SUPREME COURT

Southland Times, Issue 17967, 7 March 1917, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

TUESDAY, MARCH 6

(Before his Honour Mr Justice Sim). CRIMINAL BUSINESS. The session opened at 11 a.m. GRAND JURY. The Grand Jury was as follows J. Murray (Foreman), W. J. Ferguson, J. D. Gilmore, C. C. Cook, R. J. Stone, Isaac Jenkins, John Blue, Jas. Hunter, A. E. Arthur, John Waugh,-.Arch*. Campbell, Edmund R. Wilson, John Matheson, J. : H. Kingsland, D. Stewart, G. Featherstone, F. Fraser, J. A. Doig and W. A. Brown. " HIS HONOUR’S CHARGE, ‘ ' His Honour," addressing the Grand Jury, said that they had to deal with charges against three persons only, and he did not think that they would have much difficulty in any of them. There was a man named Martyn, charged with the theft of a heifer belonging to a Mr Murch. It .appeared from the depositions that the animal had been kept in a fowlhouse on' a’ section near Invercargill and that it disappeared in October. The following month it was seen in the accused’s paddock, and In December in .a bush section belonging to a man named Barry Brand. xAccused had admitted that he put the heifer there. .The facts in connection with the other* three heifers were that they were running on the property of Mrs Begg, East road, which was seven or eight miles distant. A Miss Nally had seen them on accused’s place in November, and in December they had been found with Murch’s cattle. Accused had made a statement' to Sen-ior-Sergeant Burrowes that he had handed over the. cattle to Mrs Brand, which Mrs Brand denied. In the circumstances it would be necessary for the accused to give a satisfactory account of how the animals came to be in his possession, and If he.could not do-that the jury was' entitled fo find a true bill, that he had either stolen the cattle or knew that they had been stolen. The onus was on the accused. Then there was the case of a man named Norman, who was charged with having wilfully damaged two horses belonging to a man named Robertson. There was no doubt that they, had been damaged by the accused, being cut with an axe. The depositions showed that the animals had been straying on accused’s section. He drove them off once; but they came again, and accused again drove them off, and, having got angry, threw an axe at them. The fact that the horses were on accused’s property did not justify him in damaging them. The third case was against a man named Wm. John White, vfho was charged with having stolen a 'pair of gum boots and a piece of canvas hose from a hut belonging to Alexander Milne Dawson, and with having wilfully set fire to the hut. It seemed that Dawson owned a mining claim, and- the hut was used in connection with it to store tools, etc. On the 15th September Dawson and a man named Turnbull, employed by the former, were working the claim. When they finished for the,day Turnbull took off the gum boots, Ttfhlch he left in the hut at 5.30 p.m. Also, amongst other things, a piece of canvas hose was left by Dawson. That night the hut was burnt down between 7.30 and 8 p.m. On November 23 accused was found to be wearing the gum boots, which were afterwards identified by Turnbull. The piece of’hose was identified by Dawson as belonging to hirri. If the Grand Jury was- satisfied as to identification, then they should bring in a true bill. In regard to the arson charge, the case was more difficult. The case for the .Crown rested on the fact that the accused was found in possession of the articles which were in the hut before it was destroyed. The suggestion was that the accused had broken into the hut and stolen the boots and hose, and, in order to conceal the theft, he deliberately set fire to the hut. They must be satisfied that the fire had not been an accidental one, and Dawson would say that It was not, ppssible for the fire to originate accidentally. - THE GRAND JURY'S DELIBERATIONS. .. The . Grand Jury found:..true.bills in connection^wlthf- thA cases- presented to them, with ■ the exception- of the charge of arson. preferred against Wm. John White. ' CATTLE - - -

Frederick Martyn was charged with having on November 28, 1916, at Inglewood, stolen three heifers, the property of one Lily Begg; - A- ■ second" - count charged accused with having received the animals knowing that they had been dishonestly obtained.- He was also charged with having, on .October 5, 1916, stolen a heifer belonging- to Edward James Murch, and with-having received such stolen property well knowing that it had been dishonestly obtained. Accused pleaded guilty to both charges of “receiving.” The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Wm. Macalister) said that he would accept the plea of guilty on the second count. Mr Eustace Russell, who appeared for the prisoner, said that he was a small dairy farmer who owned 29 acres some eight miles from Invercargill. Prisoner had admitted to the police that the cattle had been on his place, and that he had removed them to Brand’s place. He was not the man who had stolen the cattle, but had foolishly allowed himself to be drawn into the trouble. He had been-in gaol since the 25th of the previous month, and had served a month’s imprisonment for the theft of a pig prior to coming before the lower court on the present charges. Accused realised his position very keenly. He had a wife and six children, the oldest of whom was about nine years of age, and since the beginning of January bis wife had been in hospital suffering from pneumonia and pleurisy. The children were at Lome Farm. Counsel asked that leniency should be extended to the accused, who had made no attempt to interfere with the stolen animals, as they were neither branded nor earmarked. Mr Macallster said that the accused bore a very bad character. He was a native of Australia, 33 years of age, a labourer, and came to New Zealand in 1905. Since then three convictions had been recorded against him for theft. On January 23, 1914, for stealing a bicycle he had been placed on probation for six months; on April 27, 1916, he was fined £5 for theft, and on December 26, 1916, he had been imprisoned for a month with hard labour for having stolen a pig —a daring theft. His Honour said that the prisoner had not disclosed the identity of the person who stole the heifers. Prisoner I could not swear who the persons were who put the cattle on my place. His Honour said that, in view of the record of the prisoner, he would have to inflict a term of. imprisonment. He would sentence him to six months' hard labour on each charge to which he had pleaded guilty, the terms to be cumulative.

DAMAGING' HORSES. Albert Norman was charged with having on February 8, 1917, at Tuatapere, wilfully damaged two horses, the property of Alexander Robertson. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Eustace Russell, for the defence, said that the prisoner was a small leaseholder at Tuatapere, and had a small grass paddock of from ten to twelve acres in extent. He had been annoyed by stock finding their way on to his paddock, and at about ? o'clock on the morning in question he saw three horses belonging to Robertson on the property. He drove them off; but they came back, and the prisoner, who had an axe in his hands which he had been using for another purpose, chased the animals for about a quarter of an hour. As the horses were beating him, and he was becoming tired and exasperated, he threw the axe at them, but he did not know that he had inflicted a cut when he threw the axe a second time. He did not at the moment realise the nature of the act. and as soon as he saw Robertson that afternoon he admitted what he had done, and also made a similar admission to the police. The prisoner bore a good reputation in the district, and it was the first lapse he had made. Prisoner’s father had been accidentally killed on the railway when the prisoner was a child, and prisoner had been the mainstay of tlie family and accredit to the district. The horses were not seriously injured; but they would not be able to be used for a month or so. Counsel suggested the infliction of a fine, as there had been no effort made to maim the horses. Prisoner was quite willing to make restitution. and he had suffered a good deal mentally. Mr Macalister .said that prisoner bore a good character. He was a native of New Zealand, carried on a farm, and in the opinion of those who had investigated the case, the act was one that was done in the heat of anger.

After hearing the evidence of Mr Robertson as to the extent of pecuniary loss sustained by him, his Honour ordered prisoner to pay a fine of £lO, and to also pay Robertson £lO compensation for the loss he had suffered. CHARGE OF THEFT.

AA'm. John White was charged with having on September 15, 1916, at Orepukl, stolen from the workshoy of A. M. Dawson one piece of canvas hose and one pair of guraboots, valued at £5 ss. Prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr Eustace Russell said that the prisoner was 43 years of age. and had resided at Orepuki for 22 years. He had not been in trouble since 1895, when he was convicted for the theft of sacking and of twelve felt papers. Since then he had given no trouble in any shape or form. He married shortly after going to Orepuki and had five children, whose ages varied from 17 to 7 years. He felt his position very keenly indeed. Counsel read a number of testimonials from residents of the district as to prisoner's good asked thgrt a fine be inflicted. 1 Mr Macalister said that the police report was to the effect that the prisoner had a bad reputation. He had lived at Port Chalmers, and later at Mataura, at which place he had been suspected of dishonesty. Twenty-two years ago prisoner came to Orepuki, and since then had been under suspicion, his reputation in Orepuki being not good, and he was described as a “cunning man." After hearing the evidence of Constable Phillips, his Honour said that the offence had been carried out deliberately and was not one of sudden impulse. Looking into all the circumstances and the prisoner’s character, he would have to sentence him to six months’ Imprisonment, with hard labour.

CIVIL BUSINESS. Archibald McEachern v. Hugh McKay McLeod, a claim for £6OO damages for false and fraudulent misrepresentation as to the boundary of a farm purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant. Mr Bowler appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. A. Stout for the defendant. The following jury was empannelled : —H. J. Jefcoate (Foreman), W. G. Sutherland, J. T. Smith, F. Thompson, J. D. Donaldson, H. W. Grace, J. C. Royds, F. Bonifant, Henry Guest, Alex. Gardner, J. H. Reed and E. Burrell. Mr Bowler, in his opening statement, said that the plaintiff was a farmer at Hedgehope and the defendant was a farmer, now of Tokanui, but who formerly had a farm at HedgehQPe, aifd the action arose out of the sale of this farm by the defendant ,to the plaintiff. On or about March, 1911, the plaintiff purchased a farm at Hedgehope from the defendant, consisting of 357 acres at £6 per acre. Prior to the purchase defendant,, for the purpose of Inducing plaintiff to buy, had said that this acreage was included within certain boundaries, which statement was false, as the land within the boundaries stated contained only 311 acres, ami 46 acres, contained in the title was not within these boundariesl These 46 acres were of no value for farming. Plaintiff did not discover that this outside portion was a part of the land he had purchased until some time afterwards. Plaintiff contended that defendant had made representations which in this connection were false. The action was on account of false representation, the statements complained of being ,to the knowledge of defendant, untrue, and which had been made for the purpose of inducing plaintiff to enter into a transaction through which he had suffered damages. Evidence in support was given by Leonard AVebb, surveyor, and the plaintiff, and the Court adjourned till 1* o’clock this morning.