LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1491, 13 July 1912, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER COURT. (Before Mr.. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) RATHER INTERESTING DAY. TIER BROUGHT UP. THE CHARGES OF CABMEN AND OTHER CASES. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, Martin William Tier was charged with having, on the night of July 11, broken and entered the shop of Charles Hill and Son, Lambton Quay, and stolen three pairs of silk socks (valued at £1 ss. Gd.), eight overcoats (.£22 10s.), one hat (13s. Gd.), two caps (155.), and 4s. Oid. in money, a total, in value, of £25 Bs. ojd. At the request of the police,' a remand till July 18 was made. Bail (.£150) was allowed..

63 TARANAK! STREET. J.'J. ADAMS IS' CONVICTED. Mr. Riddell, S.M., announced that the Court had decided to convict John James Adams on the charge brought against him by the police of having kept No. 63 Taranaki Street (a blacksmith's shop) as a common gaming-house. .. • At the hearing, evidence had been given to the effect that, on several occasions, Constablo Souler, disguised as a labourer, had entered the.shop, and had made bets relating to horse-racing with accused, who had handed him a race card at the conclusion of each betting transaction. On July 5 Constable Souter made a bet with accused .and handed him 55., (two halfcrowns), which had previously been marked by Detective-Sergeant Cassells. When the arrest was made and Adams, tho accused, was searched, it was found that he had' £i 0 Bs. 9d.' in his possession, this sum including the two marked halfcrowns. A number of, racing cards and papers (alleged by the prosecution.'to-havo reference to betting) had been found in the shop. ' • . ''.' .' ' _' .' . .-• His .Worship said that pioof of. one bet alone would not. be sufficient' to Warrant a conviction, but he thought 1 , that the presence of a ; number of race-£ards:and\the seguenco of the entries •dn% -.'defendant's note-book.-w'hichcouldbe connected with races which had. taken place ; on July i arid 5, was, 'with the other evidence of betting, sufficient to warrant the Court inferring that -other beta .were made in the shop on July 5, both before. , and after that made with Souter. -■•..■ . Defendant, for whom Mr. -J. 'J. M'Grath appeared, was convicted and fined '£5.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT FAILS. IN A MILK CASE. Mr. Riddell, S.M., delivered judgment in the case of the Police v. the Fresh Food and Ice Company. ■ ' ' The defendant company was charged at the instance of the Health' Department with having sold to Scliauer milk' which did not Icomply' with (lie re-' quiremenfs-of the Act. '■■"■■ . ■ •;•' Hi's'. Worship on 'the groun'd that the evidence proved Uie alleged sale to have been ifiade by the defendant company. > His Worship remarked, also, that he did not think that the milk in the can had been properly agitated before the sample had been taken. Mr. M. Myers appeared for the Fresh Food and Ice Co.

OVERCHARGES BY CABMEN. TO BE STOPPED.. Walter Baldwin, a was fined 10s., with costs 95., for having charged a greater amount in fare than the city bylaws pormit. ' ■ , . Mr. Beeohey, who appeared for the corporation, 6tated that the defendant had insisted on being paid 2s. 6d. for conveying a man from the Eoyal Oak Hotel corner to the Manawatu Station. The' right charge was Is. The municipal officers had received many complaints of over-charg-ing, and, in future, action would be taken' in every instance. ',

ONSLOW BY-LAWS. James Creighton was ordered to pay Court costs (75.) and solicitor's fee (.£1 Is) for having carried out alterations to a building without having obtained a permit to do so. • ' :, ■ Charles Edward Fawthorp was ordered to pay l Court costs (75.) and half solicitor e fee. (10s. (id.) for having laid a drain at JMgaio while ho ivas-not licensed by the Onslow Borough Council. Defendant stated that he was licensed as a drainlayer by the Wellington City' Council, and had not been aware that it was necessary for him to have an Onslow license as well. 4 . •

MINOR CASES. For breaches of. prohibition orders Susan M'Laugihlin was fined .£3,' Petei Jlulcahey .£3, and Joseph M'Laughlin £i. For insobriety James Bennigau was fined and Charles Geige £2. -William Laming- was fined £2 for having disobeyed a maintcnanco order. • George Hastings was remanded till today on a charge of having-etelen £\ is.s worth of sheet lead from John Murdoch and Arthur Wallace. ■ , James Brotherton was ordered to enter into a bond to keep the peace for six months towards Charles Edward Cntts. 'H.o.y Gibbons waa remanded till July 19 on a charge of having assaulted MaryBond. . . . Victor Owley was fined for having assaulted Charles Mitchell, it tramway inspector. It was stated that (he assault was entirely unprovoked.

CIVIL CASE. (Before Dr. M'Artkir, B.M;) Cornelius M'Guines3, agent, claimed from Edward Parker, cjcle dealer, Blehhelm, as a valuation fee, for work dine m connection, with the erection of a theatre at Blenheim, and as commissioa for procuring tenants for the Imildine. Mr. J. J. ' M'Grath appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Blair for tho defendant. .' ' Soirio evidence was heard, and the case was then adjourned till to-day.

COURT OF APPEAL. RECENT CRIMINAL CASE. JUDGE'S DIRECTION. TOO FAVOURABLE TO ACCUSED. A question as to the' existence or the extent of corroboration of tho two main witnesses jn a Christchurch'criminnl case came befo"r© the Court of Appeal yesterday in a case stated on a question reserved for the opinion of the Court undor Section 442 of tho Crimes Act, 1908. 'The Bench was occupied by the Chief' Justice (Sir Robert Stolit), Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice De'nnistoh, Mr. Justice Edwards/and Mr. Justice Chnpniau: Tho Solicitor-General. (Mr. J. W. Salmond) appeared for the Crown, and Mr. W. 11. D. Bell for the prisoner. The prisoner (George Westo'n) woe trind before Mr. Justice Dehnisloii, at tho criminal sittings of tho Supreme Court at Christcliiircli in May last upon au indictment that on various dates between January. 13 ami April 1, 1912, ho unlawfully used nn instrument with intent to procure miscarriage. The jury convicted the prisoner ,and the learned Judge considered the verdict entirely satisfactory, but, after the verdict, counsel for tho prisoner asked his Honour to reservo tho (piestiiin of the existence or the extent of tho corroboration of tho evidence of the two ninin witnesses. His Honour agreed to reserve the point. In sd.itin» tho enso for t.he Court of Appeal. his ITonour «:iid: "Two witnesses deposed to facts which clearly estoblishod the case apainsf tho prisoner. . . . Tho .prisoner did not eive pvidpnee. In summing up, I told the jury that in hvr the two main vitnoesM were accomplices with ._&s prieopw Iα the ccjamierioa ,ci thi.

crime, and that while there was no actual rule of law requiring coiroboration of tho evidence of accomplices, it was the duty of a Judge in such case to warn a jury that it was dangerous to convict without such corroboration, though a verdict of 'guilty' in such a case could not b» set aside. ... I added that, in any case, the fact that a witness was an accomplice made it their duty to scrutinise iiis evidence very carefully, and that to convict they must be satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that these two witnesses were liollinj; the truth. I concluded by repeating the caution as to convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice or accomplices. The connsel for the prisoner did not object to my direction, or ask nio to direct that there was no corroboration."' ' After hearing Mir. Bell the Court intimated Hint it would affirm the conviction without calling on the Crown. The Solicitor-General said that he would like to be heard as he proposed to argue that there was really no point of v law reservable. • ' .. . After hearing this argument, the Court agreed with that view. The conviction was affirmed, tho Court expressing. tie almost unanimous view that his Honour's direction had (if anything) been too favourable to the accused.

KIDNAPPING AFFAIR. . FATHER'S UNLAWFUL ACTIok Is a father entitled to the custody of his child when an order of the Supreme Court has given custody to the mother, and if tho father takes the child away is his act an unlawfulone? Theso were the points involved in the special case, H.M. the King v. Mikkelsen. The same Judges were on the Bench as in the Christchurch case. ' In the Snpjeme Court "at Ancklarid early in June S. M. Mikkelsen and K. James were charged before Mr. Justice Sim that they unlawfully took Gladys Mikkelsen awny from her mother; that they had conspired to commit the oflence;and that they had unlawfully detained the child with intent to deprive the mother of possession. ■ • - , Mr. B.' A. Singer; who appeared for Mikkelsen at the trial, -said that he would not dispnte the occurrence. There was no doubt the child was taken away, and counsel admitted that Mikkelsen took the child. "But," asked .counsel,'."did he not havo a right to take her?" That, said Mr. Singer, was the whole... question, and the wise hinged on the word "unlawfully." Did Mikkelsen "unlawfully" take the child away? The Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C., who represented the Crown at the trial, drew attention to the judgment delivered by' Mr. Justice Edwards, when some years agothe accused Mikkelsen applied 'for custody of his daughter Gladys, tlie'child now in. dispute. Mr. T.olo pointed out'that Judge Edwards had given Mrs. Mikkelsen chaTgeof the''child, and; .therefore, Mikkelsen's action was a breach ■of Judgtt Edwards's'decision: :.. : /"' : .•■'•/■ Mr: Justice Sim helcL.that,' in' view -of the 'order made by the' Supreme Court.on the. prisoners-application for-a wxit of habeas corpus, ■ the prisoner ■ Was not Unfitted to the custody of the child) and that' the taking was therefore' unlawful. His Honour directed the jury in accordance with this view and told them that they J ought to convict'the prisoner, unless they thought that, when he got possession of thechild, he was claiming in good faith a right to the possession of the child. The jury found James not guilty and Mikkelsen guilty. Sentence was deferred until the Court of Appeal could settle the point a3 to whether his Honour's direction to the jury was correct in law. When the case was called 'yesterday;, the Solicitor-General (Mr. , J. W. Salmond) appeared, for.' the 'Crown, and Mr. K; 'A.-' Singer for- ; the'prisoner! '■• ■"■ ' '■--■• ; ■The .Courtunanimously ; affirmed "the conviction without calling on the So-' licitor-General. ' - - •