SUPREME COURT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVIII, Issue 21574, 9 February 1940, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

Motorist Deprived Of Licence Heavy Fine Imposed Lawrence William Cantwell, aged 21, a tractor driver of Albury, appeared for sentence before his Honour, Mr Justice Northcroft at the Timaru sessions of the Supreme Court yesterday, on a charge of having negligently driven a motor-car on the Tim ar uPleasant Point highway on December 2, thereby causing the death of Helen Eva McAuliffe, Cantwell was fined £25, his motor driver’s licence was cancelled and he was disqualified from obtaining another for five years. On behalf of Cantwell (Mr M. A. Raymond) recalled that in his charge his Honour had informed the jury that they were not to be influenced by the youth or apparent good character of the prisoner. Those were factors to be taken into account by His Honour in passing sentence. Cantwell, who had just turned 21 years, lived at Albury with his parents who were highly respected residents. He had borne an excellent character in the past and had never been in trouble previously. He was of a nervous and rather retiring disposition. His offence had been his failing to take reasonable care; there had been no question of recklessness or excessive speed, and his act of negligence had been his failure to keep a proper look out. Counsel respectfully urged upon His Honour not to imprison Cantwell, but to admit him to probation. Im*prisonment would affect his whole future; his outlook on life would be changed and it might' have a detrimental effect on his whole life'. Mr Raymond submitted that no useful purpose as far as the public were concerned would be served by imprisonment. The Probation Officer had given a very fair and favourable report and counsel asked his Honour to give effect to the probation officer’s suggestion that the prisoner should be admitted to probation. His Honour said that it was with some difficulty that he had come to a decision in regard to punishment. In this case, as in a good many other' similar cases of motorists who had acted in an irresponsible manner, the prisoner’s previous behaviour had been unexceptional. However, he had, like other thoughtless motorists, driven in a manner endangering the welfare and safety of the public, and, in this case, taken the life of another person. He felt it his duty to send him to prison as only by so doing could irresponsible people be impressed by the enormity of what they had done. However, he would not imprison the prisoner, but with great reluctance and disquiet he had finally decided to admit him to probation. However, he thought it proper that the prisoner should suffer, so he would be fined £25, and the difficulty of paying that sum would no doubt act as a punishment, tils Honour remarked that, further, he was quite convinced that the prisoner was much too irresponsible to be allowed a motor driver’s licence. His present licence would therefore be cancelled forthwith and he would be disqualified from obtaining one for a period of five years. His Honour said he' did "not know if a licence were required for driving a tractor, but he would be reluctant to prevent the prisoner from following his occupation. If a licence were necessary prisoner’s counsel would have his Honour’s authority for stating that he approved of a licence being issued authorising Cantwell to drive a tractor only. Probate of Will Granted The Public Trustee of the Dominion of New Zealand (Mr W. D. Campbell) sought probate in the will of Godfrey Chisnail, late of Hinds, which bore the date August 18, 1939. The application was opposed by. Steadman Conway Chisnail, farmer (Woodbury), Wilfred Gordon Chisnail, labourer (Hinds), Collingwood Dunbar Chisnall, farmer (Hinds), Cecil Charrington Chisnall, farmer (Hinds), and Irene Hart McConnell, farmer (Hinds), who were represented by Mr V. W. Russell. The statement of claim set out (1) That the plaintiff was the executor named in the last will of Godfrey Chisnall, late of Hinds, which bore the date, August 18, 1939. (2) That the said deceased died at Timaru on August 20, 1939, leaving his surviving five brothers and one sister, the defendants. (3) So far as the plaintiff had been able to discover the deceased had never made or signed any will or testamentary writing, except the will referred to in paragraph 1, and if he died intestate the above named defendants would be the persons entitled to share in his estate. (4) The plaintiff had been informed and believed that the deceased was at one time a patient in a mental hospital and that his death was due to suicide. The plaintiff prayed that the Court would decree probate of the will to the plaintiff as the sole executor therein named.

Evidence as to the drawing up of the will was given by James Frederick Montague, district solicitor for the Public Trustee, and by Dr D. H. Moir, who had attended the deceased in regard to his testamentary capacity. His Honour, who held that the testator had testamentary capacity, at the time the will was drawn up, granted probate accordingly. Originating Summons In an originating summons case in the matter of the estate of Chari s Niven Vesey, late of Timaru, retired farmer, between Annie Vesey, of Timaru, widow (Mr L. G. Cameron), and John Douglas Fraser, of Timaru, jeweller, as executor and trustee of the w’ill of the said Charles Niven Vesey, deceased, the plaintiff sought: (1) An order that such provision as the Court thought fit be made out of :the estate for her proper maintenance and support. (2) That the plaintiff’s costs be paid out of the estate. (3) For such further order as in the circumstances might be just upon the grounds that the said Charles Niven Vesey died on November 7, 1939 at .Timaru, leaving a will bearing the date March 8, 1937 probate having been granted to John Douglas Fraser, of Timaru, jeweller, on November 27, 1939, which made no adequate provision for the maintenance and support of the plaintiff. Mr F. J. Rolles--ton appeared on behalf of the Timaru Orphanage, and South S.P.C.A., and North Can,’terbury S.P.C.A. and St. Helen’s Hospital (Christchurch), beneficaries under the will.

His Honour granted an order that >the plaintiff should have the right for an additional payment, making the total amount from the estate a sum not exceeding £lO4 per annum. The costs of the parties, plaintiff £lO/107and disbursements, and defendants £5/5/- and disbursements, were granted from the estate.