LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1860, 20 September 1913, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER COURT. FOUR HOURS WATCH IN TRUCK. TO CATCH SUSPECT. IDENTITY NOT ESTABLISHED. After a four hours' watch in a railway truck on September 8 two employees at tho Petone Railway Workshops got a view of a man iwhoin they believed was about to steal a quantity of brass, and yesterday morning William Mclntyro Finlayson appeared in tho Magistrate's Court charged with tho offence. After a rather interesting hearing, Mr. W. 6. Riddell, S.M., dismissed tho information on the ground that thero was a chaneo of mistaken identity. Finlayson was represented by Mr. T. M. Wilford, and the case for the prosecution was conducted by Chief-Detectivo Broberg. The brass, which was in a small sack, weighed 84 lb., and it was valued at £2 2s. It belonged to the State. Jarrett Jenkins, Workshops employee, was tho first witness. Ho stated that in conscquenco of something which ho had been told he decided to conceal himself in a waggon and watch whether anyono camo for a certain bag of brass which had been covered over with liorso hair. He was accompanied in this watch by another omployce, named Levy. They waited from about 5 p.m. till about 8.45 p.m.; and then a man camo and lifted tho bag. Witness called "Drop that," and the man let go the bundle, and got over the fence. It was a moonlit night. He was quito suro that Finlayson was tho man. Mr. Wilford: How many are working in the l'etono Workshops? Witness: About 583. 'How. many of them do you know by sight?—"l think I know about half." If 'you had a parade of the 688 men working in the shops could you identify them all? —"No." Or name then? —"No." Levy is very short-sighted, h he not? —"Not that I am aware of." Did tho man wear a cap or.a.hat? — "A round, hard hat." Dressed in dark or light clothes?— "A lightish jacket." ' What do you call light—mino compared with yours, or yours compared with Detective Broberg's ?—" Like yours." • Mr. Wilford (who was wearing light brown); Well, it was not mo. I can prove an alibi. Mr. Wilford: Have you ever read tho Adolph Beck case? Witness: Yes, part of it. Did you ever read the part covering where cloven men whose characters were perfect sworo to tho identity of Adolph. Beck ?—" No." And if I told you where this • man was on tho night in question would you still hold, to your opinion? You would not change your mind, would you?—" Not without very good reason."- • ■ John Joseph Levy, leading lifter in the Petone Workshops, stated that the man who picked up the bag of brass was Finlayson. Ho said that when Jenkins called, "Drop that," tho man went over tho gate liko a bird. Ho only saw the man s face onco when he' glanced back. Ho knew tho . man by tile little hard hat ho was wearing. Mr. Wilford: Did you tell Jenkins

what kind of hat the man was wearing? Witness: No. Did you ever discuss it with him?— " No." Are you sure? —"Yes." Now 1 want you to be careful. 1 have cross-examined Jenkins about this, and 1 want to cross-examine yon. Now, are y;ou sure you didn't discuss tliis hat with Jenkins?—"l am almost certain." Didn't Jenkins consult you as to the kind of hat the man wore? —"Perhaps he did." Now didn't Jenkins say to you: "1 am not certain what kind of hat tho man wore. Do you know?"— Witness: "Now you're coming at it. I remember it; ho did." Donald Budge, a lifter, deposed that on September 8 Fiiilaysou was in the boiler house when his work did not take him there, and shortly afterwards witness found tho bag of brass about fivo yards away. "Tho importance of this case," Mr. Wilford remarked in his opening address, " lies in tho fact that the accused is faco to faco with a mass of evidence which unless intelligently dissected may weave a chain of guilt round him." Mr. Wilford proceeded to tho dissection, after which he called Finla.yson and Mrs. Finlayson to givo evidence. ' ' Mrs. Finlayson, wife of the defendant, said that- she left home at 7.30 on the evening ot v Septembor 8 to go to the pictures. Her husband was then at liome, and he was in bed asleep when she returned at 10.30. Finlayson denied the offence, and said that he was not out of the house on tho evening of September 8. His Worship held that there seemed to bo a ohanco that a mistake had been made. Tho caso would bo dismissed, though it was a strongly suspicious 0110. IMPORTANT POINT. THE POWERS OF LOCAL BODIES. A point of somo importance was involved in tho Supreme Court caso yesterday of the Wellington City Council and the Miramar Borough Council v. the Attorney-General, an application for an originating summons under the Declaratory Judgments Act. Tho caso was heard by Mr. Justice Sim, in banco. Mr. J. O'Sliea (City Solicitor) appeared for tho Wellington City Council, Mr. V. E. Meredith for the Miramar Borough Council, and the Solicitor-General (Dr. J. W. Salmond, K.C.) for the AttorneyGeneral. • Under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, power is given to local bodies to enter into agreements with owners of property, whereby tho local body instals drainage into premises, the cost to be repaid by the owner in instalments, these instalments to bo recoverable as a rate. Tho practico has been for boroughs to assume that this gavo the right to recover from any persons holding an interest m the property, including first mortgages, in the samo manner in which they could recover ordinary rates under the Rating Act. By decision of tho Court of Appeal in tho caso of the Wellington City Council v. Gilmer and Maguiro, it had been decided that electric light charges wero recoverable only from tlio user, although the Act stated that it was recoverable as a rate. This decision had thrown di.ubt on tho position of moneys advanced for the installation of drainago under the drainage schemes above mentioned. This originating, summons was taken out to settle definitely tho point ap to whether drainago moneys are recoverable from all persons interested in a property, or are in tho same position as charges for electric light. Tho matter is one of considerable importance, because a good deal of public money has been expended in this way. If not given full security as in the case of ordinary rates, local bodies which

have advanced moneys would in many cases have slender security lor llio refund of moneys advanced. His Honour said that tho question was an important one, and traversed matters which, had heen already discussed at length, and decided by tho Court of Appeal. It was not right, therefore, that tho matter should be decided by one Judge. After some discussion', his Honour ordered that the case bo removed into tho Court of Appeal. It- was agreed that the Public Trustee be added as a defendant, to represent the interest of mortgagees in Wellington and Miramar. REMOVAL ORDER. AX APPEAL AGAINST IT. His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman, sitting in banco, hoard a motion to rescind ail order made by the Magistrate's Court for tho removal of the action between Thomas W. F. Marstlen, estato agent, and llarcoiirt and Co., estate agents, both of Wellington, from that Court into tho Supreme Court. Mr. D. M. Findlay represented tho plain: tiff, and Mr. W. J. Sim tho defendant company. Tho plaintiff had claimed from the defendants, in an amended statement of claim, tho sum of £70 14s. !)d., earned by him as wages and commission when he was manager of tho country estato department of tho defendants' business. Tho defendants had counter-claimed for £36 18s. 6d., which was alleged to liavo been received by tho plaintiff on their behalf, and not paid over to them. On August 29, an order was mado removing tho caso from the Magistrate's Court into the Supremo Court. It was this order against which the appeal was lodged. Tho motion was made on tho grounds that tho order had been mado ex parte, after tho amount of tho claim had heen reducod by the amended statement of claim, of which the defendants' solicitor had had sufficient notice. His Honour reserved his decision. AM APPEAL. RE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION. An appeal from a decision of Mr. W. G. Iliddell, S.M., delivered in tho Wellington Magistrate's Court, was heard by Mr. Justice Chapman. Tho decision appealed against was delivered o.'i August 14 last, in an action between George E. Godber (plaintiff) and H. E. Manning and Harry Howo (defendants), and M. Chapman (sub-debtor). Tho Court had granted the plaintiff an attachment order directing tho sub-debtor to pay to the plaintiff the sum of £36 25., duo on a judgment obtained by tho plaintiff" against the defendants. Tho magistrate held that an attachment order was in tho same position as an assignment by tho contractor, and lie was bound by tho decision of tho Supremo Court that such an assignment took precedence of the sub-contractor's claims. He therefore made the attachment order absolnto for amount due, £36 2s. Tho question raised on appeal was whether tho magistrate was right in deciding that a judgment creditor (not being a person claiming under tho Wages Protection and Contractors' Lions Act, 1908) was entitled to attach moneys iii priority to -tho claim of a sub-contractor. Mr. E. P. Bunny appeared in' support of the appeal, and Mr. T. Goring for the plaintiff. His Honour reserved his decision. DISPUTED V/ILL. Mr. Justice Chapman was also engaged in tho hearing of a will ease. Tlio plaintiff was Emma Thaiu Claridge, Mid tho defendant Flora C'assio Estall, oxccutrix of tho will of tho lato Robert Estall, settler, of Wellington. Tho plaintiff, who is a daughter of the tes-

tator. applied for an order under the Family Protection Act, 190P, making such provision as tho Court might think adequate or lit for her proper maintenance. It was stated that the testator died on November 10, 1912. He left his estate, valued at £.1607, to his widow (the. defendant in the present action), with the exception of £30, which went to the Convalescent Homo. The plaintiff. who is the only daughter of a former marriage, is a married woman of 00 years of age. Sir. T. Neavo appeared for plaintiff. Mr. T. Young for the defendant, and Mr. E. F. Hadfiold for tho Convalescent Home. His Honour reserved decision. THE QUARREL. MATTER BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS. Trouble between Mclroso residents was indicated in an application for sureties of the peace by Joseph AA alker, a Harbour Hoard employee, against Thomas Council, an expressman. AValker and Mrs. Walker alleged that Council frequently swore at them,_ mado faces at them, and otherwise offended them. Ono of tho' specific incidents was set down as having happened on Sunday, September 7. On this morning Council was alleged to have sworn at Walker, and threatened to rido over him. Connell denied this, and said that Walker swore at him and threw stones at him. His Worship intimated that hqy-.was satisfied that there had boon provoking language used by tlio defendant; but ho dismissed tho matter, because ho was not satisfied that Walker was afraid of being grievously harmed, which was tlio ground stated in tho application. Tho matter was dismissed without prejudice. Messrs. T. M. Wilford and P. W. Jackson appeared for Walker,- and Mr. J. J. M'Grath for Connell. •' OTHER CASES. Edward Rosenberg was fined 55., with costs 75., for having ridden a bicycle at night without a light. _ As tho persons, responsible for stock found at largo, Frederick Biggs was convicted and discharged; Charles Bethell was fined os., with costs 135.; Henry Evans, is., and 135.; Emil J. Johansson, os., and 75.; and Samuel Bradnock, os. and 7s. Francis Goldingham and Robert Davidson, who did not drivo motor-cars on the correct -side of tho road, were each fined 10s., with costs 7s. , T. O'Brien was fined os. for not keeping a standing vehicle parallel with tile footpath. Prohibition orders wero issued against James Walmsley and William Stevens. For failure to attend drill, Robert James liallantyno was fined 55., with costs 7s. - Albert Robinson was sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment for the'theft ,of 951b. of brass, valued at £1 155., belonging to Arthur Dodd. CIVIL ACTION. CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. On August 29, Squire Burrows, an elderly glazier, was knocked over and injured by a motor-cycle ridden by Jack "Wells Bond, a commercial traveller. Burrows alleges that this was due to negligent and unskilful driving on tho part of Bond, from whom he claims £55 2s. in compensation. The caso was heard by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., yesterday, when Bond set up as a dofonco that tho accident was duo to negligenco on the part of Burrows. Mr. J. F. W. Dickson represented the plaintiff, and Mi». H. E. Evans tho defendant. Decision was reserved.