SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 427, 9 February 1909, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

!;,.; cmmiwal sittings:: INCIDENT AT NEWTOWN" PARK. ; v ' LIGHT SENTENCK IMPOSED;. " : 1 Wlion tho Criminal Sittings were resumed yesterday, ■. before Mr. Justice. . Cooper, '.Frederick Arnold, a middle-aged man, who. hart been found guilty of having committed a common assault on a child at Newtown' Park on January 2, was set forward for sentoneo. Mr.. Kirkcaldio said that prisoner had hitherto borne a very good character; Ho had only 'been before .-' the:'. Court once before, when ho was .fined 20s. for having stolen a pieco of bil-clotli which was. practically :.of no value. Tho period of imprisonment, during which'prisoner had been m gaol awaiting trial had been a matter of consider;ablo suffering to him; ' Drink was, heuhdorstood, tho:cause of the lapse.- " . :: ~'..■ : His Honour pointed out that the jury'.had not found prisoner* guilty of criminal assault, which was also charged against him.. Sceinp that prisoner had been unable to get bail sinco the hearing of the case in the Magistrate's . Court, he would inflict only nominal punishment.. Prisoner would ho ordered to bo imprisoned.until the rising of tho Court at 1 o'clock, wbeu ho would bo discharged^

.-!:;: '■■;■-■ ATTACK; ON A : GAOLER.: * ; '; DOUBTS AS TO PRISONER'S. SANITY. : ;: Joseph Norman,. a middle-aged' man, .who had been found guilty- of having caused actual'bodily harm to Mr. Alex.'.: Armstrong (governor'or the Terrace Gaol), .by striking him.with a chisel in the workshop at tho prison,.'.next- came up for. sentence •'When accused,.was'sot forward on ,a previous occasion sentence, was deferred ..to enable' prisoner to be examined with a view to ascertaining whether he was mentally sound. ' . .•His Honour now said, that he proposed to sentence'' prisoner to; three years' imprisonment .with hard labour for the offence. .The jury had exonerated: prisoner, on the.more serious charge. He had very grave doubts as to prisoner's mental condition,,and, there-, fore, would, under.Section 6 of the Lunatics Act, 190S, request .that: a" formal; inquiry should- be.held into-his mental state. 'The reason; for adopting' that -course, was because -ho ; kad,for ..his own information, had prisoner examined, by two medical ; men;who were of opinion .that.prisoner -Was'more a: fit subject for'an .asylum, than 'for.' ; a':prison; Still, the offence on" which prisoner had; been ••found guilty -was one. in , which, even 'if .ho. had pleaded.'guilty and the; jury, had found that prisoner., was under, a. delusioti,.:it would, not liave : been a lofeal. answer to: the charge. ..He '(his Honour) thought,.however,, that if.pris- ■ oiier'. was possessed with-., delusions ■ (as -he. , lindorstooa to'be tho case), -a proper uivesti-:gation"sbduld:be;-jicld.''before a/magistrate.,.,' -•■: Prisoner:.l thought .they; were -trying''to harmine-all-the'time. ;.'. : : ■!':■'■■■ ".;;..;- : --.i;-His- ! Honour- .(to prisoner).: You. seem to. have thought the: gaol!authorities were :.trying to poison and harm you, and;' in consequence of that delusion, yoii attacked the gaoler. Assuming.that.you. were not under,a. delusion , : but: that, .it was', a , fact .that, the authorities •were trying W harm you, you .would not have 'been.-justifiedin- making; ,the ■ assault.:; Thesentence is ; one which;l ought to pass: on you under the circumstances,-,but,"-coupled".with the, inquiry which-I-direct should be hold. It will then b'o ; shown whether .you .arb ■a;fit : subject for incarceration; in . a .prison, or' whether, you bought to receive, ciirative/tfeat<ment;in; ga01...; ::-;■...'•:.;•:;■ .V..-, : : ;- .; : -..:j. ■'.;""..:

.i;'VOTJR IMPERFECT CRiaiINOLOGY;; ; ! SOMEvBEMARKS BY-HIS HONOTJR; ; ■'.Edward. Marra, a young', man,. who.. had : admitted', Having broken'. and; entered ■ a'' shop ;at: Palmerstbn North, ■ wa3 also. dealt with. :'■ ~J:His'Honour said the; case was 'a very. ;: £trange one.' iCases, were continually brought , before, the- Court ', which 'presented different 'features,;:yet; ; the same crime. was ••• alleged.-. .'As -each-oaiso ':depended;:on!.,jts.,:6wncircumstancesj'■ a .Judge;-ini.passing '~s entence, Lad: : to;'.use/a-;very widbVdiscretionv'-'There;,were, ■fpr instarice; ;cases' I where. persons convicted of,V-'sayVv;©n.tering^^ 6ommit:;;a crime, arid; where tho >'■ circumstances of tho -cases and. prisbners , 'past' re-.oords-showed .'that, it ,'ivas; necessary in the interests, 'of, the community ..that .such .persons should -. be. prevented froin committing further - Crimea.'-'- ; public'."- Then,' again, there ;;yere other; cases in':-which, •:al|thbugh the .crime , alleged was.the "same, the surrounding circumstances vindicated want of actual: oriniinal: intefit. : :In bases ',-of,:---,'"i!ib : '-kind justified'in! dealing: withtho matter .m an "entirely different-manner. He ma;de:■ those < remarks- becausei-- it3'as .;im-. possible foi a ; person.who ; did iiot occupy the judgment' Geat. properly., to- appreciate the reason ."why ;a Judge ,in ,one case was lenient and in another.oa-se was , severe., Although' tho actual offence .. which ' tho f prisoner ,was '.convicted: was : ,one. -in which ho', (his. Honour) might properly'(in his own opinion) : .give;, five.- , years .to an .old, hardened :.crim-' : inal under. circumstaiices;'. indicating :': crim- ; inal intent, yet hero he' was ; satisfied that the:circumsteuces-wero-such"as: woiild justify. him,.in; acting upon; the : recommendation p'f : the. Probation, Officer,-, who ■: (after : full .investigation),. was of opinion that it. was \& casei in which; probation might be granted.. i The cireumstances in • the present -case were; ;as'|. follow:—Prisoner, whilst .under.the;'..in-: , flueacepf .liquor; , ,'wentj in , open. ; daylight, in I tlio.afternoon, :into ..a- 1 shop which was , in full,.view ■of ■ tho.;police station. and ' got un- , dor■ the. counter, -.where : he -was discovered. j Hitherto prisoner:.,had : borne: 'a- .uniformly 1 good.character. Certificates which had been handed; to'.the.' Court ehowed. : that he . :; had always ■ been- truthful, 1 /honest, .and;; sober, but; on this occasion, he gave way- to drink. :Tho present .offence . was his first one, and his .brother.(who wasr in the Taranaki district): had offered' him cbn'starit. -em.pfoyment. ■' The ''case i.Vas- ono "of those, in which persons, ; ivho,: were; not familiar ..with the' whplej of ;the: oirbumstances. might think :that;, in/(granting probation, ho was:-"exer-cising undue leniency,. ;' and" that the - sentence was., inconsistent /with those which .he had;..previously • imposed in,cases .where the offences." were nominally.'; the;-:.',. ; sanie'.'. Hβ' would, admit., prisoner to . •tioii on condition that ho. went tp.-'hiaibro-: "and'paid "the costs of the., prosecution in eight instalments at. intervals' of three months.; His opinion was in committing, the offence; prisoner had no criminal intention. • '

ALLEGED THEFT JROM A DWELLING. ; Charles, Thomas'Scdrririge, : 'a was: indicted:for,that:he: : did on' September 28 steal the sum*.of 18s. from; the .'dwelling-' house of .Wong Kee at Island ; Bay. : '■-.■ ! Prisoner, who : was : defended by Mr. Wilford, pleaded not guilty. '■'■■. : - \ "-, .•■■' . '. Wong Kee, ; market, gardener, stated that on the morning in question he left home for work.at 7.3o'o'clock. :He closed the door before ho went out, but did not lock- it. There was a tin; containing Bs. or 9s. on the mantel-shelf.' When .'lie 'returned home at 11.30 he eaw the.:accused coming out of the premises. ,'Acdused told him that ho ■ wished to purchase sixpence wortli of cabbage plants. Prosecutor, 1 who; suspected that accused had taken something from his house, caught hold of accused., He heard something rattlo and saw-what resembled a tin in his pocket.- Accused riiii off,'and when prosecutor followed him throw stones at him from time .to time.. When returned to the hoiiso lie found that tho tin of money had been stolen. ':' To Mr. Wilford: There;were only Bs. or 9s. in the[tin,.but in addition there were several shillings oh.thouholf, which-' were also taken. Tho' money in question belonged to Wong She. Ho had ho difficulty in identifying accused at tho police station. ■■:■. ... • Thos. J. Sheady, brnko examiner, who residos at Island Bay, -deposed that lie saw prisoner throwing stones at prosecutor, who was following..'him. Prosecutor called to witness to catch priso'nor,' but lie did not interfere. '. ; Coustoble Taylor gavo evidenco that prosecutor identified prisonor without difficulty. Prisoner further stated that'ho was not in ■Wellington from the. timo he left Bnrnliam School in March,until November. He \yas, he. said, at work on the tlatp. in question. Asked who 1 was his employer, prisoner said: ."That is for you to.find out. For tho defence, Chas. Thos. Scorringo, father, of prisoner, stated that his son assisted him at work throughout the night jjre-

ceding the day in question. When witness left home at 11 o'clock noxt morning prisoner was in bed, and when he returned home about 4 o'clock m tho afternoon prisoner was at home. Tho distance.between his houso and that which belonged to prosecutor was 4 or 5 miles. .. • . ■ . : . . ; Francis Scorringc, grandfather of tho prisoner, deposed that prisoner, was at homo at the time in question.'■■ Evidence was also given by Robert Borry niid John Scorringol The jury,' after deliberating for 15 minutes,' returned with a, verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was.discharged. :

CIVIL SITTINGvS.

LIST OF CASES. •Sitting in Chambers yesterday their ours Justices Cooper and. Chapman fixed tho order in which the'cases sot down for hearing at. the Civil Sittings aro to bo taken', as under: — , ..' :. •. February .11. —Philip 0 Bnen and James ■O'Brien v. John Wallace Easson, claim for £297 13s Bd.- for work alleged to have been done. : . ..' '..'■'■ February'l2,'.'at 2 p.m.—Staunton and King v; Wellington.Education Board,, claim for £111 15b. Id. for.work alleged to: havebeen.' done.

; February 12.—Grace Logan v. Spark Philp, £1000 damageß'for bodily injuries.—Before a jury of-12. ,'■' ■ . . v ■ . ' .February 12.—C1ia3., Henry Osmond v. Chasi B. Buxton, claini for £654 11s. 6d. and interest alleged to bo due on mortgage.. . ■'".• February 15. —In re the Hawera Electric Light Company case j: in: re estate of J. J. Patterson (Dannevirke). A \ .- , ... '"■/■:' ; February 16.—Isabel Jane; Field .v. Allen Maguire, £1500 damages alleged to have been •caused by. a jury of 12.; February-IC—ln re. petitionin connection with the Banks JJeaf Company.. ' February 17.—Mary Spens.Black, v. Esther Saviere, £300 damages for alleged wrongful distress.—Before a'jury.'of 4.. . ! February 19.—Nancy Bridge y. Alf. Booth and-Pubhc Trustee,, claim for: £268 and interest on legacy and .accounts. —Before a judge .aione.. .■■ ' ' ' ■'■■ : ..... ' .? February 22.—Daisy Cook v..Herbert 'B: Raw Eon; 'claim' for £501 J damages for alleged bodily .harm.—Before a .special jury of .12. .-.. :.Fcbrilary 23.—Albert Sydney Watson.; v., N.Z. Football Union,: claim for £375. damages for alleged.breach.of contract.. ■■•■'.■' February '24.— Hiraina Rere. Eaipuke , v. Wm. Douglas Lysnai , arid. John Coleman, suit for accounts. .. ; ;: ''■'■ ."•■'-■'> - ';■'.' ;■■•■■ : : ' February. Black v. Win'. Georg-; etti, claim for specific performance. : . February 26.—Alfred Benge -v., Henry Pearson, claim for specific performance and £500 damages for alleged breach of contract. ■ March I.—Miohael.S; Duff v.'Wm.-Johns-;fori Hardie, £300,; wages alleged to be due land accounts,'etc. ... '.'' i ! March I.—Mabel C. Hutchison v. the Public Trustee, accountsi. V. , : ' ' : : March 2.—Henry Adam Mackay v.. Charles Frceling Reeves, '£250 remuneration, alleged ■to be duo.- ■' ; . ; : - : :'■•,..' ■'■•.••■■■•':■

■ March 3. —Humphries Pat-ent Bracket and ■Scaffold Company, Ltd., v. Butters, Hale and ;C6mpany, injunction, and damages for alleged infringement of letters patent. . • .-'.".-■ . March 4 (prov.).—fJoiin Wallace •■ Easson and Percy Wallace Easson v. Benjamin. Wolfe and Frank.Scott, £307 6s. 6d;, for goods alleged to have been.supplied. ; . ■•■-.; '« ; - '. "■ . • llarch 6.'—William M. Muir and Eich'ard Maudsley -y\: Erancis -James ..Grace, specific performance.. '■''•'•• i ■ '■' ' •■■■ ■ . .'-. March 5 (prpy.)l-T-Tlioe. Gerald Eitzgorald and .others .y.;'. Martin--Kennedy' and others, suit for assignmentJ)f a lease. '. .';.

■;;■;-..-.;, ; ; -in divorce.- ;; ■■.-■■■ .■;;. \ ■ The following: suits' for dissolution of ,mar■riago -will, be heard before a judge; alone on February 15 and 16:—. : . ■' Elizabeth Jane Silk y; Thomas Silk. ■ : . '-.■■. George Henry Wood v. Ellen Lucretia Wood and William. Ayres and James: Q.uinn.. • : '' '■■ .Janet Donovan v. Timothy Donovan. - -, , ; Ada Margaret Sing v; Wong: Sing... " : V: Livermore. ' .. . :'[■/■ ~-.' ■;": Live : rmore"v. Liyermore. ; . ■ : . - .- ; }. . ' ;: '! CIVIL OASESr . ■ ; \No dates were iixed .in respect of .the following "cases:-r-.-- ■ -i'.-"■•:• ■-■.•■■:/>■ . ..•'■ ■ . 'Ed. JoshUa Riddiford v. George Foreman, plaim for £800 damages and.'aii ; injunction... Alfred Kcay and Eliza Jane Kcay y..City ;of..AVcllington,: £501 damages allegedi iq ! have, been caused by ..collision. ■'■: -..-.'. ;; /William';.Langlands ~,y; George Thomasj olaim on promissory notes. •';- '■•,.- . ].. '■ , , ■David Zaudor v. Jeane H.- Williams,; claim 'for; £259 19s. for. alleged to-.haye been sold.-;' .':' ..-•}' '..". • ! ?-.-. " .'■■ .'■■■. •'■'.■'•: ■ •/George Tredgold y. Official Assignee, 'suitfor declarationj_eto,.,-- . ' ;' ; '. '.; '.- .;• ; VPhilip J. G. Palmer, r. Ernest Smith Baldwin and Henry H. Rayward, claim for £500 for. alleged libel. ; ;: : : ■■~.;: \-. ;,.; ; ..V ; .';rSarah BaKterVAngellv. Cadbury Bros'.' and others; injunction and £100 damages for.alleged trespass. : -:y ;•:...- . .-, : . . ;'j:Mary Ann Thew y. : : Hugh Beattie Tliew,. possfssion of laud and.mcßne profits alleged; '■to.-he due. ...... .'•'...,. '■'■ ■ -.•'.'■ '~ t-Denton B. Duncan v. Hannah Mary Buxton,' specific performance and £350 damagesfor alleged breach of agreumorit; :. ; : .. The A.V and: P.. Food Company, Ltd.j ■ y',' .Hermalri Hacge, £380 155.-9 d., money alleged to have been paid ■ and £200 damages for alleged breach, of ...\ '"'■■ -,-,;!-.. •'■,'• Andrew Seltafs y.; Kilbirnie Estate Company, Ltd!, £184 7s. 7d!j; and. interest for alleged breacli of contract. .■'."•■ ■'. .-.•• .•■'"• ' ; ,' '; Edward Stafford and Charles'H.'Treadwell,: and the Hutt Park and Racecourse Board v. the . Hutt -Park ; Committee; £69 : ;.' 175., .: br ; accounts,, etc.! ' ■' ' :''■[■•■,-.'' ;•',:: ■.:-;, '■ ': '.■: .-■ '.-.-