SUPREME COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 32, 12 June 1913, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

o— - AUCKLAND SESSIONS. • '! . v . ‘it [Feb Pan?a Association. 1 Auckland, June 11. A lad named Lionel I>e Thierry, who was charged with the theft of a pogtal packet at Dargaville, was sentenced to three years’ probation. INVERCARGILL SESSIONS. Invercargill, June 11. At the Supreme Court, Sir Joshua Williams gave judgment in the Wallacetown Omnibus Company versus Wright Stephenson an Co., claim £2lO for damages arising out of a motor car collision. Defendants counter claimed for £250 for damages done to their car. His Honor held that the evidence showed that plaintiffs’ driver was responsible for the accident, and gave judgment for defendants on the claim, and for the full amount of the counter-claim with costs. loliu Gerrard appealed against the decision of the Magistrate for convicting him of having stolen a motor car tyre, four cases of petrol, and a quantity of carbide. Mr E. Russell appeared for the Crown, and Mr H. A. McDhnald for the appellant. Mr Russell said that as the appeal was in the nature of a re-hearing, he supposed that the cose for the prosecution would be opened in the usual way. His Honour said that the appeal was permitted under one or two Justices of the Peace, and was taken by Justices assembled at the quarter sessions here. It was from a Magistrate’s decision to the Supreme Court Judge. To his mind, the magistrates were jiast as well qualified as were judges to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and in some instances perhaps beter qualified. “However,” concluded His Honor, “we have to take the law as it stands, but it’s a pity that it exists. Judge Donnie con recently had something to say on the question.” Evidence was then called for the Crown. A rather remarkable episode occurred when Samuel Hazlett was giving evidence. The witness is at present undergoing a term of imprisonment. He stated that he did not remember giving evidence in the Lower Court, and he was not sure whether what he said in evidence was correct or not. After further evidence had been given, the case was duly adjourned.