SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1821, 6 August 1913, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

without leaving tho box. His Honour directed that tho prisoner bo discharged. CIVIL CASE. NONSUIT IS REFUSED. Mr. Justice Cooper yesterday delivered judgment 011 a nonsuit point that had been raised in tho caso of Ellis brothers v. Hodder and Tollcy, heard at Palmorstoai North some tiino D£o. Tho main, action was for damages for breach of contract in connection with u deal in grass seed. Evidence had been heard and Ilia Honour had reserved for argument a nonsuit point raised by tho defendants that they were entitled to reject tho grass seed because plaintiffs were unable to supply the full amount ordered. Written arguments were forwarded to his Honour for consideration. Yesterday his Honour dismissed the nonsuit point, but did not givo judgment on the main action, as an agreement will probably bo arrived at. Plaintiffs were, however, awarded posts on the middle scale ns oil a claim for J2250, with extra days, ctc. His Honour acknowledged his indebtedness to counsel for the written arguments, which he said were marked by ability on both sides. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., appeared for tho plaintiffs yesterday, whilo Mr. M. llyexs appeared for the defendants.

SENTENCES & CRIME TRIALS, LAWYER ON POLICE,

REMARKS THAT WERE CUT .SHORT. Criminal cases at the Supreme Court were continued yesterday. His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman occupiod the Bcncli, and Mr. P. S. K. Macassey represented the Crown. Before further trials were proceeded with, two prisoners were placed in the dook for sentence. A youth named Sydney Oscar Thomos who had pleaded guilty at Woodvillo to theft of a postal packet was first brought forward. Mr. T. M. Wilford (instructed by Mr. E. J. Gothardj appeared' to speak on the prisoner's behalf. Mr. Wilford stated that Thomas had first opened the packet out of curiosity. He vas unable to replace the contents and had put thpm into his pocket, intending to get rid of them. He asked his Honour to deal leniently with the youth. • His Honour pointed out that in connection with those offences one could never toll who might bo blamed if tho real offender woro not discovered. It was not customary to admit to probation postal officials who were found guilty of a breach of trust. In this case, however, he (his Honour) was disposed to tako a lenient view. On account of prisoner's youth he would bo given a chance and ordered to como up for sentence when called upon, a condition being that ho should pay .£5 towards the cost of the prosecution. HOTEL THIEF. SENTENCE ON PERCY FABIAN. ■ Percy Alfred Fabian handed up a written statement to tho Judge from the dock. On tho previous day ho had been found guilty of stealing articles 'of wearing opparel from soveral city hotels. His Honour remarked that the prisoner mado mention of being a member of a respectable family, and also referred to his wife and mother. Had ho been doing anything for his wifo and mother? Mr.' Macassey remarked that it was this that prisoner cam© of a respectable family, but from what could be gathered ho had not dono much recently for his wifo and "family. His Honour did not consider that this was a case for probation, but it might bo a matter for the Prisons Board to deal with later on. What his Honour proposed to do now was to order Fabian to be detained for two years for reformative treatment. An order was mads for tho. return of the stolen goods to the owners on condition that the latter compensated the second-hand dealers for the money paid by them when purchasing tho goods. INTELLECT WEAK. THE JURY. RECOMMEND MERCY. Albert Dowses, 24 years of age, was charged with. - indecently . assaulting a little, girl at Masterton. on Juno 6. Mr. W. Porry appeared for prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. The Court was cleared during the hearing. Tho jury retired at about 12.15 p.m. to consider their verdict. After being absent for half, an hour, they returned, and the foroman announced that they were of opinion that-the prisoner was of weak intellect. ■ . His Honour: It is very likely. But I doubt if there is anything to suggest that he does not understand the nature and quality of his act. Nothing of the sort has been suggested. I tlnnk that it is very likely that he is of weak intellect, "but not to' the extent of insanity. That is to be considered when lie is being dealt with.. The jury again, retired, and returned at 2.40 p.m., with, a verdict of "guilty," with-a. strong recommendation to mercy on the ground that the prisoner-was of. weak intellect. His Honour stated'that he would take the jury's recommendation into consideration. He did not propose to deal with Dowries at that stage, but would remand him for observation, by the gaol surgeon. It was difficult, to, know what to do with eases'which lajr between' criminal tendency and insanity. They could scarcely be treated as cases of insanity. Probably in the .present instance the, doctor's report would result'in the prisoner being detained for reformative treatment. JOCKEY'S JEWELLERY, COUNSEL CHECKED BY BENCH. A young man, named . James Henry Sargeant, alias Graham, alias Waiters, was. charged yesterday afternoon' with breaking and entering by night with intent to commit a crime. There were alternative counts of theft of jewellery, valued at .£75, and receiving stolen property. Mr. C. V. Goulter appeared for Sargeant, who pleaded not guilty. ■' Tho Crown Prosecutor, in opening tho case, explained that the burglary referred to in the charge had occurred at the residence of ,the well-known jockey, Charles Jenkins, at Heatherlea, Levin, on Sunday, April 13. Mr. Jenkins had retired, to bed about 10 o'clock at night, leaving his watch,, chain, and pendant in his clothes at the end of his bed. Ho was disturbed by some noiso during the night, and subsequently discovered that his jewellery was missing. The accused (Sargoant). was known.to havo been working in a flaxmill in the district about that time. Later, lie was proved to have pledged some of tie articles with different pawnbrokers in Wellington. He also gave one of tho articles (a watch) to a man, named Whitaker, to pledge. One of the witnesses for the prosecution was Detective Abbott. During his cross-examination by Mr. Goulter, tho latter said that, if the detective wero a' fair-minded man, he would say that statements, mado by the accused as to how he (accused) became possessed of the watch were, practically correct. His Honour: They are practically incorrect, I should 6ay. On the vory point where they should be correct they are incorrect. - Mr. Goulter: I am sorry that your Honour takes that view of it. A little later, Mr. Goulter asked the witness if he did not "bounce" tho accused. . Detective Abbott: No. Mr. Goulter: No, the police never do! Again and again in this Court His Honour: Mr. Goulter, please do not refer to such things before this Court. I will not allow such observations. Mr. Goulter: It is certainly very annoying His Honour: I do not caro whether it is annoying or not. Examine the witness or leave him alone. Mr. Goulter: I will leave him alone since ho will not answer tho questions. Detectivo Abbott (to his Honour): I do not think that is a proper remark. nis'Honour: It is a very improper remark. ' . The accused did not go into the witnessbox, but called one witness, James Whitaker. The jury retired at 4.20 p.m., and after : 50 minutes deliberation returned with a verdict df guilty on the charge of receiving stolen goods. Sentenco was deferred until tliis morning. Arising out of tho previous chaTgo, James Whitaker, a cook by occupation, was charged with receiving a watch from i Sargeant. -well foiowinp; it to have boon stolen.' Whitaker pleaded not imilty, and was defended by Mr. C\ V. Goulter. i It was proved that Whitaker had en- i deavouml to raiso a loan on tho watch at ; the shop of Mr. Walter Smart, ond had ' been arrested as the result of that endeavour. In his evidence, the accused 1 admitted receiving tho watcli from Sar- - ceant, but pleaded that he had done so in good faith, and under the impression that tho watch was Sargeant's own property, 1 The hearing concluded o.t 5.30 p.m.. /uid f tho jury returned a verdict of not guilty, 1