SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1831, 18 August 1913, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

TOUR I'ItTSONKUS SENTBXCED. Hia Honour tho Chief J list ice (Sir Robert Stout) had (our prisoners before Mm iu tho Supremo Court on Saturday for nontoiico.

'J'IIKFTS I'll OS) HOTEL. In defenre of a man named Norman Charles William-, who was charged with theft from a dwelling, Sir, I'. \V. Jackson pleaded that accused was only 20 years of age.

His Honour: Surely ho is old enough to have cut his wisdom teeth and to know what stealing is? Mr. Jack son explained that accused had be;n drinking in iho bedroom of two men staying at tho same hotel as himself, and seeing a wallet under a- pillow had taken it ami had then searched the men's clothes for further money. The total thefts amounted to .IS odd. It was a ea<-e of suddenlv succumbing to temptation.

His Honour: The other two men were members of tho Permanent Force. I don't understand wliv they should, have been drinking like this. Mr. Jackson mentioned ihat .£.3 Is. of tho money had been recovered.

Ifis Honour remarked that the accused did not seem to require much education in regard to stealing, as when he was a lies' od he dropped some of the money and had a sovereign in his mouth. He would, however, be given another chance, and would be granted twelve months' probation. He would have to pay the costs of the prosecution within six months, and would have to keep out of hotels altogether. The money found on him would bo returned to tho owners, who, owing to the -circumstances of the affair, would have to sue for the balance.

THE RESULT OF GAMBLING. A jeweller's manager named Arnold Ashworth Binns, who had admitted 13 charges of theft, was defended by Sir. Wilford, who pleaded that accused had been gambling heavily, and had stolen jewellery from Sir. Lloyd, his employer, and pawned it to pav" his debts. Tho total loss to Sir. Lloyd was <£8(i. but that morning a draft of .£IOO had b?en cabled from accused's people at Home to pay the amount. If the accused were given another opportunity, Mr. Lloyd would take him back in hie employ. His Honour said lis would take until Monday morning to consider how he would deal with the accused. A DIFFICULT CASE. "I hardly know what to do with you," suid Chief Justice Sir Robert Stout, when Herbert Thomas Porteous came before him for sentence on three charges of forgery and uttering, his Honour adding: "You have apparently had'a good character, nothing being known against you until your sudden outburst, of crime this month." His Honour further remarked that the prisoner had already been sentenced to a month's imprisonment on each of three charges of theft (the terms to l>e concurrent); and had apparently fallen through drink. Probation was impossible, but tho prisoner would be dealt with leniently and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, to be concurrent on tho sentence now being served.

' "CAUSED THROUGH DRINK." John Coulter, at present serving a. term for theft, was sentenced to another six months' imprisonment cn a charge of theft from a. dwelling. "This is another ease of drinking," remarked his Honour. "As I have said before, fully two-thirds of the cases that come before me aro directly or indirectly causcd through drinli." A WIDOW'S INCOME. WILL CONSTRUED. On Saturday the Full Bench of the Supreme Court delivered .judgment in connection with an originating summons to determine the construction of the will of Arthur Albert Fantii-am, of Hawera, farmer, deceased. When the ease was heard there were on tho bench their Honours tho Chief Justicej(Sir ltobert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Sim. The plaintiff was decra-so-d's widow, Mary Fantham, and tho defendant' tho Public Trustee, of the will.. The late Arthur Albert Fantham died on January 18, 1901. The will directed i'ho trustee to pay the widow during her widowhood an annuity of A'3o9, the sur-

plus income, until the youngest child attained 21 years, to be invested, and then u sufficient sum set asido to provide an annual incomo of .£3OO. .On the widow's death or' marriage tho principal sum set aside to produce her annual income was to bo divided among the testator's children. In tho early years of tho adminis-' tuition tho income was insufficient to pay ■£300, and the widow now asked for an order—(l) Whether her annuity was charged only on tho annual income? (2) Whether it was a continuing chargo on income, so as to Ijc made -up in subsequent years? (3) Whether it was a charge or corpus ? In his judgment, his Honour held that the plaintiff had apparently'received her, annual income in full from September,

1912. She was entitled to receive it m full from tliel income of tho testator's estate since the realisation of the testators lands in October, 1911. With this addi-tion,-the account must bo taken in, the manner indicated. The plaintiff would have her costs to be taxed as between solicitor and client out of the corpus of the testator's estate. Mr. D. M. Findlay, with hi in Mr, 0. E. Stout, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J W. Macdonald (solicitor for the Public Trust Office) for the Public Trustee.