SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1749, 14 May 1913, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

THE CRIMINAL SESSIONS. SHOOTING CASE. A JUDGE OX THE USE 0.1? FII'EAIiMS. Before the Chief Justico (Sir Robert Slout), the criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday morning. . Mr. H. 11. Ostler, of the Crown law Office, represented the Crown. When tho Court adjourned tho previous evening, tho trial of Patrick O.'Donnell was in progress. Accused, /who is a farmer in the Eketahuna district, had pleaded not guilty to a charge of woundins with intent to cause grievous bodily •harm, hnd ha was defended by Mr. M. Jlvers. , The Crown case, which had closed tlio previous evening, sought to show that O'JDonnell had fired a shot pun, and that a pellet from the gun had struck another farmer, William Fraser, in the forehead. Yssterday morning, Mr. Myers stated that the accused would plead guilty to the minor count in the charge of having fired the sun with intent to intimidate Fraser. O-'Donnell, in firing the gun, had acted imprudently, but liis intention had been only to frighten Fraser and to prevent him from continuing to act in an annoying manner. , Tho Crown accepted tho plea, and withdrew the other charges. His Honour thereupon directed the jury to return a verdict accordingly, and this was done. . In addressing the prisoner, his Honour said he was satisfied that the gun was fired only with tho intention of frightening Fraser. The use of a gun was not only dangerous, but was a menace to the community. One had .only to read the annals of Kentucky to sec what happened in a country .where firearms were commonly used—families annihilated and continual feuds. His Honour considered a fine would meet the case, and imposed a fine of-seven guineas. . Finally his Honour advised Fraser to endeavour to live on better terms with his neighbours, and not to imagine that thoy were always trying to. annoy him. O'Donnell (said his Honour) should try and treat 'Fraser with consideration. GUILTY OF STEALING.

LENIENCY EXTENDED. Carl Pederseu, who on the previous day had been found guilty of and entering, was brought up for sentence. Mr. M. Myers appeared for him. _ When delivering tho verdict .of the jury, , the foreman had said: "W T o find mm ifuilty on tlip second count of stealing. But at the samo-titfe we believe ho was irresponsible for ihis actions owing to the amount of liquor he had \\e therefore recommend hira to mercy. . Mr. Myers: I submit that that is a verdict of not guilty, your Honour. - His Honour thought otherwise. Do von find him guilty of stealing T of knowing that he was taking tho things? he inquired from the foreman. The foreman assented. Mr. .Myers considered that before replying tho foreman should have consulted i the other members of the jury. . His Honour put the question to other members of the jury dissent was expressed. , , ~ _. Mr Myers s-iid yesterday morninc that he was "still of opinion that the verdict was one of lint guilty. . His Honour held'otherwise, although he remarked that there was no doubt the man was under the influence of liquor. Mr. Myers, pointed out that Pederseu had paid the amount of the damage done and had taken out a prohibition order against himself. ■ His Honour took into consideration tlie jurv's recommendation and merely ordered "the prisoner to come up for sentence when called upon. A condition of his release would be that ha be of Rood behaviour and extend tho prohibition order ajainst himself for two years. PERJURY, ISSUE FOR THE COURT OF APPEAL. A charge of perjury was preferred against a - voting married man named Samuel Francis Aitkin, who was alleged to have sworn on oath before a magistrate, that he was a - married man living with his wife at a time when he was not married. . ITT „ Mr. T. M. Wilford, with Mr. W. Perry, appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. . ■ , , , Mr Ostler, in opening the case,.stated that in May, 1312, the accused Aitken was desirous of obtaining a license for tup -National Hotel, AVellington. By provisions of the Licensing Act, before a person could applv to the .Incensing Committee for ft licen.sc, lio had to obtain a eeroiicate of fitness from the magistrate. It had been the practice of tho magistrate for some years past to refuse to grant tho certificate unless the applicant_ was a married man living with his wne. Accused applied for a certiucate, and appeared before .Dr. A. -d Arthur, S.M. The oath was then administered to luni, and during the course of his examination lie vis -i-ke-t it' he was a married man liv-. iiig with his wife. To this he replied 111 tho alliviaativf'. Tins was a. lalsc suuownti. Subsequently, in consequence ci something heard by Superintendent iJn--on, proceedings were taken against Alt-

His Honour inquired under what sectioii of tho Act the cmtli«was aduiiuistoi* cd in tlie magistrate's roam. ' Mr. Ostler replied that tho certificate of fitness had. to bo applied ior under Section 85, Sub-section 2, and his Hon-, our, Mr. Justice Edwards,, had decided (in Douglas v. Dyer) that in granting tho certificate tho must act judicially. . . . . . , His Honour: Sitting only as a. sinrie Jialife, I would feci bound by that decision, but it may bo necessary to reservo tlio question for tao Court of ApDr. A. M'Artiuir, stipendiary msjstrato at AV'ellinston and chairman of the Wellington Licensing Committee, evidence as to having examined Ait Ken on cath at the time the latter applied for a certificate of fitness. Aitken was asked if ho was married, and ho .replied that he was a married man and that he was living with his wife. . ' . To Mr. AVilford: The application for the certiSrate of fitness to hold a license may have been made by solicitors 011 behali of the accused. ' His Honour: At all event?, the man appeared before you? Witness ropik'd in the affirmative. _ln answer to further questions from Mr. "\Vilfovd, the v.-ilness stated that .tlie oxanwiatinns for these certificates wore invariably made iu his room at tho court, but the door was always open, and tho puUic were no!- prevented from coming in. Mr. M'ill'ord: But your name is on the C \\'iWs.v. I'm not a-liamcd of that. (Laiwiiter.) ~ . , ('ani.iiuiinfr, Dr. M'Arthm- explained tlv.i I he cas? was exactly similar to Uiat of' n eorovn's inquest, only in one ease tlie man was alive and the other dead. (Laud'ter.) The room where the_ examination was held was a court, of justice, but was not. proclaimed as such. At Hie tiino of flic "ex'.i.'iinati'.n,,notes of the evidence were taken by Mr. Hnlines, clerk to the A.ieen'-iii!; Hencli. -Mr. Holmes (1;d not write shorthand, but witness could say from his own exnc-ricnco of Mr. Holmes that there was 110 one better able to take a short account of evidence. I little laier t-'ir witness repeated that it'v-r< the invariable practico to inquire if applicants for license? were married. "On ono occasion forccd a young man to eel: married, ond ho nftenvnrds said it was the bt'st .hint: lie ever did m his life, awl you know it." (Daughter.) _ M-anwnilo Mr. Uiliord had explained his Honour that he intended to arguo later on that under Section 130 of the Primes let no offence had been committed. Bo flcsircd to lay tho foundation for such argument. Evidenco was jiext given, by J. ■)■ "\rGrath, who acted as fatieitor for tho '1 reused' at the timo ot the e.raniniahou. .wd then (ho evidence of A. H. Holmes i rlnrk to tho Licensing Bench, was put | hi a = it was reported that-Mr. Holmes ' was ill. aud uuaDle to appear. This ovi-

donco was to tho offset thatAitken had distinctly stated on oath that ho was married at tho t.imo of making tho applicntion for a certificate of fitness. Superintendent Ellison, of tho Hellinglon Police, recounted a conversation tie hud with Aitkcn regarding tho latter s marriage. As 'a result of subsequent _infiuirv, witness learned that accused had been examined on oath by tho Chairman of the Licensing Committee, and proceedings were then instituted against him. Several olher witnesses werp also called for the prosecution. Mr. Wilfm'd did not call any evidence for the defence, but, before addressing flic jurv, ho asked his Honour to reserve for the* Court of Appeal tho question as to whether tho magistrate's proceeding in his private t room was judicial. His Honour gave the matter somo consideration, and before summing up ho announced that he would refer the question to the Court of Appeal. He did not desiro to have a man found guilty it lie were not guilty, and he thought it onJ) fair to the prisoner to allow the point to 1m raised. The jury would not, therefore, lie concerned with that phase ot tno question, but must assume that the magistrate's proceeding was judicial. At 2.30 p.m. the jury retired, and at 2.40 p.m. they returned to Court with a verdict of guilty. His Honour .said he was willing to admit tho prisoner to bail until the Court of Appeal could decide the point that had been raised. ~ , , . , Bail was subsequently found in tno sureties of .£2OO each.

CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD, TWO YOUNG MEN FOUND GUILTY. Two young men, Allan Moody and Harold Bronson, were (1J with conspiracy to defraud George Carson, and (J!) with'defrauding him ot M by means of falsa pretences, ill'. V. li. Meredith appeared for both accused, who pleaded not Ostler, in outlining tho case for tho CroA-n, explained that on January ,27 last Carson was a passenger on tho steamer- Mokoia from Dunedin to Auckland. The steamer was then lying at tho Queen's Wliarf, and, while Carson- was waiting on board, Moody came up and asked where he came from. Carson replied that he was going to Auckland, and Moody then said that ho was also a passenger bound for Auckland. While the two were engaged in conversation, Bronson came up, and as a result of further conversation, all three vent ashore, it being suggested that Carson should assist to bring some luggage aboard for Bronson. Subsequently they visited the Eiupire Hotel, and, in consequence of p plausible story told to Carson, the latter advanced the sum of <£i to Bronson, under the impression that Bronson required it to get his luggage groin the Empire Hotel, and that ho would return the sum to Carson on board tho, steamer 1 later in the afternoon. Both disappeared. and Carson journeyed to Auckland without 'them. On the same evening Detectives Andrews, Lewis, and Rawlo arrested Bronson and Moody at tho lhorndon Station just before tho Main Trunk express left for Auckland. Each of them had a single ticket to Auckland. Moody asked Detective Andrews to let him go, and he would return to Sydney, whence he came. Bronson said: "This is no good to me, I want to go to Sydney, too. Both afterwards denied the charges of conspiracy and false pretences. Five witnesses were called for the prosecution. Mr. Meredith called no'evidence for tho defence, but contented himself with addressing the jury. - At 4.12 p.m. tho jury retired, and after being absent for just. under half an hour returned with, a verdict of guilty on both counts. , His Honour said he would defer sentence for a couple of days. If the records that had been handed up to hini wero correct, Moody had been conviotcd eleven times in Australia, and Bronson once in Wellington and once in Sydney. This showed that they had not been doing much good, but still they were both young, and lie would consider what was 'the -most lenient 'treatment he could accord them.

ON THE CIVIL SIDE. . MISSING NEXT OF KIN. Missing next of kin of the late Jeremiah Gunson, of Smithbrook,.were responsible for the.. Supremo Court being applied to yesterday for a direction as to the distribution of deceased's estate. The plaintiff in the action was the Public s'nisteß, and the defendants were Thomas Atkinson CraUree, of Sehenectedy, New York State; Mary Jane Barton, of Bar-row-on-Furness; and Isabella. Coutts, of tt Mr. n 'j. W. Macdonald, solicitor to tho Public Trust Office, appeared for the Public Trustee, while Mr. A. H. Barnett appeared for the defendants. Jeremiah Gunson died intestate on January 10, 1901, and the Public beanie administrator of the estate, ihe throe defendants arc a nephew and two niece« of the deceased, whose estate had been divided into two parts-one for tho defendants and tho other for their unc e, John Hellon (a half-brother of the docensed). The cvidenco placed before the Court yesterday concerned John Holloa, who had be=n missing for ;nme years. Hi* Honour Mr. Justice Chapman directed that 'the estate be distributed 011 th- footing that John Hellon predeceased Jeremiah Gunson. His Honour directed also that Mr. Burnett's costs bo paid out or tho estate.

- ANOTHER. CASE. l)ufintr vfeiterday moriiiui? Mr. Justice Chapman heard an originating summons i-sucd liv (he Public Trustee as rulmimstrntor 0/ tho estate of the lute Alfred Olsen, camnter. of Kai Iwi. The do-, feudaiits were Nets Theodav Olson, ot Tallakshorn, and several others, who wcro relatives of tho defraud. 'jli' .T AV. Maedonald, solicitor- to the Public Trust Office. appeared for the Public Trustee. while tho Norwegian Consul (Mr. A. W. Newton) appeared for the defendants. , Alfred Olsen died on September 2, 1911, and tho Public Trustee is administering bis estate. All this brothers and sisters of d»censed died before him except one, Peiler Olsen (whose whereabouts are unknown), but some of them left issue (tlie defendant; in tlie preset case). Peeler when last known to the Norwegian Office, was in San irancisco, and had children, but for many years nothing had been heard of him. If he were alivß the distribution of deceaseds estate would bo in fourths, but if dead the distribution would bd among alt the chiKueu (nephews and nieces of the deceased). His Honour directed tho moneys-111 the estate to be paid to Mr. Newton on behalf of tho beneficiaries in Norway.