SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1990, 21 February 1914, Page 14

SUPREME COURT.

THE CLERK & THE CHEQUES.

DISHONESTY ADMITTED,

■ In the Supreme Court yesterday Alfred F>flmund Tomlinson, a clerk, formerly employed in Wellington by Messrs. Go,llin and Co., was charged with havWr fraudulently omitted to account for ■tho following sums:—(l) £100, forwarded irom the Kotuku Oilfields Syndicate to Barraud and Abrahams, Ltd., Dannevirke; (2) £50, from the Kotuku Syndicate to Gollin and C<j. ; (3) £100, Irom Kotuku Syndicate to L. S. Taylor; (4) £100, from the Kotuku .Syndicate to Barraud and Abraham, Ltd., Dannevirke; (5) £12 10s. from David .Tohn Nathan to Gollin and Co.; (G) theft of £23 los. from Gollin and Co. • (7) theft of £5 ss. 4d. from the British Imperial Oil Co. ' Tomlinson was further charged with having set fire to the books and papers of Gollin and Co., in the firm's premises, in Jervois Quay, on November 7, 1913. Air. T. JL Wilford appeared for the accused, and suggested that the Crown should accept a plea of guilty on the charges of taking money, and that proccediiißs in tho arson charge could be dropped. .' . His Honour the" Chief Justice (Sir Kobert Stoiit) advised the Crown to accept tho offer. He remarked that thb arson charge was not a strong one, and that the evidence was merely circumstantial. 'Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, who represented the Crown, replied that, in view of His Honour's observation, he would accept Mr. Wilford's suggestion. Tomlinson then pleaded guilty to the charges of dishonesty, and His Honour said that'he would defer sentence till Monday. Hβ added that, ho would then require to know what Tomlinson'e salary had been, and what the prisoner had done with his money." _Ur. Wilford: I will deal with that , on Monday. Your Honour will find that tnoro was no gambling/ drinking, or any of"those vices. . . '■

CIVIL BUSINESS. ; NEWSPAPER LIBEL CLAIM. .action for alleged libel, by the ■ New Zealand Times" • Co, Ltd against the Wellington Publishing Co!! Ltd., was .before the Supreme Court •Ksterday. -This was an application by •tho, defendant for the delivery of-inter-iroKatories. His Honour Mr. Justice .Hosking was on tho Bench. -Mr.-0 B. Morison, K.C., and Mr. M. Myers appeared in support of tlio applicatibn, and Mr. C, P. Skerrett, ILCi, opposed , On the previous day Mr. Skerrett had mentioned that there was' a possibility ot. tho second cause of ■ action bein* in which event an applica" j for interrogation could not be made. When-the- hearing of argument was resumed, yesterday, Mr. . Skerrett said that ho would amend the statement of claim by striking oiivthe secIV , i°ff ?/ ternati i> cause: of action. IJus lett the question- befofo tlio Court to bo. determined on a claim of general damages. -I ■ ■ ..His .eaid that it did not seem that this claim differed from any other libel action which might bo started. .Mr Morison then clrew attention to tno fact that the first cause of action contained #ie words. "The ■ "plaintiff company has thereby been greatly injured in business, credit, and reputation." . . His Honour said that "thereby" was a usual term in libel actions. Mr. Morison said that ."credit" was ambiguous, and asked whether "business I was a noun or an adjective, vlf were treated-as a noun, defendants, were entitled to interrogatories, but plaintiff declined to so treat the term. • His Honour, a little later, said that this, seemed to him to be. a very usual form of an,ordinaiy libel action. .Mr. Skerrafci; said that the question was one.of general'damage, and of general damage only, and therefoie •■ it would carry matters no further even if he answered the question as to whether "business" was a noun or an adjective. No evidence could be called except such as was .admissible on a question of general damage. Mr. Morison then said'that in these circumstances there, was no need ■ to trouble his Honour to further consider the matter..* ■ ' His Honour dismissed the summonn, with costs £3 3s. \ . . j

COURT ROTA. .' COMING CIVIL BUSINESS. At a sitting of the- Court held by his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert iStout) and his Honour Mr. Justice Hosking the following fixtures for civil matters were made:— ■• James St.ellin v. William Henry Fordam; salo of interest in partnership, February 24. Daniel Deo Hyde v. Ninin'a Heremaia, specific performance, February-25. Fleming Ross r. William Joseph Ferkins and others, £100 for work, February 23. ■ John Wallace Easson and Percy George Easson v. Walter Riley and others, £42 rent, February 27. "New Zealand Times Company, Limited, v.Wellingtoh Publishing Company, Limited, £3000. damages for alleged libel, March 5. . . Keith Alstead Izard v, Henry C. C. Wright and the Commercia 1 . Agency, Limited, rescission of contract, etc., March 9. ... Alexander Brodie v. Stanley Stamp Co.,'rescission of agreement, etc., March 3. . . .. John Latham v. James A. M'Gillivray v. Willbm Taylor, accounts, March 17. . Divorce matters will be commenced on February 26.