SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1872, 4 October 1913, Page 14

SUPREME COURT.

THE NOVICE Iff CRIMINAL WAYB. Walter Edward Tarrant, sawmillor, who bad pleaded guilty to forgery and attempting to utter, was brought up for sentence at tho Supremo Court yesterday' before Mr. Justice Chapman. Mr. Young, on behalf of accused, characterised this as one of the most stupid attempts at crime he had ever heard of. Accused, he said, was an ignorant, uncducatcd man, who had always been sober and industrious, and his lata employers were surprised that ho should bo mixed up with such an olteuce. ■ Accused had a clean record, and there was a favourable report from the probation officer. For some stupid reason, accused endeavoured to cash a cltequo which had not been actually forged, as the man whose name had been written in had not even-an account nt the bank. His Honour: That is forgery. Mr Young added that accused was being pressed for money, and in his ignorance thought this was a way of getting it. He was quite a novice, and did not know even the first principles of criminal practice. Edward Joseph Tossell, settler iu the Sounds district, who employed accused for two years up to six months ago, said accused was a straightforward and honosfc man, who did not drink. Mr. Young: Is he what you would call a dulfer? , Witness: Just an averago working man.

Frederick Saunders, builder, Wellington; who omployed accused "at Miramar for tho hfteen months previous to tho last witness, said that he was very" steady and industrious, and that lie was prepared to employ him again. air. Ostler (Crown Solicitor) said that according to the police report accused came to New Zealand from Tasmania in 1908. Ho had worked as labourer and sawmiller, and now had a small sawmill of his own. His excuse was that ho was short of money. Tho police had 110 rccord against him. His Honour, in sentencing accused, said that ho had dono a very stupid thing, and lie had somo difficulty in admitting. him to probation, bccause 110 had mo.ro than onco declined to so treat men brought beforo him for such an offenco, but his long-standing good character and tho fact that ho was not a

drinking man had induced him to relax his rule. Ho would have to pay os. per month for twolvo months towards costs of the prosecution, and would bo bound over for eighteen montli3. ESTATE AGENTS.

THE LEI DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. His Honour, Mr.. Justice Chapman, delivered judgment yesterday in the Supremo Court? iti t'lio caso llionia-s u. F. Marsden, estato agent, v. Harcourt and Company,' estate agents. The claim was for £123 for payment, of salary and commission: (£6b), and for. wrongfully delaying completion _ of a transaction, so as to conipleto it after the expiry of the special agreement, for which plaintiff claimed £52 10s., the amount of commission lost-. Defendants counter-claimed for money received and not paid over. At the hearing, the caso was adjourned in the absenco of the plaintiff's solicitor, and defendants' solicitor applied ex parte for tho removal of tho action into the Supremo Court on the ground that the claim was for over Plaintiff then dropped tho cause of action for £52 10s. and claimcd only £70 14s. 9d. Notice was then filed to have tho ox parte order sot aside, but His Honour held there wore soveral objections to,that. Tho defendants had availed themselves of their riglit, and had only to. attend and obtain an ordor wliicli tho judgo could not refuse. Ho therefore did not think they could bo deprived of their right, and tho motion would bo dismissed with l £4 4s. costs. . Mr. D. M. Findlay represented plaintiff, and Mr. W. J. Sim the defendant. APPEAL SUCCEEDS.'

QUESTION OF A SUB-CONTRACT. An appeal from a decision, of Mr. W. G. Biddell, S.M., was yesterday allowed in tho Supremo Court by His Honour, Mr. Justico Chapman, the parties concerned boing Georgo Edward Godber (judgment creditor), H. E. Manning, and another (judgment debtors) and Martin Chapman (sub-debtor). His Honour, in delivering judgment, said that £3(3 2s. was owing by Chapman to t])o contractor (Manning) .on a contract, and the sub-contractor (J. E. MacLachlan), a plumber, did certain plumbing work for the contractor whose claim arose in respect of the sub-con-tract. On March 18 Godber obtained judgment for £54 and £4 costs, and obtained an interlocutory attachment order against tho sum owing by subdebtor, not then knowing of any claim by tho sub-contrßctor. He served this detachment ordor on sub-debtor on March 31, and four days later tub subcontractor sorved upon tlie sub-debtor and Manning a claim upon tho debt of £36 2s. Godber admitted that MacLachlan had taken all necessary steps to onforco his claim as sub-contractor. On May 27 tlio latter issued a summons to onforco his oliarge, and the judgment creditor applied to havo his charging order mado absolute. Tho magistrate decided in favour of _ the latter, and it was from that decision that tho appeal was brought. His Honour now liold that tho right of the sub-contractor was an absolute charge, and that the work had progressed towards completion before the judgment 'creditor camo on tho sceno_. Tho appeal was allowed witli £5 ss. costs. At the hearing, Mr. Bunny represented appellant, and Mr. Young the respondent. ,