LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1207, 16 August 1911, Page 2

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. THE CRIMINAL SESSIONS. A RETORT. DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION. AN OTAKI CASE. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court wero continued yesterday before Mr. Justice Chapman. Jir. H. H. Ostler represented the Crown. A powerfully-built Native, named Prank Cootes, appeared ia the dock. Ho was charged with that on May 15 at Otaki ho had assaulted James Plaietod, 7G years of age., and had robbed him of tho sum of ,£8 10s. There was an alternative count of theft from tho person. * Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for Cootes, who pleaded not guilty.' Evidence for the complainant Plaisfced was to the effect that on May 15 h« had business in Otaki. After paying accounts ho had a. sum of £8 10s. Hβ had had "four drinks" that evening, and shortly after 7 o'clock, whilo on his way to the Central Hotel, he had passed three men, who bade him "good night." About two minutes later a man came behind, caught him by the shoulders, and said, "Hello, uncle, how aro you ?" He Cwitness) recognised the man as accused, w>.o, without waiting for a reply, pushed him down a side lano and placed a hand in his pocket. Ho cried, "What are you doing, Cootes? You aro robbing mo!" Aβ Cootes took no notice of this outcry, witness then raised cries of "Murder." Then Cootes caught him by the throat, and afterwards dragged him out again, throw him on tho footpath, and made off, having taken the sum of £8 10s. from his pockets. A Mrs. Bailey helped him up, and within a quarter of an hour he went to the police station and informed Constable Satherley of what had occurred. Case in Progress. To Mr. Wilfqrd: He had been robbed five times previously, in Otaki, but had never complained to the police, as he did not know who the robbers were. They used to put drugs in his drink to £?nd him to sleep, and when he woke up his money was invariably gone. Ho had been drunk many times, but could not count how often, nc would not deny l)eing drunk "a hundred times in tho last ten years." " Frederick Halkctt stated that ho was an eye-witness of the robbery. Plaisted did not seem to be resisting, and ho (Halkett) did not feel disposed to interfere. On a date subsequent to tho occurrence (when witness was an inmate of the hospital, as a result of injuries received at football), Cootes camo to him, and asked him to sign a statement, purporting to set out that what he had previously told Constable Satherley was a "drunken statement." During the interview Cootes so pestered witness, that he signed the statement, but bo immediately knew that he had done wrong, and foot the opportunity of telliug Constable Satherley "all about it." Hester Ellrn Bailey stated that slio had been an eye-witness. While Cootes was "going through" Plaisted's pockets, another Native had been standing in the road, but she had not noticed Halkett there. She had not deemed it prudent to Interfere, ns she was "only a woman." To Mr. Wilford: Rho declined to state how many husbands the had had. Sho aiso declined to bo called by her first husband's name. Her name was Mrs. v Bailey. His Honour: Don't assume that quarrelsome attitude! Listen, and answer the questions! ■ '■' A: Warm Passage, Subsequently witness stated that she tad been married-to hor last husband about seventeen'years agctiii. Dauuovirke. f Previously' she" had been married to her first husband in Waipawa, as a girl 16 years of age. Mr. Wilford: Is that all the husbands you have had? Witness: Yes, What the deuce number of husbands do I want? Mr. Wilford: Are you the lady that was in tho famous Lillywhite murder case? Witness: I was brought down to Wellington Mr. Wilford: Answer the questica! His Honour: That" is not a proper question, Mr. Wilford. If you want to ask a question, there is no necessity to make a speech. Mr.'Wilford: That is so, sir. His Honour: I never heard of "the famous Lillywhite murder case." In further cross-examination, witness declared that her relation with the Lillywhite caso rested on tho fact that she had identified a man known as Lillywiiite ns a man who had stayed in her house. Sho denied that she had ever beeii drunk, mid denied also that a number of men (named) had ever taken liquor to her house. She was naming a number of people who could testify to her character, and to the fact that. sho was a total abstainer, whcu : — Mr. Wilford: May I interrupt you, Mrs. Bailey? Witness: No, I am telling the magistrate whom to writo to to get iny character. (Laughter.) Mr. Wilford asked if the present case and the Lillywhite case were the oidy ones in which she had been called as a witness. Witness: I was in court only ouce before, and theu I was for your client. You asked me to tell a lie for him—Air. when ho got a young girl in trouble, under 15, and yen got him off, and ho ought to have got gaol. You did not call me. (More laughter.) Mr. Wilford: Oh, Mrs. Bailey! Have you got a grudge against me, too? Witness: I will summons you for what you have =aid about me. Mr. Wilford: Well, you see, .Mrs. Bailey, 'that doesn't happen to interest me. You are going to get oven with Cootes after this case, aren't you? Witness: Mind you, Mr. Cootes will pay dearlv for this, for I intend to summons liim. Mr. Wilford: Now, don't you tliink that what you havo siid about Cootes is just as unkind as what you havo said about me? Witness's reply was not clear. Re-examination by Mr. Ostler occupied until a few ininutes past 5 o'clock, wnen tho Court adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning. His Honour refused to. admit tho prisoner to bail until this morning. COURT CLEARED. George Ferminger,' a married man and a gardener by occupation, pleaded not fuUty to a charge of indecency in Boweu treet on June 9. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for accused. When tho jurymen had been sworn, Mr. Ostler asked 'if his Honour proposed to clear the Court. His Honour replied that lie did not think that it was necessary, but, at tho request of counsel for tho defence ; tho Court was cleared during tho heanug. It was agreed that, before tho evidence was tendered, the jury should view the 6ceno of the alleged offence. The case closed at 1 o'clock, and the jury returned just before It p.m. with a verdict of "Not Guilty." The prisoner was accordingly discharged. IN CHAMBERS. Before Mr. Justice Sin), in Chambers yesterday, Mr. E. G. Jellicoe mentioned the caso of Major v. Bhuidell Bros., Ltd., an action for alleged libel. Mr. Jolhooe moved that the questions raised by the 'defence, upon the "Law of Libel Act Amendment, 1010," be argued as questions of law before the trial ot the action. Mr. H. D. Bell, K.C., for the defendants, consented. Tho case of Alfred George Last v. Hermann Lewis—a claim for commissiou alleged to be due on the .sale of shares in a company to bo promoted to take over the MoK-uu Block—was mentioned. Mr. T. Young appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. G. Samuel for defendant. There were motions for interrogatories and discovery of documents, and orders were made in each 'Aai. action for alleged slander, which is to come on for bearing at tho cominc sittings of the Supreme Court in l'almerston North, was mentioned in Chambers before Mr. Justice Sim yesterday. The parties are Charles Arthur Whitinore Moui.-kto.n, grazier and deater, of Pahike,

near Otaki, plaintiff, and Byron Brojai, storekeeper, of Otaki, defendant. Tho claim is for* »Cl2sn damages on five causes of action, each claiming ,£250 for alleged slander. Mr. C. B. Morison appeared for plaintiff a,ad Mr. A. W. Blair for defendant. Mr. Morison applied for interrogatories to bo answered, and Mr. Blair consonted to this. The latter moved for discovery iuid interrogatories, and secured a general order. BOOKMAKER'S CLAIM. A. LAW V. WOBKING MEN'S CLUB. Certain legal questions in connection with the case of Arthur Law, bookmaker, of Wellington, v. tho Trustees of the Working Men's Club, w.ero argued before Mr. Justice Sim, in Banco, yesterday. Mr. H. D. Bell, K.C., with him Mr. S. J. Morau, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. L. Herdmaji for the defendant trustees. Jt appears that tome timo ago, plaintiff was called upon to resign from the Working Men's Club, on tho ground that ho was a bookmaker, and, in consequence of this, he instituted proceedings against the trustees. A number of legal questions were involved , , and a caso was stated so that these could bo argued. One of these points was whether the club had power under its rnlcs to call upon plaintiff to resign because he was a bookmaker, and another point was whether tho matter in issue between tho parties was a dispute under tho Friendly Societies Act of 1909. After hearing legal argument,, his Honour reserved decision. COMPENSATION. Mr. Justice Sim will presid6 at a sitting of tho Compensation Court to be held to-day, when tho case set down for hearing is Gosse v, the Hutt Borough Council.