SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 5675, 4 June 1908, Page 1

SUPREME COURT.

. TIMARU-JUNE 2nd, 1908. (Before His Honour, Mr Justice 5 Williams). i j . THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. His Honour, addressing the grand jury, complimented them on having only two criminal cases to deal with, neither of which presented any difficulties. i > HORSE KILLING. i In Rex v. Daniel Sargent, who was , \ chargied on two counts with that on • March 30th he did wilfully kill a horse ! and did attempt to kill three others, the property of C. Blackler, of Hazel- ! bum, the grand jury brought ia a true j bill. • Mr J. W. White appeared for the : Crown, and Mr Emslie for. the accusled, who pleaded guilty. ] Questioned as to his ago, accused stated that it was 35 years. Mr Emslie pleaded that the provii fiions of the Probation Act be extended to accused, as he had admitted his offence. The police had made enquiries about him, and had found nothing against his character, awl, as | Blackler had stated in his evidence in | the lower Court, thero had been no ill-will towards hira. Accused's account of the affair was that he knew the horses had strayed from Blackler's and that he had fired simply to drive them home, profcjably under some irrestible influence. Accused intended settling up with Blackler for the loss sustained by him and counsel would undertake to see that £4O, Bladder's assessment of damage, was paid. C. Blackler, the owner of the horses

which Were shot 'at, informed His Honour that ho Jiad never had an angry word with accused, and did not think the deed was done of spite. Since a settlement had not been effected out of Court ho would nfow I claim £SO. I]he probation officer's report stated that accused was a little eccentric nnd lived by himself, but nothing was previously known against his character. His Honoxir admitted accused to probation for 12 months, with the condition that the accused pay the costs, awl £4O towards Mr Bladder's loss, this payment not to prejudice any civil action for recovery of dam- ! ages. The costs 'of the prosecution amounted in all to about £lO 10/-. INDECENT ASSAULT. Sydney Wreford Blackleg charged with committing an indecent assault at Morven on 24th February, on a [■girl under the age of 16 years, was ■represented by Mr S, G. Raymond, 'while- Mr J. W. White prosecuted. The grand jury brought in a true bill, to which accused pleaded guilty. Accused gavo his age as 46 years. Mr S. G. ■Raymond drew attention to the girl's evidence as given in the lower Court. The girl' at the timo of tho -assau'lt waa 14 years and 8 months of ago,

and looked her ago. A good deal of the language alleged by the girl to have been used to her was not.admitted. 'Accused had been approached by the girl's father, -who offered to sqfuare the case for £IOO. E© had resided in tne Morven district for 30 years, during which time he boro a good character. Counsel, therefore suggest-

ed that probation might be granted. His Honour thought these cases were not the kind far which probation was intended. Mr White admitted that there had been no attempt on the part of accused to commit any serious offence ; probably he had yiven way to a sudden temptation. His Honour said he was sorry ' to see «i man' of accused's age charged with such an offence, but nn examination of tho depositions seemed to show that the girl .had not been UnaQqUainted with evil. But there was no douiblti accused had committed a grossly indecent offence, and as 7naste# of the house he should have known better. < He would sentence accused to twelve months' imprisonment with foaixl labour. CHAMBERS BUSINESS. Motions of probate of the wills of tho Into W. H. E. Ward (Mr J. W. White), nnd the late Sarah McCullough (Mr J. Hay) were granted. IN DIVORCE. In Owen v. Owen and Robert Hyland Smith (co-respondent),, Mr Hamilton :api«.«ared for petitioner (thohuH,band). Tho ground of tho petition was adultery. Mr Hamilton stated that petitioner first mot respondent in IS7B, when she was a uervant n his house. Some month's after tho death of his wife petitioner married respondent, but owing to diffqrerico between <he parties m deed of separation woe drawn up in IWM. Subsequently, stated tho petitioner., tho respondent conducted n boarding-house in Wai-mate, and in eonsequenceof information received by him as to his wife's relations with Smith, the co-respondent, ho iiled his petition. A 'hotisdmaid, who was employed by Mrs Owen, and O. Murphy, u boarder, gave incriminating evidence cianceming Smith's rolattions with respondent. W. Aulsebrook 'and A. Laurie also gave evidence to show that t+he respondent and co-respondent had co-habited and practically lived together «.s man and wife. The jury, without retiring, brought in a verdict in favour of the petitioner, and His Honour granted n docroonisi, to be made absolute in three months. The petitioner's costs wero allowed against the defendants. hi Bourn-.- v. Bourne, 'a hnwlxuid s petition for divorce on the ground of adulUvy, Joseph Ha.rfuiett and Frederick Owens being co-respondents, Mr Raymond npjX'aml for petitioner, nnd Mr Al|>ei-s for Messrs Duncan, Cotterill and Slrhi<rer for the respondent. Tiio co-respondents did not appear, but Tlarlix'tt had fil'id a defence. Mr Alpers s-lated that ho merely put l in an appearance for respondent, but | had no defence to offer, though his icliwni did 'not tidtnit adultery, to

which His Honour pointed out that there was no d'epial. Mr Alpers continued that in th« event of a decree being granted 'ho would ask for alimony fofr Mrs Bourne, on the ground that the wife had assisted in building iup petitioner's fortune. His Honour thought: this should form the subject 'matter of another case. At any rate the question of adultery should be disposed of first, Mr Raymond outline the case for the petitioner. He stated that in 1900 tho petitioner, a resident of Makik&hi, married Mrs Robinson, a widow with no issue. In March, 1908, petitioner obtained possession of a lettw, which admitted of only one interpretation, viz., Owens hud committed adultery with respondent. He questioned his wife on the matter, but she denied tite accusation. Subsequent enquiries tended to show that tery iwit/h Hartaett. The position was respondent had also committed adult'hat r»jspond«Mt had not entered a defence, though hex counsel put in an appearance for the. purpose ol obtain-ling-alimony; HJartnjott had filed it [statement denying the charge, but did | not appear, while Owens made no appearance or no denial. The petitioner gave evidence and put in letters and a telegram addressed to n servant in the house, apparently under a proorratjgqd "scheme, for tjransdermioe to Mrs

Bourne. He taxed his wife with knowing who the letters came from, but did not mention Owens' name, although at like time -he suspected Owens, and he told his wife the best

Aug she could doj was to "clear out," which she dad two,oT three days later. Some tains feftorwaTds he discovered •uffiqicMt evidence to enable Mm to join Hartoratt as a co-respon-dent. Ho had Kdt seen big wile since ehfl loft his house. When he married bdr sh<j was possessed of a farm;, -this she sold and paid the proceeds into witness' account, but since the separation h» had refunded her all the nionwy "wit/h interest, amounting to £1360, fcad sent, to Chrisfchurch three horses and a trap, valued at £IOO and.also « 'quantity of furniture He was prepared to hand over anything else of bera that reinaindd. There had bean no issue from thtj marriage. Other evideaL-e was <given in support, and tho jury without retiring aigirieod thai, adultery had been committed with both respondents. Mr Alpers' claim for alimony for Mrs Bourne was then monticned. Mv Alpers quoted cases in support of his claim. Mr Raymond opposed the application. His Honour deajded to postpone oondidera tion of the matfter until later in the session, I

Shortly aifter 5 p.m. the Court-was adjourned till 10 a.m, next day.