SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2307, 14 November 1914, Page 11

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS

/ SERIOUS CRIMES PROVED

The oriininal sessions of the Supreme Court were continued before His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking yesterday morning. Mr. P. S. It. Maeassey, of the Crown Law .Office, represented tho Crown. Addresses to the jury were delivered in the case of Lewis James. Hocking, who was placed in the dock on the previous day, to answer three charges of carnally knowing a girl under the age of 10 years. The court had been cleared for the hearing of the case. After a brief retirement, the jury returned a verdict of guilty: His Honour intimated that sentence would be passed on the prisoner on Monday morning. A CHEQUE FOR £15. Sutherland Murray Donald Grant, a middle-aged man, describing himself as a dealer, was charged with tho theft of a cheque drawn on the Bank of New Zealand for the sum of £15. The theft was alleged to have taken place on the day following the winter race meeting at Wellington, the cheque being the property of Daniel Sullivan, a fanner, of Te Kuiti. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. According to the evidence for the prosecutiou, : Sullivan met Grant at tha Adelphi Hotel in- AVillis Street on the day following the winter race meeting. Grant agreed to cash a cheque for £15 for Sullivan, but disappeared wit'h the cheque, and did not return to Sullivan or send the latter any money in return for the cheque. Grant . was traced through having cashed the cheque with James Stellin, and was subsequently ariested in Christchurch by Detective Ward. AVhen charged with tho theft of the cheque, Grant told Detective AA'ard that he (.Grant) had not been in Wellington for nine months. Evidence for the defence was given by the accused and by Robert Cook, solicitor, of AVellington. The accused's story was that the cheque was given to him by Sullivan in consideration of money advanced to Sullivan at different times during the same day, when they were in each other's company for a considerable time, visiting numerous hotels.

Under cross-examination, Grant admitted having been convicted in Christchurch on. a charge of false pretences, but denied that he had ever been arrested in Auckland.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner was remanded until Monday for sentence. . . . CIVIL SESSIONS. — r LIST OF CASES. His: Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) will preside at a Chamber sitting of tho Supreme Court at 10 o'clock this morning, when the civil list will be called over and. the order of cases fixed. The following cases are on the list for hearing at the coming civil sessions:— Before a Judge Alone. . Wellington City. Corporation v. J. J. Curtis and Co., Ltd., claim for £231 (remanet). , E. AV. Seaton and Hubert Sladdeu v. Miramar Junction Land' C 0,,. Ltd., olaim for £307 12s. 5d., alleged to' be duo for work done (remanet). John Eli Ellis v. Stevens and Co., claim for £450 damages (remanet). Rangi Matanei and others v. Karira Tahuaroa and tlie. District Land Registrar of Marlborough, claim for an injunction (remanet). James I'rouse and Richard Prousev.' Matai* Sawmills Co., Ltd., claim for £500 for alleged breach of agreement. Charles Ernest Hickey v. Clement Mason Kinematograph Co., Ltd., claim for £177 alleged to bo owing, George AVilliam Hean v. Charles Edgar Fearon and others, claim for. injunction, etc. ' Frank A 7 ictor Raymond v. Richard Keene, claim for execution of conveyance,' etc., and counter-claim for £276 alleged to be due as balance of purchase money,-' etc. Frank Charles Farrow v. Louis Henry Hoare, claim for £2000 alleged to be due.

Bank of New South Wales v. James Drysdnle, claim for £3634 10s. -Id. alleged to be owing. Publio Trustee v. Jens Boisen Dettefsen Koch, claim for possession of land, «tc.

Arthur Daniel Kennedy v. M. Jansen, claim for specific performance and £200 damages. Frederick Henry Futter v. Charles James Futter and Walter Coombs Futter, claim for specific performance:

• Before a Special Jury of Twelve. Lucinda Caldwell ,v. tho Union Steam Ship Company,, claim for £2000 damages alleged to be due on account of negligence (re-trial). Before a Common Jury of Twelve. Elizabeth AVillis v. Alan George Wells, claim for £1000. for alleged breach of contract of marriage. Before a Common Jury of Four, Daisy Elizabeth Platts-Mills v. the AVellington City Corporation, claim for £307 12s. lid., damages alleged to be due on account of injuries. Nicholas Abbott and Philip Lowry v. J. W. Jones and E. H. Jones, claim for' £350 alleged to be owing. Charles Pratt v. the' Northern Assurance Company, claim for £250 . alleged' to be clue under a, policy; ' IN DIVORCE, Before a Common. Jury of Twelve. Caroline Anderson v. J. R. M. Anderson; James Jackson v. Martha Jaokson; William Percy 'Salmon v. Flora Fanny Salmon. Before a Judge Alone. ■ Henry George Smith v. Ada Smith; Louisa Mary Trudgeon v. John Trudgeon; Marcus AVilliam Gordon v. Alico Gordon; AValter Pereival Pines v. Minnie Pines; Sarah Ann Hawes v. Albert Hawes; Mary Ann M'lntosli v. Thomas Maxwell M'lntosh; _ Edward Renata Broughton v. Rangia'poa Broughton and Jacob Utiku; Edith Ellen Smith v. Clarence Smith. v