BABY BROUGHT INTO COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1264, 20 October 1911, Page 3

BABY BROUGHT INTO COURT.

WHAT EFFECT? QUITE AN INTERESTING CASE. Tho last casd on the list—a criminal appeal—was hoard by tho Court of Appeal yesterday morning. This was the case of II.M. tho King v. Charles Boakes, ami had rel'ercnce to the conviction of Boakes for perjury at the last criminal sittings of the Supremo Court in Auckland, bol'oro Mr. Justice Chapman. On the bench yesterday were: The Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout), Sir Joshua Williams, Air. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justico Chapman, and Mr. Justico Sim. Tho Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond), with him Mr. H. 11. Ostler, appeared for tho Crown, and Mr. D. S. Smith was assigned by tho Crown as counsel for Boakes. In slating (lie case, Air. Justico Chapman set out that Boakes had been arraigned at Auckland for perjury. Tho substance of tho charge was that, in the Magistrate's Court at Auckland, on February IS Inst, lioakes had denied tho paternity of a certain child. Tho chargo also had reference to three other statements made, on that occasion, by Boakes. At the trial, Doakes had been defended by Mr. J. 1!. Imndon, who had addressed the jury late at night, and had explained that ho would bo absent at Hamilton nest morning at the sittings there. When the Crown Prosecutor was addressing tho jury next morning (Mr. Lundon being absent), the complainant in the paternity 'ease sat in tho witness box with a baby in her arms. The baby was apparently about tho same age as the child mentioned would be. It had fair, curly hair resembling that of the prisoner, and this was brushed in much the same way as prisoner's. Durinsr his address, tho Crown Prosecutor iiad referred to the child in Court, but had immediately been stopped by tho Judge. The jury, after a retirement of over four hours, had brought in a Terdict of guilty on. the three first assignments. His Honour, not being satisfied that tho jury had not been influenced by tho presence of the child, and, believing that the child had been brought into Court for tho purpose of convincing the jury that it resembled the prisoner, deferred lentonee, and ordered Boakes to present himself at the next criminal sessions. A special case had then been stated by the Judge for tho Court of Appeal, with the facts set out as above, it being suggested that the Court should assume that Boakes was applying for a new trial. The question for tho Court was as to whether tho facts set out were such as to vitiate the verdict. If the Court was of opinion that the verdict could bo regarded as properly attributable to the evidence, it. was asked to determine whether the conviction should bo quashed or whether there should bo a new trial. During Mr. Smith's argument on tho point that the prisoner had not received a fair trial, Mr. Justico Chapman asked the Solicitor-General: "Do you admit that the prisoner has not had a fair trial?" The Solicitor-General: I do not admit that. Mr. Justice Chapman: I may say that I think so. Mr. Smith also argued that the Terdict was against the weight of evidence, but the Court did not desire to hear tho other side in regard to this latter contention. Argument concluded at 3.15 p.m., when the Court reserved decision.

ADMINISTRATION OF A WILL. WHAT PAYMENT? A raotiou for confirmation of tha Registrar's report as to remuneration of trustees and executors in the matter of the Administration Act, ISOS, and the will of Allan M'-Leaii, late of Christchurch, deceased, cnmc before four judges of the Supreme Court but was immediately removed into tho Court of , Appeal. The Bench was occupied by the Chief Jujtico- (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Him. Mr. T. W. Stringer, X.C., with him Mr. Levi, appeared for the executors of the will (Henry Cotterill, solicitor; Boulton Merlin Moline.nix, bank manager; and Geo. Francis Gee, bank manager); 1 and llr. T. G. Russell appeared for tho M'Lean Institute (the residuary leg*te« under the will). Allan Ji'Lean- died at Ohristchurch on November 27, 10S7. and probate of his will was granted on November 21, IM7, to the executors mentioned above. By the will it was directed that cach of the executors should receiTe -SIGCO aa an acknoivledyment for his trouble as executor, and ia lieu of any commission to which he mifht be entitled. Tin l!e»istrar (Mr. W. A. Jkwkiis), in pursuanco of an order made by U.r. Justice .Sin, keld an inquiry at the Supreme Court, Ckrisrf:church, on May H, 1911, as to _ wkat would be a reasonable sum to alloir as commission to the executors. At that inquiry, Mr. Eussell contended that tho sum of .£IOOO cach was an ample allowance, but tho executors declined to accept that allowance or any part thereof on the ground that it was not adequate remuneration for their pains, trouble, and responsibility in tho management of the estate. Tho accounts showed that, at the time of the testator's death, tho assets amounted to *£597,G30 Bs. id., less debts amounting to «£625 Bs. 4d. The 'gross capital realised amounted to »£370,23t Is., and tho incomo received to ,£15,303 12s. 2d. Had the estate been administered by tho Public Trustee, ho would have been entitled to charge .£7793 18s., by way of commission. The Registrar, in his report, submitted that in the majority of similar estates, where the executors had troublo and responsibility, a reasonable allowance was always made. In the present estate tho allowance already provided for under tho will did not amount to a commission of one per cent, on tho total capital realised and income received. 110 therefore recommended that the executors be allowed, out of the estate, a sum of .£7352 2s. Id., less tho amount of JC3OOO provided for in tho will—a not sum of i! 4352 2s. 'Id. Tho report came before the Full Court for confirmation, and, as stated above, was removed into the Court of Appeal. Mr. Stringer had not concluded his address when the Court adjourned until this morning.