LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2312, 20 November 1914, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE : — / ATTEMPTED MURDER THE TRAGEDY AT CLYDE QUAY Imprisonment with hard labour for the term of his natural life was the sentence passed by His. Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday morning on the prisoner William Amos Mullins, who had been found guilty on Tuesday of attempting to murder his wife, and who ■ had afterwards pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted suicide. The crime was committed at 102 Clydo Quay on the of August 13, when Mullins twice shot his' wife with a revolver and then discharged two bullets at himself. ■ Sir-. C. V. Goulter, who appeared for the prisoner, said that before sentence Was passed, lie would like to emphasise three small poiijts. First there was nothing previously known against Mullins —— His Honour: How could anything be known against him when he has only been, in the country twelve months? ■ Mr. Goulter said that at all events he had no record here. Ho had never been anything but a hard-working man, and there was 110 suggestion of his being addicted to drink. Counsel had heard for the. first time last evening that the prisoner's brother had died in a mental hospital at Home. His Honour (to Mr. H. H.' Ostler, tho Crown 'Prosecutor): Do you know anything about him?

Mr. Ostler replied that although there could be no doubt that the man was sane in the legal sense there was something peculiar about him. The gaol, surgeon had described him as feeble-minded.. Dr. Gribben, Inspector of Hospitals, and Dr. EL Hard-wick-Smith, - medical superintendent of the Wellington Hospital, had both pronounced him sane. A police report, containing statements by Mrs. Mullius, had been furnished and .counsel handed this .to His Honour. ' After perusing the Veport, His Honour said: "This shows he is not insane, but on the' contrary, bad—very bad. There may be a strain, of insanity." Then to the prisoner His Honour remarked: "It is perfectly plain to me, prisoner at the . Bar, that I would not be performing my duty to fclie community, if I were to pass any Sentence which would'allow you to be at large. It was,, not a sudden outburst against your wife that led to tho crime, but.you procured the revolver and a great- number of cartridges, which have all been accounted for. You twice shot your' wife—a bullet is still in her head and it may mean her 'death—and then you yourself twice,' and fired another bullet which had no effect. I 1 do not think 1 can do anything but 'pass one sentence. . Whether the Crown, in its clemency, may afterwards see its way to release you.is a matter entirely for tho Crown. Toilet you go free would be to risk tho life'of the community. The sacredness- 'of human life is the basis of civilisation, ahd, if it loses that, ,it goes to perdition. The-sentence of' the' Court, must be that you be- imprisoned with hard labour for tho term of •your.natural life." ....

' Oil the charge ,of 'attempted l suicide', the prisoner was ordered, to come up for sentence when called upon.

NO CLAIM TO CONSIDERATION. .. John Ryan, who 011.the previous "Jay. ha l been found guilty of receiving stolen, property (a watch and £25 in mci.ey),- was then placed in the'.Jock' for sentence. His counsel (Mr. J?. \Y. Jackson) stated that this was lAvn'rs first offence, and it was submitted tfiatho_was not one of the criminal class,, although lie had allowed himself to. dnft into verv bad company. In thosecircumstance*, His Honour mignt fcu .his way to treat tho prisoner eiiien;ly. His Hon'oa'r said he had already passed a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment on. thR woman responsible for tiio theft. ' There was no redeeming feature aboui; ,the prisoner's case. He hid behaved badly towards the 'woman (with whom ho had been living), nilr.win,< her to risk punishment because he wanted money, and in Court lb had. sei. up false testimony. He had therefore 110 claim to any consideration. His character,was bad, and he had 'leen pievirusly, convicted for sly grog-selling in: the King Country. In view, however, of the prisoner's.age, His Honour would not impose tin maximum penalty (seven years). The:-sentence of the -Court would be that he be imprisoned for two years with hard labour. . An .order was made that the sujn of £1 os., found on the prisoner • at the time of his arrest, should be handfed '.o the prosecutor (one Sydney Moore). , FALSE PRETENCES. Hearing was continued of. the, case in which sjx charges of false pretences were preferred against a young man named James Vipond Millican, who was defended l by Mr. P. W. Jackson. The' cha'rges .referred to the issue of valueless cheques. They covered-a period from August 22 to October 17, and represented a total amount of £16. The jury, after a brief retirement, re-, turned a verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy .

His Honour concurred in the , jury's finding and promised to give effect to the recommendation. The prisoner had, said his Honour, acted like an idiot. He would be remanded for sentence until Saturday morning.

IN'DIVORCE .1 ____

UNDEFENDED CASES, Several undefended divorce cases were dealt with in the Supreme Court yesterday by liig honour Mr. Justice Hoskrng. Mary Ann M'lntosh sought dissolution of her marriage with Thomas Maxwell .M'lntosh on the ground of desertion. The parties were married at the Registry Office in March, 1891, and lived 'together at Lower Hutt. There were' five children of. the marriage, three living. In.. 1906 petitioner obtained a separation order against her husband on the ground of drunkenness and cruelty, and respondent was ordered to contribute! towards the maintenance of his wife and children. Sinco 1907 he had failed, to comply, with the order. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared'for the petitioner.

The case of Edward Renata Broughton v. Rangiapoa Broughton and Jacob Utiku was adjourned in tho morning as his Honour had before him no proof of service on the co-respondent. Mr. A. F. A.vson appeared - for tho petitioner, and Mr. H. E. Evans for the respondent. The case was called again in the attornoon, when tho _ necessary proof of service was forthcoming. The petitioner, a Native interpreter, stated that he was married to the respondent at Rata in May, 1900. He left liov on account of a disagreement'about April, 1909, retiirnnti to her in December, 1910, and left her again in December, 1911. Since then he had not lived with hor. There was one child of the Latterly respondent had been living in Welling-

ton with the co-respondent. His Honour, after hearing corroborative evidence, granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute at the expiration- of three months.

Misconduot was the ground on which Edith Ellen Smith sought divorce from Clarence Smith, to whom she was married on October 6, 1909. Since the date of tho marriage the parties had lived at Johnsonville qjid Wellington, but they had been separated for a couple of years past. Evidence as to the respondent's misconduct having been tendered, His Honour granted a decree nisi on tho usual terms. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the petitioner. Sarah Ann Hawes*, • for whom Mr. E. K. Kirlccaldie .appeared, prayed that her marriage with Albert Hawes should bo dissolved on the ground of misconduct, desertion, and failure to maintain. The parties were married at Otfllci in 1899, but had not lived together for more than a few days, as respondent was a seafaring mail. They had never set up a home, and respondent had never maintained her since 1900. A decrce nisi, to be made absolute in three months, was granted. Habitual misconduct, with divers unknown persons; .was the ground on which Walter Percival Pines sought divorce from' Minnie Pines. Mr. H. F.' O'Leary, who. appeared for the petitioner, led evidence to show that the parties were, married at tho Registry Office, Wellington, on January 18, 1912. but only lived together for about four weeks. Police witnesses testified to .the' bad record of the respondent, and His Honour granted a decreo nisi, to be made absolute in; three months. CIVIL BUSINESS. In the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking .heard a motion by defendants to vary the judgment in the case of Hague v. the Norwich and London Insurance Co., Ltd., a claim (heard in Wellington in June last; for £263 16s. 7d., under an accident policy. Mr. A. A. S. Monteath appeared in support of the motion, while Mr. G. H. Fell appeared for the plaintiff.

After hearing legal argument, His Honour said he would confer with the other Judges in Wellington before giv-. ing a' decision.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

CIVIL'BUSINESS CLAIM FOR OVERTIME Claims for overtime wages were heard before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday when Eva Winks and Annie Mason, waitresses, sued William Young, restaura'nteur, for £3 ,14s. and £5 ,17s.' 4d. respectively, being, it was alleged, the amounts payable to plaintiffs /by defendant in respect to overtime. Mr. E. J. Fitzgibboii'appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. J J. M'Grath for defendant. Both waitresses were employed by defendant in his private, hotel in Lamb-, ton Quay,' and both claimed the overtiriie as due under tho Shops and Offices Act. .

■ The hearing of the case occupied, the whole day, and at the conclusion the Magistrate nonsuited "plaintiffs on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the actual hours worked. Costs were not allowed. Mr. Fitzgibbon asked for leave to appeal, but was refused. VARIOUS CLAIMS. Clias. Begg > and Co., Ltd., proceeded against Madge llayner, the wife of Hy. R-ayner, for the return of a piano and 16s.- Judgment was given for the amount claimed and possession, and costs £4 Cs. The same company proceeded against Jas. M'Kay for recovery of a piano and £20. Judgmont was given,. for the return of the piano with costs £3 lis. In the case of E. E. Clay v., C. 11. Hopping, defendant was ordered ! to pay plaintiff the sum of £30 15s. 6d., by instalments of £1 per month. DEFAULT DEBTORS' LIST., Judgment was'given by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., for plaintiff by default in the following undefended civil cases: W_. and J. Grey and Son v. G. Halliday, £5 costs.23s, 6d.; Wellington Drivers' union v. George Richardsj £1 35., costs ss.] Smith and Smith, Ltd.,- v. Kerr and Wallace, Is., - costs 175.; James A. Ryan v. Jas. Pridmore, £13 6s. 3d., costs £1 10s. 6d. j Novelties', Ltd.", v. N. Nielsen, £1 16s:j costs 13s. ; Bray Bros. v. AV. Kemp, £5 2s. 6d;, costs ,235. 6d.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., v; W. and E. Brocklebhnk, £14 3s. 'lid., costs.£l 10s. 6d.: 6ame v. John O'Neil, . £24 ,12s. Id., costs £2 '14s. ;■ Public Trustee v. Jas. Tlios. Steele; £11 25., costs £1 13s. 6d.; Adalino Teresa Ludwig : ,v. Francis Gomez, £9 65., costs £1 ss] 6d.; Ernest' Dyer 'v. George Cowen,' £3 16s. 6d., costs 10s.- . ,

, JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. | Clias. Te Koroneho was ordered to .pay Cole, Crump, and Cundy ,£1 45.. 5d.,. by December 4, in default -48 hours' gaol; Michael Sweeney was ordered to pay D. L. Clay £13 j6s; 6d., by December 3, in default 14 days' gaol, warrant to be suspended on payment of 10s. per month. ' POLICE/CASES. Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., dealt with the police cases. ' An old offender, Bryda Sheehan, waß fined £l or three days for drunkenness, and sentenced'to two months' gaol for being an idle and disorderly person with insufficient lawful means of support.

Robert Dowries Kelsall was fined £3 or one month's gaol for using obscene language. For drunkenness . Michael Gregory was sent to gaol for a : month, Wm, Connolly fined £2 or seven days, Thomas Watson £1 or three days, and Andrew Saulter fined 10s. or 48 hours. Two first' offenders >were dealt with. One, a prohibited person, was- fined £1 or three'days. '