SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 828, 28 May 1910, Page 15

SUPREME COURT.

YOUNG MAN AND A BICYCLE.

A young man, Peroival M'Kcrnan Braithwaito, was charged yesterday in the Supreme Court with the theft of a bicycle, the property of John Coffey, a tram conductor.

Mr. W, H. 1). Bell appeared for tho Crown. Accused conducted his own case.

Tho evidence for the prosecution was that, in November lust, Coffey authorised tho accused to sell a bicycle for him, at a minimum price of £2 10s. The bicycle was not returned to him, nor had tho accused paid him any money. Accused had not brought any bicycle to his father's auction rooms in Manners Street, nt which place ho had agreed to endeavour to sell Coffey's machine. In a statement made when arrested, the accused stated that ho had not been ablo to get £2 10s. for it, and had sold it for 10s. He had not then (February) given Coffey the money, because ho had not boon ablo to see him, but would pay him as soon as he could find him.

Tho witnesses wore Coffey, George Hegarty (employed in Braithwatc's auction rooms), and Detective Cameron. Accused stated, in evidence, that ho received later instructions from Coffey that he might sell tho bicyclo for whatever he couJd get for it. Ho accordingly disposed of it for 10s., to a cleric, whoso name ho could not remember, in Hoaly's auction rooms in Cuba Street. An ■ adjournment was made in order that William Patrick Healey, auctioneer, might" be brought from Brooklyn. He stated that ho believed a bicycle, the property of a tramways employee, had been bought by his firm, although he had no personal knowledge of it. Another adjournment was made that a brother, Michael Healy, might come from Petone. Accused said that this was the man to whom he had sold the bicycle for 10s., but Healy did not recollect ever having seen tho accused before, and denied having bought tho bicycle.

An examination of Healy's books revealed on entry, under date November 26: "J. Coffey, cash purchase 10s." Accused admitted, in addressing tho jury, that he ought to have communicated promptly with Coffey, but, as the amount involved was only 10s., ho had neglected to do so. lie had obtained work in the north, and, on his return, had not had an opportunity of seeing Coffey, otherwise ho would have' paid him. '

Tho jury, after two minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict of "Guilty." .' The Chief-Justice, in deferring sentence until this morning, asked the probation officer to furnish a full report about the young man's character. Ho had apparently been convicted twico previously, and his Honour desired to have all tho information that could bo obtained about him.

DELAYED CIVIL SESSIONS,

THE LIST ARRANGED. . In Chambers yesterday afternoon, the- Chief Justice arranged the order of cases set down for hearing at the civil sessions, which were to have commenced on May 16, but which had to bo postponed because no judge was available to preside. The following fixtures, were arranged:—

..Tuesday, May .31.—James Alexander Hannah' v.. Charles Nodine, claim for specific performance. Thursday, June 2.—Henry Hastings Cramp v. Charles Edwin Waters, claim for £200 for goods sold, etc. Emily Prosser v. the Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Ltd., claim for £170 on an insurance policy. Saturday, Juno 4.—Frederick Spencer Easton and Barbara Ellen Austin v. John Rainbow Stanscl!, claim for rectification of agreement.

Monday, Juno 6.—Garnet Ryland Milne v. Charles John Olivecrona, accounts, etc. Tuesday, June 7.—Alfred James Skinner v. James M'Guinness, claim for £263 Bs. 3d., under a contract. Wednesday, Juno B.—Sargood, Son, and Ewen, Ltd., v. Belle Bradlee, claim for £115 12s. for goods sold, etc. Grevillo v. Parker, rent, etc. Thursday, June 9.—Karl Rasmusscn v. Edith Dorothy Ellis and John Eli Ellis, claim for injunction, etc. t Friday, June 10.—All divorce cases. These are:—William Armitage v. Ruth Armita'ge; Ethel May Lodge v. Leonard Staumore Lodge; Sarah Calder v. Alexander Calder; Hannah liirgitte Kirstine Anderson v. 010 Anderson; Christina Hobbs v. Leonard Alexander Hobbs; Isabel Aiay Matheson Mackay- v. George William Lincoln Mackay; Emily Victoria Firth v. Arthur William George Firth; James M'Grath v. Annie M'Grath; Agnes Mary Dawson Welsh v. Ralph Herbert Dawson Welsh; Annie Gamble v. Robert Gamble, Charles Edwin Major v. Julia Sarah Major (judicial separation): Julia Sarah Major v. Charles Edwiii Major (judicial separation): Monday,, Juno 13—Margaret Anniss r. the Wellington Harbour Ferries, Ltd., claim for £1500, for loss of life on the steamer Duco. Tho Court granted an order for the summoning of a special, jury to hear tho case. . Ihursday, Juno 16.—Emma Sellstrom t'v, , """"gto" Harbour Ferries, Ltd claim for £750 damages lor loss or lifo on the steamer Duco. An order was issued that the caso should bo heard before a special jury

CASE FOR HIGHER COURT. When the case of the Wellington Steam I'erry Company, Ltd., v tho Commissioner of Taxes (acclaim for £3-11 10s., overpaid tax) was mentioned, Mr. Samuel, on behalf of the fiaintiff company, said that tho SolicitorGeneral had agreed to state a case for tho Court of Appeal. The action was, therefore, allowed to stand over.