LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1138, 27 May 1911, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

• SUPREME COURT. DECEEE NISI IN DIVORCE. The petition of Mabel Anno HadficM (formerly Sheath) for dissolution of her marriage with Georgo Samuel Hadiield, of Wellington, manufacturer's agent, was heard by the Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday morning. Mr. D. S. Smith appeared for tlio petitioner, and there was no appearance for tile respondent. His Honour, after hearing the evidence, of petitioner and two other witnesses, granted a decree, nisi to bo made absolute, in three months. Fixture Maria, On the application of Mr. A. Gray the Chief Justice fixed Monday next, 10 a.m., for the hearing of two undefended divorce cases, viz., Evelyno Marion Boyes Sparling v. Walter Hubert Macdonald Sparling; Robert Forbes Weir Johnston v. Sarah Johnston. The .Court sits at 9.30 this morning. MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Beforo Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.U.)\ 'EVASION OF CUSTOMS. . FINE IMPOSED: GOODS LOST. Thomas Hoult was charged with evading the Customs duty due on certain goods of the value of £12. Mr. ribse, Acting-Collector of Customs, prosecuted, and Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Owen Jones, Customs officer employed in the 'examination of passengers' luggage, stated that, on the arrival of the Warrimoo from Sydney on Wednesday last, defendant had asked' witness to pass his luggage. Witness questioned defendant as to whether he had any .goods liable to.duty or any .now'goods, and defendant gave a negative reply. Among the luggage were two sacks, which defendant said contained old halters and rugs that had been iised in taking horses to Sydney. Witness made an-cximination of ons of the packages of luggage, and discovered three pairs of new gloves, and a quantity of cigars and cigarettes. A second package contained a pair of new corsets, and more cigarettes. Witness then deemed it necessary to open the sacks, and, in one of them discovered a new set of harness and a now rug.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wilford, witness admitted that the second sack contained old baiters, Imt denied that there could have bejn any misunderstanding, as witness was asked distinctly if lie had any new goods. Corroborative evidence was given by two other Customs officers.

For the deface, Mr. Wilford raised the point that the prosecution had negated to prove that tho goods mentioned in the chargo were dutiable. He contended, therefore, that the information must be dismissed.

. The magistrate refused to uphold the contention. The first witness had stated that some- of the goods were dutiable, and, if necessary, he could bo recalled. Mr. Wilford argued that.,as the case was closed, it could not be reopened. Almost every technical defence had now been taken from lawyers, but this olio still remained. Why should it be taken away because the Crown had a man in charge of the case who was not up to his business. Counsel added that it did not matter to him if his client were fined, but it would affect his client, and this appeared to bo tho only good defence -that remained. The magistrate: I don't call it a good defence. , , Mr. Wilford: Very well, then—an "effective" one. Tho magistrate did not agree that it was "effective," and intimated that ho would hear the defence. Mr. Wilford; Very well, sir, you re suprema a situ. ■ Continuing Mr. Wilford asserted that tho defence was that his client had never denied that the harness was liablo to duty. The question had never been put to him that way. Ho was only asked' what the sack contained. Thomas Hoult, defendant, deposed to returning from Sydney by tho Warrimoo on Wednesday last. Ho crossed to Sydney with a shipment of horses by tho Whangape. When ho arrived ho expected to pay duty on the harness, but not on any of the other goods. When witness told tho Custoins offi-,. cer that jiono of his goods wore dutiable he referred to all but tho sack, of harness, which lv>d not then been raised from the hold. i

The magistrate held that a, conviction must be recorded. If the defendant's evidence were true, then ho had displayed ignornnco of the law for which there was no excuse. A fine of £36 would be imposed, but, as it was defendant's first offence, the fine would bo reduced as allowed by law to £9, tho goods to be forfeited. ALLEGED HOUSE BREAKING. A youth, named William Gordon, was charged with breaking and entering the. dwelling of Thomas Crotcs, on or about Slay 2, and stealing therefrom one homo savings bank box, and about £5 in money, tho property of Bessio Cretes. On the application of Sub-Inspector Sheehan, accused was remanded till May 31. Mr. H. F. O'Leary, who appeared for accused, asked for bail, which was fixed at £50, and. one surety of £50. THEFT OF ARSENIC. A young man, who had taken a bottle of arsenic from a chemist's shop, but afterwards returned it, pleaded guilty to a charge- of theft. As accused bad not previously been. before the Court, the magistrate considered that a heavy penalty was not necessary. A conviction was recorded, and accused was ordered to come up for sentence , when called on. ■•AN OLD OFFENDER. An old offender, named Samuel Fabey Dunning, pleaded guilty to theft of a pair of boots, valued at Bs. od., the property of John Harcourt Farquhar. The boots had been taken from the outside of a shop, where they were hanging. A sentence of one month's imprisonment was imposed. ATTEMPTED THEFT. ' George Hunter, against whom there were several previous convictions, pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to steal, on May 25, a quantity of zinc, valued at 55., the property of J. F. Kcrsley. A sentence of 1-i days' imprisonment was imposed. SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT. James Godbor, for whom Mr. A. L. Herdmau appeared, admitted having employed a chef without having allowed him a half-holiday weekly, in compliance with the requirements of the Shops and Offices Act. Mr. Hordmali stated that this was one of those extraordinary cases whero a man wanted to work, his employer was willing to pay him, and the Government refused to allow him to work. According to the law an employer, instead of giving the. employee.a weekly half-holiday, might allow him a full week every thrcb months. The employee, in this case, had earned his week's holiday, but had preferred to work, and, in addition to his ordinary wage, had been paid an extra week's money. Defendant was unaware that, in doing this, ho was committing a breach of the law. Counsel submitted that, as this was really a test case, a non.mal penalty would suffice. The* magistrate imposed a fine of 10s,, I and coats 7a.

OTHER CASES. William Holcloy ngain appeared on remand at the. Magistrate's Court yesterday, and was asked to show cause why ho should not bo adjudged tho putative father of an unborn child. Thero was no appearance of complainant, and tho information was dismissed, complainant being ordered to pay £1 Is. solicitor's fee, and 4s. witness's expenses. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared tor defendant. A young mau, named Jack Loire, was asked to show causo why ho should not be adjudged tho father of an unborn child. Mr. 1 , . W. Jackson appeared for complainant, and Mr. D. Jackson for defendant, who opposed tho charge. After lengthy cvidenco had been given, tho case, was adjourned until this moming. J. B. Cooper, for whom Mr. F. Petherick appeared, pleaded guilty to a charge of selling milk containing boric acid. Mr. Pethcrick explained that, in the hot weather of March, defendant had secured some boric' acid for use as a preservative, but did not know that he was breaking the law. A fino of 20s. was imposed, with costs 75., and analyst's fee 10s. 6d. For failing to provide certain sanitary conveniences on premises in Belfast Street, 0. W. Clayton was fined 10s. and costs 9s. Mr. Beechey appeared for the City Council, and Mr. Brown for defendant. For entering licensed premises during tho currency of a prohibition order, JoTin Shannon was fined £3, with costs 75., in default 14 days' imprisonment. Four first-offending inebriates, who did not appear, were ordered to forfeit their bail (10s. each) or undergo 24 hours' imprisonment. Another firstoffender was fined 55., with the option of 24 hours' imprisonment.