SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16434, 24 May 1921, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. PRISONERS SENTENCED. Several prisoners were sentenced by his Honor Mr Justice Herd man in the Supreme Court this morning. MISCHIE VI OU SN ESS. “ All the hats in the shop windows in Colombo Street were making faces.at mo, laughing at me, and mocking me, Nellio Lynch said when she was placed in the dock and asked if she had anvtliing to say why she should not be sentenced under the law against mischief. The mischievousness committed was the breaking of a plate-glass window in Colombo Street, valued at £26. " I didn’t break them wilfully. * was mad with drink and didn’t know what I was doing.’’ 44 You shouldn’t have taken any notice of the hats,’’ his Honor said. “ You were convicted before on many occasions—fifteen or sixteen convictions, probably. Almost every one is for drunkenness. It seems useless to let you go out, because 3’ou will only get drunk again. I shall have to give jou a term of imprisonment. You will be sentenced to eighteen months’ reformative detention.” The prisoner: I’m doing three months His Honor: Well, the order will come into force at tho expiry of the three months.

PLEA OF ADDICTION TO DRINK. Leonard Augustus Mousley, for theft, said that ever since he bud come back from tho war ho had been inclined to go under the influence of drink ; he could not help getting drunk. He had been wounded and had suffered from shell-shock. He camo, hack in 1917, and enlisted again in 1918. His Honor said that- the prisoner’s character was not good. Prisoner: Every time I was convicted I was under the influence of drink. His Honor: Nearly every criminal says that. You shouldn’t get drunk. Prisoner paid that- ho got drunk on account of his sufferings caused by t-lic His Honor said the probation officer did nob recommend that the prisoner should be admitted to probation. Drink, no doubt, mainly was responsible for the prisoner’s criminal habits. He would be sentenced to two years’ reformative detention. ADMITTED TO PROBATION. Lester Arthur Robert Noonan said that he was very sorry that lie had committed forgery. Tie could get plenty of work and would repay tho money he had taken. His Honor: I'm going to give you another chance. The police report is not a bad one. and the probation officer recommends that you should be given another chance. You will be admitted to probation for two years. You will have to repay’ the money. Prisoner: My brother will advance it. His Honor: I don’t want your brother to pay: so you must do it yourself. You will have twelve mouths to do it in, paying £2 Is 8d a month.

CIVIL BUSINESS. CLAIM FOR TRESPASS. The hearing of a claim for damages by Elizabeth M’Seveny, Racecourse Road, against Henry T. Muirson and Duncan Muirson, contractors, was continned. Mr F. D. Sargent, with him Mr \V. -T. Crocroft.-W ikon, instructed by Mr H. J. Raphael, appeared for plaintiff) anu Mr J. IT. Upham for defendants. Ilis Honor, in bis address to the jury, said tliab .if was., a. .strange case. Although plaintiff was not the owner of the land, she could, bring on action for trespass. Defendants had no right ‘ to go on to tho, property and remove iho house. _ Plaintiff, however, would not suffer by the removal of the house because, accrding to her own story, it belonged to Air Pigeon, who owned the land. As to damage suffered by defendants removing her goods, the jur> must make up their mind whether or not plaintiff was speaking the truth. There was nothing but her bald, bare statement that there were thirty £1 notes and a brooch amongst the goods lost. There was not a tittle of evidence to show that any of the defendants or nnybodv else took the notes or the brooch. The only damage she possibly could have suffered was in respect to the loss ofi the goods, for which she claimed £lO2. In regard to the counter-claim, Mr Harry Muirson seemed to be n decent, respectable man. Muirson Brothers had the material brought hack, and said, they j were £l5O out of pocket. The jury, after retiring for about two hours, returned a verdict that defendants had trespassed on plaintiff’s property, arirl awarded, her £lO damages. Tn the counter-claim, they returned a verdict that plaintiff was notguilty of fraud in connection with the erection of tho house. His Honor gave judgment for the sum assessed, coats in favour of plaintiff as per scale, witnesses’ expenses and disbursements to bo settled by the registrar. CLAIM FOR POSSESSION. Augustus FI ora nee. New Brighton, farmer, trustee of the will of the late David Wilson. Hamilton, labourer, sued Leonard Norton Hodfield, Christchurch, farmer, for possession of 25 acres of land, rural section, 1801, on the River Avon at Bur.wood, occupied by defendant. The late David Wilson Hamilton leased the land to defendant. The lease was from Mav 1, 3 916, for ten years, at a rent of £66 a rear. Defendant was given the right of renewal for a further term of five years, but it was admitted that- the clause in the lease providing for that could not stand Mho case was taken under the Settled Land Act, and plaintiff, under section 31, asked that tho lease should be declared invalid, as the rent fixed in th€> leas© was not a reasonable one at the time the lease was given. * lr A T Donnelly apr>earc-cj for plaintiff ami Mr .J. H. Dpham for defendanfc. Mr Donnellv «mid that he relied upon the price defendant put on the property in 1916, when negotiating with the life-tenant for the land. Tho rent fixed in the lease was not the best rent that could have been obtained at tho time. George Robert Hadfield, labourer, said that h© and another man leased the land from defendant for £IOO a year as a dairy farm. 'They failed on the farny because of unfavourable purchases of cattle, not because the rent was too high- It was well worth £IOO a year. Albert Freeman, land valuer, said that the buildings were old. He valued th© improvments at £226, and tlie land at £I4OO. That- was in’l9l6. Tho land varied in quality. At one end it was unreclaimed swamp, with swamp timer in it. . Its proximity to the city was convenient for selling the milk wholesale, which added to its value. The rental value in 1916 was about £3 15s an acre. Mr Donnelly said that the present rent paid was £2 los an acre. Witness eaid that the land would carry a cow to two acres. To his Honor: An. ordinary cow would average two and a half gallons a day during the milking season. To Mr Upham: A man should make about £3O per cow a year out of the farm, growing sufficient feed, or almost sufficient, on the faiffn. His value was on the basis of a man getting £3OO a year gross from his cows. Tho i farmer, probably, would do all the work, with the help of a hoy. Places of that typs brought- astonishing high

prices on the market, sometimes higher than the earning power. Ennis Henry Barker, duiffy farmer, Burwood, that he had cut hay on the land in dispute. Drainage on the land had been neglected during the past few years- The land in 1916 was worth between, £7O and £BO an acre, including improvements. To Mr Upham: His sisters lot land in the neighbourhood for £2 7s an acre. (Proceeding.)

IN DIVORCE. Alice Mary Orcrra ie (Mr O. T. J. Alpors) petitioned for divoroe from George Cromie, garage proprietor, Fakaia, on the gronnd of misconduct with Dell Houghton. Petitioner said that two years ego she quarrelled with respondent on account of a woman in their service, and she left him. She had a maintenance* order against him ok. the ground of cruelty. His Honor made a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, respondent to nay -petitioner’s' costs on the lower sohle.