LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 592, 21 August 1909, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

1 ) SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL BEBSIONS CONTINUED. S -; A MAN ON THE STAIRS. ! * The criminal sessions of tho Supremo Court were continued before his Honour Mr. Jastice Chapman yesterday. ( Harry Lee, a '■ young-looking man, was brought up on a [ l charge of breaking and entering the pre- \ mises of Chung Ti with intent to commit a ' ' crime. Mr. M. Myers appeared for the ! , Crown, and Mr. ,R. B. Williams' for the aci cused, who pleaded not guilty. In opening the case Mr. Myers said that bo property had been stolon, but the evi- ■ ' donee would be that accused wae found by day in'the Chinaman's ( house in Haining Street. ' i OhungiTi, fruit dealer, stated that he was ' - absent from his house for a couple of hours i on July 22. He returned at 2 p.m., with j f Loo Kee, and found the accused on the 1 ., stairs. Hβ said he had a letter of authority f" from the Town Hall. , The police wero 'sent \ fdr 1 and accused endeavoured to escape The \ windows were all nailed, and the back dooi * was still, locked when tho Chinamen ,entered [ by the side door. A cupboard had been disf ', turbed, but so far as ho could learn nothing f was missing. \ 1 --This evidence was supplemented by other f * Chinese witnesses. I" '■ Tho jury retired a few minutes before 1 j ' o'clock, and roiurned after two hours' de- \ > - liberation with a verdict of not guilty. Ac- | cused was then discharged. ( f . ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. l N ' Two young men, Richard M'Cann and I IWilliam Brown, were chaiged with 'having i robbed Thomas Joseph Mahon. A plea of i " not guilty was put in, and Mr. Webb ' api poarcd for the accused. (, i)!< Thomas Joseph Mahon, labourer, 23 yeais * 'iaf age, stated that on August 6he came in ', from the Wainui reservoir, whero ho had j ibeen working. He was, with the two ac,t cused on tho following day, and they wore ■ in several) hotels Witness was latterly rer _ > fused drink. At the Te Aro Hotel hrj two companions,took from his pocket' a leather [ s purse containing about £1 .Witness expostulated, saying, "What's tho good 'of r taking'* few bob v from a poor- working man ?, < M'Cann turned -round and said;> i. "We might as well have it as the publican." J iWitness'commenced to argue with them, and * they fled. He gave chaso and obtained K police assistance at tho Manners Street I depot. 'I i , ' ' Mr. Wobb did not call evidence, and after t counsel had addressed the jury his Honour f summed up. 1 T 'Mr. Webb protested that his Honour, in < bis remarks to the jury, had commented on ( the facVHhat the accused had not given i evidence." ' , His Honour agreed to state a case for the t t Court of Appearto decide the point. I A verdict of guilty was returned. Mr. Myers said ' that M'Cann had been , in New Zealand for fivo years, but nothing I. was known of him. Brown had "been cons' rioted on occasions, m different parts i of the North Island. * > i His Honour inflicted a''sentence'of fifteen I f months' hard labour on Brown,' and nine • * months on>M'Caim. l ' t ) - V - ' < MAORI MARRIAGES.' ■ f v Wiremu Krngi, an Otaki Maori, was t charged with having committed a serious Sffence., ( ' k Accused, pleaded not'guilty, and'was defended by Mr Wilford , 'Mr. Myers was about to call the girl to give evidence,'when Mr. Wilford ra.is.ed an , objection He asked whethor, although the i i act of the parties having been* married according ,to the Maori custom, could not bo 1 made a*defenco, he was wrong,in asserting ' ' that could not give evidence against ( the accused, bef~husband. * His Honour ruled that this statute applied J only io valid marriages. , 4 • ' Evidence for the prosecution was being. ' beard when the" Court" rose for tjEe day i - « , • '-it--'- --" ' \ m banco. ; ' ' '' \ ' • 'A CIVIL SERVANT'S APPEAL ' A motion was submitted to his' Honour c' , 'Mr. Justice Cooper m Banco on Saturday , / last, for a wnt of prohibition'and other relief fJ in the case of Arthur Broad Reynolds, a i, Civil Servant. There had been certain ,* charges made against him, which were made the subject of inquiry in July last by a I' Board consisting of Messrs. John August Mutton, 'and Walter Bowles.' [ Mr R B. Williams, and Mr H. H Ostlor •> oppeared for Reynolds, and Mr. M. Myers •■ for the Crown, as represented by the board • of inquiry. ■ The statement of claim set out that, Reynolds had served <m a Government DepartS ment for upwards of twenty-five years He j was entitled to the advantages of tho super- , enmtation scheme, and he claimed £750 as f compensation on' retiring through ill-health ' On June 16 last, C. S Nixon, Collector of } U3tom n s i preferred certain charges against I Jinn :,tt) that he was absent without leave from June 1, (2) that he had been guilty i of insobriety; and (3) that he had disobeyed f , orders He was rendered liabh to dismissal from the Service if these charges were proved. A board of inquiry was set up, r but the plamtift, through illness, was unable » to attend its sittings Ho appointed as his ; representative Mr Meredith, sohcitor' whom the board refused to hear. The inquiry pro- , redded without any evidence which the plain- , tiff might have given m defence t # The motion before the Court was that the i- r inquiry should be set aside as illegal, null, and void, and that-any report drawn up by i the board for submfssion to the Governor r should be cancelled Pfeintiff also asked i that his status as a Civil Servant should 1)» declared to be unaffected, and that his suspension should cease.

' His Honour delivered judgment yesterday xaorning. As in my opinion," said his Honour, 'tho necessary element is wanting , in this case, I have come to the conclusion i that tie Conrt has no' jurisdiction to ordcr~ ! . the writ to issue There is nothing'ui the i , (judgments of tho High Court which indi-, cates that the proceedings of tho board can be reviewed upon a motion for a writ of cortiorari. ... Tho plaintiff must appeal to tb« executivo if he desires to reopen ' the matter. If tho material which ho is ablo i ' to place before the executivo discloses that t he has not had a f aar and proper opportunity i , to answor tho charges of misconduct made against him, then the executivo should, in ; my opinion, give him that opportunity in a , fresh inquirj;. For it is not only contrary \ ' to natural ijustice that an accused officer should be denied a proper hearing, but > Section 18 requires that the accusations I ehall be 'fully heard.' If the inquiry has f not been conducted in accordance with natural justice, and the provisions of the J > statute, the cases I have last referred t to indicate that tho officer, if discharged, is may reopen the matter in appropriate proceedings for wrongful dismissal I repeat \ that I cannot consider the merits of the case, and nothing that I have said must bo taken to be any indication that in my opinion tho F plaintiff has or has not had a full opportu- • nity afforded him by the defendants Hutton C and Bowles of meeting and answering tho I charges of misconduct made against him \ In my opinion this Court has no jurisdiction |, in these proceedings to investigate the matter, 1 and the motion must be dismissed."

\ , PERIOD OP ENGAGEMENT. ; Before Mr. Justice, Cooper on Tuesday L last, the case of Joseph Woolfe, tailor's I cutter (appellant), versus Aaron Samuel and : Georeo Win. Gray, trading as the Wholesale I 'Woollen Co., and Fleming Ross, accountant ■• and receiver in the estate of the company I (respondents), came on for hearing, i llr. Johnston appeared on behalf of tho [ ' appellant, and "Mr. Levi for the respondents, f ' The facts ae 'set oat wero that respondents a engaged'appellant, who was at the timo i residing in Sydney, at a salary, and with a [ share of the profits. Owing to e, dieagree- / ment between the partners, the Court S ~ ordered that tho partnership should be dis- }' solved. Subsequently tho receiver disposed I >"of,appellant's services. Appellant then sued < ' respondents in tho Magistrate'? Court for.

I £161, being, balance alleged to be duo on a 'year's contract. Mr. Riddell, S.M., uphold the respondents' contention that , appellant had been engaged on a weekly hiring. From I this decision an appeal was now brought. Judgment wae dolivored yesterday, the appeal being upheld.. ' THE BOOKS OF. .THREE COUNTIES. A matter concerning - the adjustment of borough accounts was referred to his Honour Mr Justice Cooper in Banco yesterday. The facts stated, were that when the Waipukurau, Waipawa, and Dannoyirko counties wore constituted a commission was sot upVto''determine an adjustment of the assets and liabilities between these counties. The commissioner, Mr. .W. S. Short, had heard evidence, and stated a special easo for tho opinion or the judge. Two questions wore asked: (1) Whether the Waipukurau County was entitled to T)o credited as against the liabilities of the county with tho sums shown' to its oredit in the riding accounte, and whether such riding accounts x were kept in accordance with tho provisions of the statute P (2) Whether certain contracts entered into just about the time of the passing of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1908, and afterwards by tho old county, could be charged against the Waipukurau County in the adjustment? Mr Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. E. H. Leo, of Waipawa, appeared for the Waipawa Borough Council, and Mr. D." M. Findlay and Mr., Lloyd, of Dannevirke, for the Dannevirke, Waipawa, and Waipukur.au County Councils.

His Honour heard argument, and, in giv-' mg judgment, stated that tho commissioner was to act under Section 16 of tho Counties Act. Under, that section it was the duty of the commissioner to do what was equitable and right and just between the parties, and it would bo improper, as well as inipossiblo, for his Honour to lay down any legal rule Tho 'commissioner's, decision was final, and ho was to act very much in the manner in which an arbitrator would act in settling the rights of tho parties. Answering the questions categorically, it was impossible for the commissioner to take into consideration tho fact that through the riding accounts of the "parent county"- not haying been kept properly the Waipukurau Riding had not ben credited with the amount due to it under Section. 128 of, the, Act. As to .tho second question,-the commissioner should deal with the"apportionment of the liabilities created by the contracts so as to distribute that liability among the three counties in proportion t< ,the benefits which they had' recoiijfd fron| the expenditure of the money undey/thoso! contracts. THE CIVIL LIST. IN-DIVORCE. The following cases in divorce have been set down for hearing at tho present sessions of the Supreme Court:— Before a common jury of twelve: Nellie Mona Robertson v. Edward Robertson, Ellen Eliza Mathieson v. Gustavus Maurice MathiesonV Wpliam-Edward Smith v. Annie Emily Smith, and Alexander Bergenson, .applications'for dissolution of marriage; Nettie Lena Mewhinney v. Oliver Mewhinney, judicial separation. » ' , Before the Judge alone: Mary Holhns Brace v. Alfred -James Brace, Henry Walter Blake v. Evo Marion Blake and Humphrey Robinson, Gerald Adam Paul 7. Annie Paul and Harold Wilson; Annie Jane Hodgson v Edmund William Hodgson, Thomas Hoult v Lily TEoult, Martha Jane Withers v. Henry John Withers) Frederick Samuel Hayes v. Jane. Hayes, Edith • Jane Moss x,. Edward Walker Moss, James Reed'v. Carohno Gibbins, Thomas Edward Hampton Cas»idy v Maryi Lavina' Cassidy, and Arthur Flint, Sarah-Knight v. Samuel Knight, William Hounslow ,v. Rose Beatrice Hounslow and Alfred Warren, Mary Louisa Hartnell v. John Berry and Esther Berry, and John Ferguson, Catherine Elwyn Millor v. Richard George Miller. \ , OTHER CIVIL CASES. Other civil cases set down for hearing are as follow:— Before a , special jury of twelve: Charlotta, Treadwell v. Wellington Dairy Company, Ltd • - -T „- -J , Before a, common jury" ; of twelve:, Alexander Collins Bros, and, Company/ Ltd., Edgar Lowder HoJmwood v. Donald Reid, Public Trustee and others v. Registrar-General of Lands, George Thomas Saker v. Chas. Edward Daniell. Boforo a common jury of four: Porirua College Trust Board v. Mary Jane Gillettand Herbert John -Gillett; Clarence Stanley Towner v. Gear Meat Company, Ltd., AbraGosnell and Harriet "Grace Gosncll, Thomas Gosnell v. 'Harriet' Grace Gosncll, Thomas Ignatius »Youre!le r; Mayor, councillors, and citizens of > Wellington. Before the Judge alone: Arthur Acheson Gray ( v Edward Crosby Peers and John Holman Kingdon and Guy Havelock Kmgdon, Arthur Acheson Gray v. Edward Crosby PeoiS and Stephen Welsh, David Gander v. Jeane H. AVilliaras, Albort Berry and Inez. Evelyn Berry v, Arthur Frederick Wimsett, Mary Butler v. Joseph Zach'ariah, Cycle and Motor Supplies, Ltd., v. Harold Sinclair and David Gardiner Brown, J. and W. Faulkiner v Peter Halliburton* Miller and ' Francis James Grace, Evie- Kennedy v. Robert Campbell, Sarah .Baxter Angel] Nv. Frederick Gould Bale Sanders and Henry Senders and Robert Sanders, Herbert Francis v. John Milne, Joseph Chew v. 'Alliance Assurance Company, Ltd., Mayor, councillors, and citi<»ns of Wellington v. Wellington Gas Company, Ltd., and the Attorney-General (injunction), Atldntic Refining Compiny v. Andrew Smaill Johnston, E. Reynolds and Company, Ltd., v. Harold Sinclair and David Gardiner Brown, Daniel O'Connor v. Hotel Arcadia Company, Ltd., John Waltc'r Williams v Charles Batesonj Walter James Pethenck v. David Morris Owens, Public Trustee v. Ernest Fraser Jones, James Richard Gey and' Herbert William Sly and Arthur Ernest' Sly v.' Jofin Herbert Hantins and Charlos Albert Loughnan, Herman Lewis v Charlos Burdon Buxton and Mary Haniiah Buxton.