SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 511, 19 May 1909, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

YESTERDAY'S PRO3ECDINCS. ONE MONTH FOR' VIOLENT 'ASSAULT. : Sentence-was passcii yesterday on Robert Seeds, a.middle-aged i:.i-:i, who 'had been found, guilty of haying.. under provocation, assaulted. John M'h.......... -t a boaruui^bouso in Clyde Quay.'. .'' ' Mr. Toogood, for the prisoner, sy's il:.i. 1 that the caso was only one of 0rdii...... .assault. The strugglo was the-outcome'of'a quarrel : between two ■ old ;f riends, under the influence of liquor. He suggested that probation might meet tho case, or.that prisoner might bo convicted, and ordered tocomo up for sentence when called upon. ■ "Nothing is- known against prisoner, exception a conviction for drunkenness," said the Crown Prosecutor, in reply to tho Court. His Honour declared that he could not adopt the suggestion of counsel for the defence, that the case did; not, call for punishment; Prisoner might have had provocation—the jury evidently thought that he had —but they could not have intended act of violence was.'a necessary one. They, would not have found' him guilty if they had. What it seemed, to amount te was, jha f - prisoner got drunk, and whilst intoxicated, could not.rcstrain himself. Tho affair went beyond'a mere fight, for he inflicted serious which spoke for themselves. 'Prisoner had;come out of ihe' tussle uninjured'. It was an act'of violence committed by a man when drunlk, and . he must be taught to restrain himself. He would be sentenced to .one ■ month's imprisonment with hard labour. 1 . .;vALLEGED i 'CRIMINAL ASSAULT. The hearing of. the charge against a,young man named- Charles .Buchanan, of having criminally assaulted ; a■ girl.aged 14 years, was: then resumed. : -', . ■•■;■■ , " Mr. -Myers. appeared for the Crown, and Mr. Wilford for the accused - ,' , .• jThejury found >' verdict of acquittal, and tho ; accused : was':discharged. ' • •; (mDiK of the cases: -.■,'■ Sitting; in : Chambers, yesterday, Mr. Justice Cooper, settled the order.of.business fol the Civif Sessions as under:— ~.. . ;,;,..:;. y ; Ma y W-Adani Samuels v.' Geo. W.' Gray, claim'for dissolution of - partnership;. ana S. and H. Hansen, v, Arthur Morris, ; claim for.specific performance. ■..;.■•.. May 20-Andrew : Sella'rs, v.'Kilbirnie Estate Co, Ltd.. claim for £18,477, for -,A leged breach of contract. - ; May'2l—Jack>'. Palmerston . .orth Council (inßanco)'; and Malesi v. E sham. .-,. • , .Treadgold v. .Official ; Assignee, claim .for: declaration,, jte.

-' May '24—Stafford' and' TreAdwell v. Hutt Park Committee./.;,-• -May 24—James Rohson v. Harry Crump, claim for specific performance: and^ Louis Daroux v.; Henry Brown, claim for £2*6 lis. 2d;,' alleged to be.;due on-'a contract. : May 25—Sarah B. Ansel, v.- Cadbury Bros., Ltd., .andothefs, claifn for injunction and £100 dainages; arid Richard James Grimmett v. *H..H. Knight and others, claim for £452 .13s.;ior; work, alleged to have been done. >CI May 26—Ralph Benjamin '■'• Jackson ■ and others;v.:W. H. Hudson and others, clain, for specific performance;/and Geo. B. Ricij ;ardson ..; v. L . W. G. Somerville arid Herbert Francis;: claim of £283 4s. ;.'-4d., alleged to be. due. undor a contract. ./.'...' -. . : ! ., /.May'27—Hamilton, Gilmer : and Allan Maguire/v. Joseph Dwyer, claim for accounu, and Edward Joshua Riddiford v. George Foreman, claim for injunction. ':- :.. May 28—Hutchison, v. the -Public Trustee.,:'. : '; , :..;-/.'-:; .•-.'■■ ''■-/,:•■.... ' _ May 31—Rose Galvin v. T. E; K. Burgess, claim/ of. ;£5Ol-. damages' for alleged bodily harm ;,-.• _Junb/l--Herbert James .Baker v. James Walker, / claim for specific performance. ' , .June :2--Henry'Baldwin v.' Albert Poters and Harry Peters, claim for £292 ; 15. 5d., al-leged-to.be_.due on .promissory notes, etc ; and (provisionally) .David Klatzer v. L Caselbergwind-Co., claim;for £179.05; 3d' alleged/to bedue on bills of exchange •'■ June E.' Soriiervillei'v. Geo.'-Lain- • tert ir.junctWn,s:etc;: ; and John Black, v; >Vilham Georgetti; claim for specific performance.;.,: •/.;./-,.■ .-., ..•'■■ r l ™' u '- 7 C^^ a^;: Keene ; ' ; and others v. fbr wFa - and.By Poa rsoll) claim tl^lnd^V S * i J OC '-< aa& & .won, and Albina Harris v. Fred, tt Pitcher fathers, f im;for £501Icged.to be duo on .a mortgage, s ' :. '■■■■ Button v. Annie Breen andE P :Breen,,claim for £351 6s. sd.t£ leged to:bo due on a contract'.-: H. .Bennett v. Thomas Bush and othors, claim for specific performance: - .Edward' Crosby Peers v. Miramar.Limrte.d, claim/for, declaration as to contract etC. :/..-v" ■. :.:. '. ■■•.".. ' -/Sanwel George Bray v. claim for £250 damages.for alleged breach of agreement.'.. -~.::■ . -//:;■/ ■'.•. ■ ; Fleming ißirkby and Goodall, Ltd., v. Norman Heath/and Co., claim of £235 Bs. 10d., goods, alleged"to have been supplied / ./Spark S] Philp v./;A. C; Pearce and' Caroline iCullen, claim.for £501- damages, for alleged misrepresentation: ■■'■'•■:. ... Butler v; : T. A. H; Field and H. M. : Field, claim for £1700, alleged to be due on mortgage., :—... . ~ Denton .Burnett Duncan versus Hannah Mary Buxton, claim for specific performance .etc.;:. -/-/ ; »' ..• ,■. . '

r Da ji d^ Za 2 der - 7 -- Jcane H - WUliams,'claim f0r ; £209,195., goods alleged to have been sold. ~■:'.- . ■...-,■.• ; John G. Palmer v.Baldwin arid Rayward, claim ;for £500. damages for alleged ;libel. /■"/ .',/.;- . ..Miramarj Ltd.,,v.' Edward C. : Peers, olaim for £1633 Is. 10d., for land aUeged to have been sold, etc. ■" James Bennie ' versus Duncan, ' Campbell claim for possession of land, etc. ,':..' ■ • John Stevens versus;,R.: Campbell' and J Oampbell, claim ,for accounts, etc. ■-■. '.?-:;; ■.; ; ;.iNyDiy6fiC!E.''\-' ; '■'''•:■'.•■■''.. ;lt was decided that 'the following divorce oases should be heard before Mr. Justice Ohapman on. Fnday next:—Janet Donovan versus Timothy Donovan; Ada Margaret Sine versus .Wong Sing; Ethel May Newcombe versus Bertram Newcombe; Henry Aokermann . versus Susan-. Ackermann and bamuel Robinson; Katherine Taylor versus David Alexander Taylor; Katherine Sopbe Cholorton versus Edwin Oholer.ton; Oertrude Unwin versus Frederick Unwin;: Frederick Maynian ' versus- Florence Mayman and Richard M'Kinnon; Edith Coumhan Edward ; Couriihan: 'William ■ Staples versus Elizabeth Staples and 1' rank Anderson; Livermore versus Livermore; Llvermore versus Livermore ".' Jla y 2 f, was fi xe 4 as th « date for. the hearing of following cases: Mary Warren Alexander Nooman/ versus Arthur Montague Nooman.- Arthur . -Edward .-'■ Varfey reraus Emma Varley and Charles Roots. -No date, was fixed for the hearing of'tho following eases: Nazzaba Kallzi. Noon versus Noon Assad Noon; James Callan versus Alice Callan; Leah Cecil Arnold versus Eh Wiluam Arnold.. /