SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 882, 7 December 1916, Page 10

SUPREME COURT.

PRISONERS SENTENCED. His Honour Mr Justice Dcnniston presided at the Supreme Court lliis morning, when a number of prisoners came up for sentence. CARNAL KNOWLEDGE.

In sentencing Henry Felix Eorgison lo imprisonment for two years and six months on a charge of carnally knowing a girl 144 years of age," his Honour said that in such ensos the circumstances often varies!. The real object of the Act was to deal with elderly men who took advantage of girls too young to give consent v/iih full intelligence. The prison?]" was 80 years of age, and the girl !('•. He took advantage of his being a sort of a relation. It was, undoubtedly, a bad case.

AN UNDESIRABLE SENTENCED

Anthony Abbot appeared for sentence on a charge of breaking, entering, and theft, and on another of the theft of £l(s 10/-, at Lyttelton. In delivering sentence his Honour sairl: —"You are one of these undesirables about winch liltle appears to be known. In connection with the second charge of theft you charged the man from whom you stole the money with a disgusting offence, which was a grossly improper thing to do. That aggravates the offence. You will he sentenced to three months on the first, and to six months on the second offence, the sentences to be cumulative." FORGERY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

George Swanson had forged a birth certificate with a view to reentering the railway service. Mr J. J. Cassidy, who appeared for accused, said that Swanson had become entangled in a liquor case while a porter on the railway at Te Kuiti, and, being convicted and lined £SO, he was dismissed from the railway service.

His Honour took exception to the term "entangled." It appeared to him that the liquor case in which prisoner had been convicted was part of a system for defrauding the revenue. Prisoner had taken advantage of his position as a porter on the railway to carry liquor for sale in a no-license district. "Entanglement" implied that prisoner had been led astray by someone. Mr Cassidy said that Swanson then came to Christehurch, and forged the certificate in order to get back on the railway service. His Honour: I can't treat him as a first offender. He has previously been convicted of a very serious offence. Prisoner endeavoured to enter the railway service under conditions prohibited by the regulations, thus depriving some man, who was entitled to enter, of employment. :n consideration of the fact that he has a wife and family the sentence will be a comparatively short one. (To the prisoner) You will be sentenced lo three months' imprisonment.

A STUPID PERJURER

Mr Donnelly, who appeared on behalf of Thos. Richard Johns, committed for perjury, said that the prisoner was a very dull, stupid man, from whom he had had great difliciilty in obtaining any information about the case. He had a wife and five small children, the family being m extremely poor circumstances. Prisoner had previously been fined lor being implicated in the theft of potatoes.

Mr Raymond said the prisoner was a native of New Zealand. His age was 30. Nothing was known against

him except the theft of potatoes in September last. The family was very poor and the accused was described by the police as being “soft.” His Honour said that he would know what to do if only the man and his family were concerned. But the public had to he considered. He did not want to send the man to gaol. 1 he sanctity of the oath seemed to he becoming gradually diminished. This offence was also becoming painfully common. Prisoner was apparently not altogether mentally responsible. For the sake of prisoner's wife and children sentence would he suspended. This was an exceptional case, but he would impose substantial sentences in future. The prisoner would be ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. IN BANCO. A QUESTION OF COSTS. In (he case of William Ullyait (Mr .1. .1. Dougall) v. Lewis Edmund Corsbie (Mr S. (!. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr Whitcombe), the defendant moved for judgment for £lB4 13/8, and for costs. Plaintiff submitted to judgment, the only question being that of costs. Mr Dougall submitted, too, that the proceedings were precipitated by defendant’s neglect in not furnishing proper accounts. He asked for an order for costs up to filing accounts. Judgment was reserved.