SUPREME COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 11 May 1925, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

TIMARU,.SATURDAY, MAY 9, 1925

(Boforo Hi 3 Honour Mr Justice Adams)

Tho criminal sessions of tho Supreme Court wero continued in Timaru or, Mai unlay boforo His Honour Mr Justice Adams.

PRISONER SENTENCED

llonaKi Luigi Bcrrecti, 22 years of age, and deal and dumb, appeared for semenco for a criminal assault upon a boy of eight years. Mr J. Emslio, who appeared for tho accused, asked that ho do admitted' to prouauon. Ho would nbt have mauo this application, ho said, but foltlio fact that the prisoner suffered from a groat physical infirmity in tfiat ho was both deaf and dumb. Tho accused had been a ward of tho State at tho Woraroa State farm, itorii which piuco ho had been sent to tho special school at Otekaiko, where ho had been taught boot repairing. At the time of tho offence ho was employed in Timaru by Mr J. W. Sontcr iu his boot-repairing establishment, os an imder-rnto worker at £3 per week. Kin work for Mr Srnttor had been quite a.-i fcisfactory and his conduct first class, and if ho wore admitted to probation Mr Soutor would willingly take him br.ek into his employment. His Honour said tho enso was ono of tho gravest kind, and while tlio Court could not fail to fcol sympathetic to ono so afflicted, His Honour said ho had to take into account the fact that this was not tho first occasion on which the accused had boon boforo tho Court for a serious offeneo, and it was tho imnorativo duty of tho Court to protect tlio public against this class of crimo. One had onlv to romembor Romo in tho time of Cicero to roaliso Cm fato of a nation when lawlessness held sway.

•T. W. Souter, boot importer, Timarn, j ail'd that tlio accused was in his omplovmont as a hoot repairer. His work and conduct had always been very nafoipfnetorv, end if lid wore admitted to probation witness would tako him ; back into his employment. j Tho Crown solicitor (Mr W. D. ' Campbell) said that everyone must feol the greatest oympathy towards, tho necusocf by reason of tho fact that nnturo had been so unkind to him. Ho was deaf and dumb and had sexual impulses which ho admitted wero uncontrollable, i Tho accused had boon convicted of n similar offence four years ago, arid under tho circumstances counsel folt in duty bound to ask that tho accused bo segregated for a considerable time. 110 was sorry to have to ask this, in view of tho accused’s physical disabilities, but lio considered it liis duty. His Honour said the offence was of a most revolting character, and unnatural, and was one which not only tended to destroy tho character of tho one who was guilty of it, but was calculated to spread unnatural offences amongst members of the community to whom they might not otherwise bo known. In this case the object of the accused’s crimo was a little boy, and they had to remember that for every case of tho kind -which was detected and brought, before tbo Court, thero might bo i-cores of others which did not come to light. The Court must do everything it could he check such practices. Tho prisoner’s physical incapability did not in any way affect his power to do injur vin this direction. His Honour said he would adopt a special course, rendered possible by. tho passing of an Act last year; leaving. the ciuostion as -to what wofild actually bo done wit a the accused to tho Prisons Board and tb.fe Minister of Justice. Prisoner would be ordered to be detained in the Borstal Institute for five years: J

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION; W: H: Anderson (Mr O; PL R; Ulrich) v; Meredith end Co ; Mr Ulrich said, that tiiis was a claim in which tho plaintiff asked that delendant be restrained from taking certain rooc crops from plaintiff’s laud at Willowbridge: Tho defendant had filed a defence in which ho alleged a tenancy of the land in question: Plaintiff denied that there was any such tenancy: In view of the fact that there had not been time to get evidence in rebuttal of the defence, counsel asked that the case should be brought on at an early date in Christchurch:

Mr Campbell objected to the case : | being removed to Christchurch. The | defendant had arranged with, the | plaintiff to continue in possession _of | this land until June 3 next, for* which | right he had paid £25 and held a re- j| ceipt for it. It was now alleged by $

tho plaintiff that tho receipt had been tampered with—a very serious charge, and one which should be answered at once. He objected to being dragged to Christchurch to defend the case when tho plaintiff could and should have been , 1 ready to go on with it that day, j His Honour said the case was not ripe for hearing and he would direct that it should_ stand over, the plaintiff to take his chance of a hearing in Christchurch. As tho tenancy of the land would terminate in three weeks no order of the Court would be any good if it were not mado within that time, but as it was plaintiff’s unreadiness which made it necessary j to adjourn tho case he would have to take his chance of getting the case hoard in time for tho decision to bo i of use to him.

IN DIVORCE. Mary A. Stumbles (Mr Campbell) v. John Stumbles (Mr Emslie). An application by the wife for a divorce. M. A. Stumbles, the petitioner, said she had married respondent in April, 1920, and had lived with her husband at Pleasant Point until September, 1921. Thero were no children. Their married life had been very unhappy, because of the joalous naturo of her husband. In September, 1921, witness went to see a neighbour, and when she returned twenty minutes later her husband locked her out and endeavoured to strike her with a stick. Witness then went to a neighbour’s place and spent tho night thero. Next morning witness went- to her homo again, but her husband said ho would not have her back on any account. Witness said she would not go back, and had maintained herself over since. On the following witness’s husband advertised in ] the “Timaru Herald” that bo would j not be responsible for any debts con- ] tractcd by bis wife. Two days later witness advertised that she had never contracted any debts which sho had not paid herself. Mr Emslie cross-examined.

Two of witness’s daughters gavo evidence in support of their mother’s statement of tho case.

John Stumbles, the respondent, said he was a drover, living at Pleasant Point, and had married the petitioner (who was a widow with six children) in 1020. It was arranged that only one of tlio petitioner’s six children (a. little boy) should live with thorn, hut somo of the others had also f-oner to live with thorn and this had been the cause of (he trouble. Wlvm the petitioner left witness’s home she had given him no reason for leaving. Witness invited her to return hut she made no answer. Witness emphatically denied ■'ll the petitioner’s allegations against him. ■Rev. O. T>. Falconer. Presbvterin n Minister at Pleasant Point, said that h" had married the parties in 1920. When thev separated in 1921 witness endeavoured to bring about a reconciliation. but Mrs StumMos refused to go back to her husband, giving no reason, and making no charge against, him. When witness asked for reasons

• 1 Mrs Stumbles simply said sho was not ] going back to her husband. . I . Mrs A. Tonnanc, Pleasant Point. ! said that sho lived close to the .petitioner. Ono night in-September, 1921, j i tlio petitioner had gone to witness’s j i I homo and remained thero for three . daj-s. Sho said .she had left her homo, • 1 bet gave no reason for having dono ; so' On February 11, 1922, Mr Stumbles ' . had gone to witness’s homo and asked for his wife. His wife said : “.I’m not going and I don't want to seo him.” j Mr Stumbles stepped into tho house ■ and again nskou his wife to return, j suggesting that thov should live happily j together. Mrs Stumbles said no, sho j would not go back, and Mr Stumbles j 1 said goodnight and went homo. _ j ' His'Honour said ho would tako time : to consider his decision. Ihoro was a . sharp conflict of evidence, and ho ex- j' pressed doubt whether a mere difference j 1 of opinion hot.wc.cn husband and w:lo | and '.a verbal siatemenf. by one nnvty |; tlmt he for she) was not coming hack, j followed bv the parties living .wrt for i Ibe ensuing three ■'ears, would constitute a ground for divorce. The | i Divorce Amendment Act of 1920. sec- I ( tion 4. pr'-.v>ded for “mutual sooarn- j ( lion” for three venrs as a nreliminarv i . to divorce proceedings and he was , i doubtful whether it" could bo Held that 1

I there lind been “mutual separation” {within the meaning of the Act, in thi3 ' case; It seemed to him that the fact : i hat two spouses had some sharp words, and one left the home and did not 'return, hardly constituted “mutual ! separation” sufficient on which to found : divorce proceedings. • Mr Campbell said that His Honour ; had had a somewhat similar application the previous day, in another divorce case, decision in which had been held over; and ho asked His Honour if lie would get the opinion of the Appeal Court as to the interpretation to be placed on the words “mutual separation,” before ho gavo his decision in either case. His Honour said he would look further into the matter, and if ho considered there was reason to submit the point to tbo Appeal Court ho would do so. . This concluded the business of the session.