SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2463, 17 May 1915, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

END OF THE CRIMINAL SESSION

PRISONERS SENTENCED

-His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Egbert Stout) passed sentence in the Supreme Court on v Saturday morning.on several prisoners, against whom convictions had been recorded at the recent criminal sessions. Mr. V. 1?. Meredith, of the Crown Law Office, represented the Crown. Henry Morgan Dwyer, 42 years of age, whd had, early in the week, been found guilty on a ollargo of indecently assaulting a little girl at Oriental Bay, was represented, by Mr. H. F. Ayson, who asked His Honour to take into consideration the prisoner's previous good character, and the foot that lie had been in gaol for some time awaiting trial. , His Honour Temarked that tne prisoner's fall was undoubtedly due to alcohol. A sentence of four years' detention for reformative treatment was imposed.

A MISSING MAIL BAG. 1 A. seafaring' man, named. James An(hwe, formerly employed on Ei.M.b* t>orinthio, handed a written statement to His Honour when asked if ne liad anything to say as to why sentence should not be passed on him for receiving stolen, goods—portion of the contents of a missing mail bag. In the statement* the oner maintained that he was innocent of the orime of which he had been convicted. His Honour informed the prisoner that theft from a. ship had always been Viewed T>y the Courts as a serious offence, and was punishable by a sentence of 14 7cut 5 imprisonment, while the crime of r(X:Qiviiirr goods stolen from a ship rendered the receiver liable to Seven years' imprisonment. As the prisoner was, however, still a young man and had no previous conviction, His Honour would deal leniently with him. Andrews was sent to gaol for 18 months, with hard labour. ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO ROB. John Dttlton, Alexander Robinson, and William Tyler had been convicted by a jury of assault with intent to rob, the crime being the outcome of an occurrence at the rear of Barrett's Hotel on April 10. Eobinson had nothing to say as to why sentence should not bo passed, but Dalton pleaded for leniency, and Tylef handed up a written statement in which, he also asked for leniency. / _ His Hononr said there was no doubt as to the fact that the prisoners had been rightly convicted.' Unfortunately for Eobinson he had no fewer than ten previous convictions. His .record was the Tecord of a drunkard, and he should realiee that if he appeared in Court again he would be declared a. habitual criminal. Considering his age was only 25 his career had been a disgraceful one. ■ Drink had apparently been the downfall of the other two prisoners also. Eobineon and Tyler being young men would he placed under the control of the 'Prisons Board for two years' reformative treatment, and as Dalton had no previous conviction for dishonesty,- he would be 'accorded similar lenient treatment. A recommendation that Eobinson and Tyler should be. sent to Invercargill accompanied the sentence. , i

THE WHITE HOUSE HOTEL FIRE. Having pleaded gnilty to a charge of setting nre to the White Horse Hotel at Ngahauranga on July 19, Arthur George Young was called up for sentence. Mr. T. M. Wilford, who appeared for tho prisone'r, pointed out that after the fire the prisoner voluntarily informed the insurance company that the t piano had been removed from the building prior to tie fire. Although the insurance company had paid over the remainder of the monoy, there was an opportunity'of the sum of j£6o being restored, as" Mr. Penteoost, who held this money (a sum borrowed from Young), would hand it ovet on an order from Young.. Counsel also, pointed out that thd prisoner's character bad been good up to the tins of the offence on which lie was now to be sentenced.

His .Honour imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment with Hard labour, ■

PROBATION GRANTED. Ernest Alfred Welch, 48 years of age, and James Gibson Briant, 40 years of age, were placed in the dock together to answer for the' crime of attempted theft of .2790 from the New Zealand. Government. As there were other offences for w.hdch Welch had'to answer, His Honour ordered the prisoner to be remanded until he could look into these matters.

' Mr. P. W. Jaokson, who appeared for Briant, asked His Honour to grant the prisoner probation. He had a good character and a clean record in the Civil Service.

His Honour admitted prisoner to probation for a period of two years, conditions being he should not visit hotels during that time, that he should take out a prohibition order against himself, and not taste alcohol.

A SOLDIER'S ASSAICANT, John Johnston's appearance ia the dock was due to his having been' found guilty of assaulting a soldier, named Eric Toulson, so as to cause the latter actual bodily harm (two broken jaws). There were several previous convictions against the prisoner, who, during his release on bail, had been convicted of using obscene language. Mr. P. W. Jackson entered a plea for leniency to be extended to the prisoner.

His Honour commented on the 6erious nature of the charge, and said that, while he did not propose to inflict the fuJl penalty to which the prisoner was liable, the sentence would nave to be 66vere — two years' imprisonment with hard labour.

CASE OF BARCLAY HECTOR., Barclay late Registrar of the New Zealand University, will appear for sentence in tha Supreme Court this mornlag on a charge of embezzlement.

NEW TRIAL ORDERED WAIKATO LAND CASE. In the Supreme Court on Saturday, His Honour the Chiof Justice,- (Sir Robert Stout) delivered- reserved judgment on a motion for a new trial of. the Waikato land case, Ramsay M'Dougall v. J. -W. 1 Chapman. The ground of the motion was that false evidence had been given by witnesses for the defence. Mr. T. M. Wilford, with him Mr. W. Perry, appeared in support of the motion, which was opposed by Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. Cj "VV. Tringham. His Honour held that there had been false evidence for the defence. This evidence, though on a collateral issue, affected the credibility of witnesses, and it must be held to have influenced the jury. A new trial was ordered, the question of costs beinp reserved for tho Court on tho second trial.

CIVIL LIST . ORDER OF. CASES FOR HEAKING. In the Supreme Court on Saturday morning, before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), the civil list was called over, and fixtures were made as follow:— Monday, May 17.—Alexander Brodio y. The Stanley Stamp Company, a' claim for .£IBB, balance of moneys alleged to be due. Tuesday, May 18.—Lawrence Lyons t. Edward Slorris, jun., action to set aside an agreoment. . Wednesday, May ! 19.—Frederick Ebenezer Gurney t. Richard Cornelius Gurney, action for dissolution of partnership; James Speight and Co., Ltd., v. AnJuo Duggan, claim for .£249, alleged to be due on p.n.'s and Mads supplied. Thursday, May 20,—Elizabeth Mary Joseph Brogan v. the Public Trustee, olaim for ,£833, alleged to be due (before a common jury of twelve). Friday, May 21— Sydney Henry Newstead v. Robert Irving Lawrence, claim for <£250 damages for alleged slander. Saturday, May 22.-—Kathleen M'Donald v. George M'Donald, petition in divorce. Monday, May 21.—Petone Borough Council v. the Rutt Park Railway Co. ond the Gear Meat Preserving and Freeing

Co. of N.Z., Ltd., action for an injunction.

Thursday, May 27.—Paniora te Arahu and others v. Paki Hatui and another, claim for possession of land, etc.; May Inia and others v. Ngmako Himiona and others, claim for possession of laud etc.; and undefended divorce cases. August Mary Hamilton Gordon Lynch v. Thomas Joseph. Lynch; Eliza. Jantj Smith v. Arthur Harold Smith; Neil Carmichael v. Annie Christina. Cnrmiclwel; Alice Magdalene King v. John Thomas King; Alice Winifred Birdwood v. James Stuart Birdwood; Jane Ann Pox v. Ernest George Fox; Lily Riley Armstrong v. ilartin Armstrong; Henrietta Harriett Hathaway v. Llewellyn Roland Hathaway; Isabel Mary Leslie v. Peter James Leslie; Lolin Igea JTairs v. Athol Fairs; Kate Imrie v. William James Crichton Imrie; and George Edward O'Halloran "v. Florence May O'Halloran and H. Packer.

Cases on tie list for wliich no fixture has been made are;— Colonial Co-opera-tive Building Society of Wellington v. John Crewes, claim for ,£9ll for moneys alleged to be not accounted for (before a common jurj of twelve); G. P. Harkness and another v. Harry Norman Liardet,■ application for declaration of trust; Grace Helen Brennan v. Frederick Martin Brennan, petition in divorce (before a common jury of twelve); and Albert Henry Macauley v. Charlotte Macauley and Guisoppe Greco, petition in. divorce.