he felt justified in extending to him the advantages of tho Act. Prisoner would be admitted on probation for three years, conditions being that he shall pay forthwith tho sums involved in the theft (£1 8s 6d), and that the costs of the prosecution (£l4 2s 9d) be paid within one year. FINED FOR BIGAMY. Albert Edward Blundell pleaded guilty (o a charge of bigamy and not guilty to having made a false declaration in connection therewith. The Crown Prosecutor said that he was prepared to abandon the second charge, in connection with which the depositions were faulty. Mr Hanlon, for the prisoner, said Blundell was 33 jears of age, and had served in tho British Navy for 15 years. He had discharges showing that his conduct had been very goo-d. About the beginning o-f the war, while on leave, he married a woman in England, and shortly afterwards went to sea again. From time to time he visited his home, but found that his wife had changed towards him. Finally she told him she was sick of him and was going to get a divorce. Later she said she was getting one. Apparently she did not, but prisoner knew she was keen on it, and concluded she had dene so. This, of course, was not reasonable ground for prisoner’s action, said learned counsel, but he really thought she had got a divorce. His Honor: Did he tell the woman ho afterwards married what the circumstances were ? Mr Hanlon: Yes; he told her everything. Learned counsel asked that leniency should he extended to the prisoner, who Lore an ex* cellerft character with his employers (the City Council). 'The Crown Prosecutor pointed out that he had a letter in which the first wife threw the blame of the estrangement upon tho prisoner. She had never refused to live with him. Air Haiilon said that prisoner had been told that his wife was carrying on with men while ho was at sea. His Honor said it was not necessary for the ends of justice to send the man to prison. It would be sufficient punishment in all the circumstances if a monetary penalty were inflicted sufficient to cover the costs of the prosecution, which were considerable. Prisoner would be fined £35. lie was allowed three months in which to pav the fine. Mr Hanlon said he would undertake (hat the fine would be paid. Saturday, MAr 12. (Before his Honor Air Justice Sim.) The case against James Booth Kerr and Donald Henry Campbell of robbery with violence and of theft from Samuel Carling was concluded. Neither of the accused chose to give evidence. but Kerr said that lie wished to call Alexander APKitterick, barman at the Empire Hotel, who stated that, although he had been on duty on the afternoon of the alleged offence lie did not remember serving Carling. Nor did he remefnber rolling up any bottles of beer. Kerr addressed the jury lor 20 minutes, speaking logically and. clearly. in summing up’ the judge said that tho ease for the Crown rested, almost entirely upon the evidence of Carling, who must have been somewhat muddled with drink, and because Edgar, whose evidence would have been so important, could not be found. The jury took 10 minutes to return with a verdict o-f not guilty.