LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1417, 18 April 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

REWARD OF CRIME.

ONE RATHER STRANGE CASE,

DIFFfCFLT to meet,

>ve prisoners were brought lip for sentence> beiore (he Chief Justice (Sir Robert stout) in the Supreme Court yesterday. •>ll of them had pleaded guilty in. the jOH-er Court to the offences with which • v ,vere charged. Mr. H. H. CWier a n. pearod for the Crown.

Joh n° Lpvv k tn i ', l ~IC (I <* k m,,n CP " ViCt "

"Until the Board Releases You-Which May Be Never."

=ii!fev' ~fr 1,10 liis Honour i V r aro 0110 ot those l>eople who 1 come before the Court from time.to time kno«-"whnt°r f ee ' -Vi" 1 !t is (lifficult t0 Know \\hntto do with vou. After having been declared a habitual crimfoal vou llwh°o? aS f, th , c J >riso » Botml '°» in. m f ?f ch P • vou cnme Wols or! 1 J f hl ? h I .r 9 •?'> committed de^nnir nf ,i C l ® ,l(luct .','ke this makes one Vmf k„ e , illll . 1K w,th P eo P'° l>ko vou. Since inni °,'! T • Wn J" dominion viptofi V f-' «Mo,then have been enn\ii M 1 tllPfe ' once of forginp and uttenng, and once of breakinc and entering and theft. You hn™ lS sentenced during that t.imo (since 19031 to n?w/ 1 oars lm J"l*>nment. and you were t?, I- I'* munths Probation. If vou vn», " -'i 0" C - a i' ?° °? for €Ver like th '= 3011 aie ([into mistaken. Prisoner interjected that he had no charge of breaking and entering against His Honour: "It is no use going into past, charges, ion committed this offence niter having been declared a habitual criminal and released. You aro sentenced to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour. W hen the twelve months are up }ou must go back to New Plymouth, and serve there until the board releases vou— that may be never/' Four Other Sentences. John M Intyre, convicted of breaking and entering and tieft, at Otaki, when asked whether ho had anything to sav, replied: "AH I can say is that I was drunk when I done it." His Honour: "Then why did you get (trunk? Nobody compelled you to do it. lou ought to be punished more for getting drunk." The Chief Justice went on to state that it appeared to him that prisoner had been at this sort of work betore. Arriving in the Dominion in Feb- [ ruary, 1911, ho had at oncc got into trouble, and had since borne a very in--1 different character. "If you think," said his Honour, "that you can come to this Dominion and become a criminal and get off lightly, you aro mistaken. As this is the first occasion on which you have been convicted of theft, you will'be dealt with leniently. You are sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour." Three young men, Albert Ayling, Sidney Baker, and Harry Williams, we.ro placed in the dock together to be sentenced for having jointly been guilty of breaking and entering and theft at Stvatford. In pronouncing sentence, his Honour said that the prisoners all seemed to be young men, and this was the first offencc with which they had been charged. Because of their youth and the fact that nothing was known against them, ho would not send .them to gaol this time, but this would be their last chance. They would bo given probation for eighteen'months and ordered to report every month to the probation officer. Al.-o, within six months they mutt, each pay two guineas towards the expenses of their prosecution. "I lfope," concluded his Honour, "that you won't come before the Court again. You will find that it does not pay," ; MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr. W. G. Hiddell, S.M.) THEATRICAL METHODS. h

HYPNOTIST IS PENALISED. Yesterday at tho Magistrate's Court Professor Norwood and Ernest George Robertson were separately charged with having caused one Paulino Ford, while sho was in an alleged hypnotic condition, to play a piano in Robertson's shop ' in Willis Street, whereby a largo crowd of people was attracted and traffic was impeded. Defendants, who were represented by Mr. li. M. AVatson, pleaded guilty. Tho city solicitor, Mr. J. O'Sliea, stated that Robertson had been warned by/thd police before tho trouble actually occurred. If these advertising methods were to bo practised they should be carried out in a place where the public safety would not bo endangered. The offence merited a fairly heavy penalty. The defendants wero fined JC2 each. THEFTS ALLEGED. Charges of stealing a pair of boots valued at 235. Gd., and a pair of slippers valued at Bs. Gd., the property of the Wellington Harbour Board, were made against William James 51'Kay. Chief Detective Broberg said that this footwear was part of a consignment how lying.in the Harbour Board shed, and as 1G pairs wero missing, ho wished to make iurther inquiries. M'Kay was Temanded till Friday. OTHER, CASES. James M'Clcnaghan was fined for resisting a police constable who arrested mm for insobriety. For insobriety,' Charles Conn was fined -SI, tile amount of his medical e\pen*e*

COURT OF APPEAL..

AUCKLAND TIiAM ACCIDENT,

COMPENSATION CLAIM,

: The Court of Appeal was engaged vo--terday 111 hearing the case Xing' v. 'the Auckland Electric Tramways Company an appeal from a nonsuit, by Jfr. Justice Edwards, of a compensation claim in the Supreme Court. The appeal was heard ; by the Chief Justice (Sir liohert Stout) , Sir Joshua Williams, Mr. Justice Coop«r* and Mr. Justice DennistOii. The parties were Win. Herbert Kin", of Uoso Street, Mount Eden (railway em- : ployec), and Martha King, his wife (ap- ' pellants), and the Auckland Electric ; Tramways Company, Ltd. (respondent). ! Mr. H. P. Richmond appeared for the ap- ! pellants, and Mr. J. K. Itced for the respondents. The event giving rise to the action was a tramway accident which occurred at the intersection of New North I'oad with Rose Street (Auckland), at 6.30 n.m. on May 30, 1911. The appellants alleged thai the tramcar was nejligeatly driven, and that, as a result, -Martha King v.as violently knocked down, suffered severe and painful contusions, and received such a shock that her health had become permanently impaired. It was alleged that she had not recovered .sufficiently to pursue her business as a nurse, and was unlikely to be able to do so for a year or more, if at all. Tile negligence alleged consMed in driving the ear at excessive speed, in f'ailinr; to keep a look-out for foot-passengers, and i h failing to ring a warning-bell, i Martha King claimed .£SO for medical ! expenses; .6100 for loss of business proi fits for eighteen months, from the dale of Hie injuries, and .fclt.iO general damages, ! making a total of .1501). Her liusband. i \V. H. King, claimed as compensation fur loss of his wife's society and for the expense to which he had been* put in nursing her. The respondent Tramways Company entered a general denial of the allegations made by the appellants, and contended thai, if its servants had been guilty of an aei of negligence (which was denied) then Martha King had been guilty of eonlrilmlary negligence in nut fenking | mil lor an approaching car. or. if slie dirl. in alleinpiin'? in ern.--; tii 100 >heri. I a dUlaneo in front of an oncoming ear. .\l the el' plaintiff's i-a-e in the Supri'iiH' Court. Ml'. .111-dice Edward*, uu the motion of cnun-el lor Ihe defendant, v.illidi'w i':e care limn Ihe jury ami nonsuited 11 ■ nliinlilfs on the ground that Ihe p! lintifl- (appellants in Ihe present ca.-el hid adduced no evidence inuu which the jury could infer that the inolorman had been guilty of negligence lAadiiig to the acjjidcut, amij further, tliat

Mrs. King had herself directly contributed to the accident.

From this decision an appeal was lodged on tho grounds that the judgment was erroneous mi the, evidence, and in law, and that, upviii the evidence, the question of whether plaintiffs were entitled to damages should have been left to the jury.

When the ease wns called on yesterday, Die Chief Justice said (I 1.1! there was a question whether the Court nf Appeal could Ilear this case, considering that it was an appeal from a uoiwiit. Counsel on both sides said that they had not: considered the point. Mr. Richmond submitted that, if his clients applied for a new trinl the same position as now existed would probably bo raised agaiir. Mr. Justice Cooper remarked that if a new trial were refused nil appeal could be taken from that decision li' a new trial were granted it could only be on the ground that the nonsuit was wrong. The. Chief Justice said that it was too late now to move for a new (rial unless the Judge who had tried tho case allowed it.

The llencli spent some time in considering the point raised, and the Chief Justice eyoTitually announced that it had 'been decided to hear the appeal. Tho question aw to whether an appeal could lie from a nonsuit in the .Supreme Court was reserved for argument later. The latter part of the afternoon was spent it( hearing argument by counsel t'oi the appellants. At 1.30 p.m. the Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day. COMPENSATION. WHEX A LIMB IS REALLY LOST. Mr. Justice Sim's judgment in the compensation ease, Mardell v. Jones, has been lodged with the C'lerk of Awards. The caso was heard in the Arbitration Court at "Wellington on March 23, 1912, and raised an .interesting question in compensation law. Following is tho judgment ;— "The. plaintiff, while working in the defendant's confectionery works in Welling- | ton, on May IC, 1911, suffered a fracture of his left leg below the kneo joint, which necessitated the amputation of the limb below tho kneo. Tho defendant admits her liability to pay compensation in respect of this injury. Sho has paid into Court a sum of ,±'ls3 125., on the basis that tho plaintiff is entitled, under the second schedule of the Act, to recover as for the total loss of the lower part of his leg. This is 60 per cent, of the amount payable for total permanent incapacity. The plaintiff lias refused to accept this amount, and claims that, in the circumstances, he is entitled to_ recover as for the total loss of his leg. Under the second schedule the compensation for such a loss is 75 per cent. 9f the amount payable for total permanent incapacity.

"The accident to the plaintiff happened before the passing of the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1911, and consequently Section 15 of that Act does not apply to the case. If that section had been applicable the Court would have been justified, on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, in finding as a fact that he had suffered the permanent loss of the use of his left leg for the purposes of locomotion; The plaintiff, however, cannot invoke the aid of that section, and what tho Court has to determine is whether, in the circumstances, he can be said to have suffered the total loss of his left leg, within the meaning of the second schedule before it was amended. In our opinion he cannot. The second schedule as it stood originally provided that for the pur. poses of the schedule an eye, hand, or foot should be deemed to be lost if it was rendered permanently and wholly useless. There is. however, no similar provision with regard to a leg. The fact (hat there is such a provision in connection with the ease of an injured eye, hand, or foot points to the conclusion that the Legislature, when fixing, compensation for the total loss of a leg, contemplated only cases where there was a complete separation of Ihe limb from the body. This conclusion is confirmed by a consideration of the language of other parts of the schedule. Thus (he provision for tho caso of "tho tofal loss of tho right arm or of the greater part of tho arm" refers plainly to a. case of. physical separation. The distinction drawn by the Legislature between fhe loss of a member and the loss of tho use thereof is illustrated by the provisions in connection with eyes, under which compensation is fixed for the case of "the loss of both eyes" and lor the case also of tho loss of the sight of one eve." "We think, therefore, that the expression 'the total loss of a leg,' as used in the Second Schedule before the amending Act of 1!U1 came into force, must lie taken to mean the complete separation of practically the wholo of the limb from tho body, and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover only tho compensation allowed in respect of the loss of the lower part of the leg. "The further hearing of tho case is adjourned to the next sitting of the Court in Wellington, so that, if necessary, the parties may lie heard on the question whether tho defendant hns paid the proper amount into Court, and also on the question of costs.'' NEW PLYMOUTH CASE. Argument was concluded yesterday in the rehearing of the New Plymouth' appeal case of Schmidt And Hellshaw v. Greenwood. As on the previous day, the liench was occupied by the Chief .Tustice fSiv Robert Stout), Sir Joshua Williams, Mr. Justice Donniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr.'Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman. Mr. H. D. Bell. K.C., and Mr. J. H. Quilliam, of New Plymouth, appeared for , the appellants, and Mr. Martin Chapman, K.C., with whom was associated Mr. 1!. > Spencc, of Stratford, 'or the respondent. 1 The hearing concluded shortly alter 1 ' p.m., and their Honours re.-oncd judg- I : inent. < ! i