SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 652, 1 November 1909, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

: ;Vs'"V : -V-:V- : .■•'■ TRANSACTIONS WITH CHEQUES. <■ 1 ''EXTREME OABELDSSNESS" Having pleaded guilty m tho Magistrate's • i Cbtirt to a charge cf forgery and uttering, John was brought before Mr. Jus- • ■<>.tico.,Cooler -on Saturday: moriiiag for toatcic?. ; .: Tka. Snscmer. said -that .he had been very I : ranch-.the victim of circumr.tances. Ho had ■J occppitfd>responsible positions; and thousands l of ijpounils had. passed.' through his hands. He the- forgeries because of neccs- ; sity-catiaed by tho illness of his wifo and him-. . seli.'i* Hiswife had undergone fonr operations i in ;tho past hx years,' and he lumsolf.had-boon in l tho /hospital this year. Ho had not hidden himself ,after the commission of the acts with which-he was charged; but had, considered him- . Bolfyft rtspeotablo man, 1 and ho had no 60n60 of haying dono wjrong. t His' Honour remarked - that tho prisoner was ; , nowc Borving- a iterni 'or imprisonment for .the : v.Bamisiclass of.-offence, hanngbeen sentenced at : ■Auckland on (October ,n .to twelvemonths for forgery.,- Ho had-alsd been convictedof, theft on. two-VoccnsiftnS. -- He was -now; qualified; .if : convicted again,..to\,come under -the Habitual. Criminals Act. ■■■■".• ft wish to th<i' Judge,-"to , . ,the I :extrem!(.carelcsssess.'that..pcoplo show- In. fVKifiHg. blank choqyes-to persons .whom they v inomnfithingr about, and to the carelessness of | shopteepers 'tn-cashinK cheques tendered by: { : without! mwafig inny inquiry. In I thii'casai.thei'shopkcepcri will, no doubt lose •his.mOtiey:(i!loV,because.he cashed the cheque : Biotdly on the, statement', oftho.prisonoiv that it , was genuine;- when, tho; slightest. inquiry, would ' half 6 proved it to be s. forgery." I , ; Tho sentenco of . the Court m .a.term.. of. twelve - months': imprisonment with hard lab--1 .• onrAto: run concurrently with a-previous sentence. , i i «i.„ * "COMMENCING A CRIMINAL CAEEEE." John Jamea O'Connor was brought before Mr.'i JuStico Cooper charged with failure . to conVply ; with\thi terms of an order admitting ~ him on July,l7 last. . . ; The.'probation officor stated that the prisoner i had iboen -admitted to probation for two years before the Court on four .charges, . :of {) On 'Friday a rtt' tho Magistrate's. . Canrt ho had been.sentenced -to : one month's . imprisbnmont for tho theft of J519. :: ' . •:.!■■ His .Honour said that it -was' a .pity, to : s?o a. yoOttgitoan commencinga crlrhitiil career. Mr. , Jdstice ; Chapman. had been .'Very lenient; in granting > probation when tho.: jjrisoner' had pleaded (guilty to/our charges of forgery—the ; ' ohequis being J!5 125., 125., £S' 165., and £5 ' 15s.' -This was only a littlo -while ago, and the. prisoner had since obtained '"employment in. ■ thfevoffice of-Messrs. - Field, }Luckie,' and Toogood.- <: He had -not 1 bpen there )1 jng when he robbed'.the firm of Hanng cdnferred'.with' , Mr.- Jostico Chapman, his Honour had decided that ' the prisoner must be' sentenced oh the original: Charges. ' He would 1 b6 sentenced to twelvd months' imprisonment with hard labv our oitieaslrdhargo. • ' f ' r 'i'rr—'W-l;: ;■ OF A POLICY, further argument was , heard by Mr., Jus- .. tic 6 -Cooper) on ' Saturday ;in the Banco case •of Young versus the- New Zealand .'lnsurance Company, Limited.. Mr. T. Young ■- andiElr. T. Neave appeared for plaintiff, and : Mr. A7;Blair for defendants. " \ , 'A 'prohminary. objection hftd -been made- on thoJ previou3 Satnrday;as to whether the Court/ had jurisdiction to hear tho application, made . uildor : the declaratory Judgments - Act; 1003. ~ Tho . Judge decided during ; the that , tho . objection of. defendants must be. ov6r-ruled and thejeaje argaed. n Application .wis made for an interpretation pf<the conditions policy issued by. Ao ."defendant, company. .A house.. owned. by plaintiff in Kent Terracehad been destroyed . by f iire on August. 28 last, and defendant ;dis- ? pTitcd,.'the ftmouht of the loss. ." Oho;of;the: ten : Qitnohs endorsed on the. p'dlicy.'.was .that ;thfe . coopiny might reqniro the insured person to ' ! furniSh: .plana: bfj .the; house , ; destroyedi : .for,;thq . purtose of determiningi'the cost of. 1 reinstating. - it, if the company should elect to reinstate,jin- - ; stead ;of , paying : the money.-; In ' this case the muniflipaf by-lawS(forbade the reinstatement of. ..." thojpremises, except in brick, and plaintiff conthe company, under;these.circum-: ■ stances jv,were not; ; en titled to. call, on him-to, supply <plans.. Another condition: of the policy, . was- that 'tho insurance -company might enter anditako possession''of: the "destroyed:'premises, contended by; plaintiff that thidconditionsgave the company vthe .nght'; to retain . : possession, only, .''for av reasonable time," and: not infinitely. 1 ' ' : . i Couiisel ; iddxessed.: the Court,. and judgment was reserved. ,