Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT

'DO YOU WANT TO BUY A DIAMOND"

Tlio criminal sessions of the Supreme Court -were continued yesterday, the Cliiof Justice (Sir Robert Stoitt) presiding. . „ Edward Alfred Foreman was placed in the dock to answer charges of breaking and entering and theft, as follow, but only three charges wore in the indictment: (1) On March 28, theft from, the d-well-in«r of Hay Edgar, No. 66 Oriental Bay, jewellery valued at £90; (2) on or about the month of May, ' did steal 62 diamonds and three sapphires, or tlio value of £50, the' property some person or persons unknown; (3) on July 4, at Hataitai, breaking and entering the dwelling of Lydw Pearson Gibson, and stealing jewellery valued at £75 65., and ss. in money; (4) on tlio same date, at Kilbirme, breaking and entering the dwelling of Georgina. Edwards, audi stealing jewellery valued at £7; (5) on July 7, at .Wellington, breaking and entering the dwelling of Sydney Johnston, Upland Road, and stealing jewellery valued at £97; (6) on July 15, at Kilbirnie, breaking and entering the dwelling of Essie Helen Hdlmwootl. ■ and stealing jewellery valued at £70; (7) on same date, at Kilbirnie, entering the dwelling ot Charles -Walter Cooper,, and stealing jewellery valued at £27 15s. Foreman pleaded.not guilty. , Mr. P. 8.. K. . Macassey, of tlio Crown Law Office, prosecuted, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the acoused, Mr. John Stuart Monro was foreman of the jury. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey detailed the case for the Crown briefly. He stated that some of the goods alleged to have been stolen would bo positively identified. • . ' Ernest Albert Howard, cab driver, residing at' Hataitai,: who went to sohool with the- accused in jElie Old Country, detailed a number of transactions in jewellery and precious stones in which witness acted as an intermediary between accused and a jeweller named Cottcrell, -The first transaction took place in May last. Accused approached witness one morning and said: "Ernie, do j-ou- want to buy a diamond'?!' to which -witness replied: "I am not particular." Accused then showed witness a diamond for which ho wanted £5. After some discussion Foreman and witness arranged to meet the next day, when . witness brought with'him his friend Cottcrell, the jeweller previously feforrod to. Tho latter valued, the; diamond at £3 10s., - and finally witness bought it for £3. The diamond was eventually set in a ring which was made for witness. Accused on thiß occasion. also produced some packets of -uncut diamonds, and asked Cottcrell what they wero worth. Some days later accused and witness again met, when the former produced a ring, and asked witness to show it to Cottercll, . also some precious stones, and find out if Cottcrell would buy them. Witness asked accused where he got'the jewellery from, and he said it belonged to a friend whoso husband had gone to the front aiid had been shot, and that tlio girl needed . tlio money. A deal was made with Cotterell with this lot. Witness gave particulars of several other transactions that lio helped to bring about on behalf oF accused. Ho made no profit, and received no commission, Th© witness was subjected to a very searching cross-examination by Mr. H. ]?. O'Leary. James ' Cottoroll, manufacturing jeweller, of 32 Majoribanka Street, ono of the witnesses, 'was,unablo to. appear, and' Dr. Clay, who is attending Cottercll, gave evidence that the latter was mint to appear in Court. Cqtterell's depositions taken in the Magistrate's Court wore then read. Several witnesses were called to identify the stolen jewellery. Mr. O'Leary did hot call any witnesses for the defence. In his address ho pointed out that there was no proof that accused broke and entered into tlio koWs. He was found in posses- ' sion of stolen goods, but the samo could bo said with respect tn Howard •' and cottercll. He maintained that there was not' sufficient evidence, to prove that Foreman had broken into the houses,' and.ho should not 'be found guilty of breaking and entering. It'might be different as regards stolon property, and yet statement was -that on searching his premises thev only'' found duo white sapphire worth) about 75.. 6d. If thoy would not convict Howard . and would not convict Cottcrell, they could not; ho submitted, convict .accused. Accused made a statement, in which ho admitted that he went,,to school With Howard in England, and had met him in New Zealand, and been friendly with. him.. On one occasion Howard introduced him to a frioiid of his named Morris, a carpenter,'recently arrived in New Zealand. ' Ho went to_ the theatre with'them and to other places. Near: a theatre on one occasion Howard asked him if ho wished to buy a diamond. Accused said No, when hd saw the diamond produced, and stated that ho had a better diamond fii.liis ring. He detailed further btnvnesa relations with Howard and Morris, tho'latter of whom was known, as "Bumper." Morris was the seller of jewellery and .precious stones, and, Howard and,accused'were buying from Morris, and Howard did the selling to another party. Accused was mainly interested in financing tlio purchases. Accused spoke fluently and rapidly, and at some length detailing several alleged transactions very minutely. . His Honour, in summing up, advised tho jury to regard tho statement of accused as a cock-and-bull story, for the reason if there wero. any truth in his Statements ho could have supported them with the evidence of "Bumper" Morris. . After a rotircmont of about fifteen minutes the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and Foreman was remanded for sentence. ' There were' three chargps in the iudictmont on which Foreman has been found guilty. ■ There is another indictment against him, embodying the other charges of theft of jewellery,, and ho is also to answer a charge of indecent assault on a male, on which the jury disagrcedat tho last criminal sessions.

CIVIL SITTINGS FIXTURES SETTLED. . Mr. Justice Edwards has made the following ■■fixtures in connection with tho civil session of the Supremo Court: — . Tuesday, November 14: Alfred Ernest Cocter v. Mrs. N. Nightingale, claim for £698 damages for alleged injuries received. (Before' a common jurv of twelve.). Thursday,; November 16: Thomas J. Thurmaii and another v. Henry Wright, claim for £1000 damages for alleged libel. (Before a common'jury of twelve.) ■ . Friday, November 17: James Walker v. Isabella Chrystal Vickcre; declaration, etc. Isabella Chrystal Vickers v. Lilian Victorian Woolston, action to restrain powers of sale, etc. Monday, November 20: Griffiths.and Co., Ltd., v. the Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., £790 135., for' alloged damago to goods. (Before a common jury of twelve.) Wcdiwsdav,. November .22: .- Hetty Tolly and another v. Walter Naism.ith, claim for £850 for aleged injuries-re-ceived. (Before a common jury-of twelve.) Thursday, November 23: Wellington City Council v. Lower Hutt Borough Council, declaration, etc. . Friday, November 24: Henry Spencer

Sivell v. G'eoi'go Williaiii Slftdo, claim for £263 for aliogod wrongful dismissal.

Tuesday, November 23: Thomas Edward Mamisell v; Dominion Mortgage and J?inanc6 Company, claim for £250, for alleged false representation. Georgo Pain and Dominion Mortgage and Finance Company, Ltd., action to rescind contract, etc. OMior cases set down for hearing and in, which no fixtures' were fiiado are:—

Before a common jury of twelve: Charles Henry Rico v. Lazarus; Wolfe Balkind, claim for £1000 damages' for alleged malicious prosecution; Benjamin Lewis v. P. Haymau, and Co., claim for £900, for, alleged bfeacli of contract, and counter-claim for £262 moneys received; James J. Niven and Co. v. Poverty Bay Farmers' Meat Co., claim for £608 for goods sold; Nellie. Bishop v. His Majesty tlio King,- £2000 damages for alleged negligence. Before a Judge alone.—-Russell John Lister v. Walter Georgo Williams; accounts, etc.; Thomas Spire PqwelJ and another v. Standard F>e. and Marine Insurance Oompanyof New Zealand, Ltd., claim for £100 allegedly duo on policy; John Dev'er'eux v. John Brodie and Co., claim for £114 for moneys received and counter-claim for £100 for commission j Elizabeth Lcightoli v. Mabel Lawrence, claim for possession of premises; George William Woods v. Jahn Edward Fitzgerald* accounts and claim foi- £201 12s. for goods'sold; David Kef Blair v. Robert PitciuthleJ, claim for £327 for moneys recoived.

DIVORCE CASES No data was fixed for the hearing of the undefended, divorce cases'. In all twenty-seven divorce cases aro _ down ior hearing, the complete list being as under:— Before a- common jury of twelve. 1 — Harold Cecil Williams v. Lydia Caroline William, and another; Georgina, Mead v. George Joseph Mead. Before a. Judge, alond.—Mary .Ann, Pbipps v. Johii Alexander l'hipps; iCarolino Bennett v. William Bennett;' Wm.. Henry Parsonage v. Conßtanco |Elizabeth Parsonage; Jessie Niven Adanis v. Arthur James Adams; Jane Neville Toy v. Alfred Toy; .Victoria Violetta Norman v. Joseph Norman; Florence Kate Frizzell v. Georgo Frizzcll; Lucy Miy Pftttison v; Robert Pattison; 'Herbert John Osborne /v. Elizalioili Osborne and another; Elizabeth Maud Goodallv. George Henry Goodall; Georgo William Haslem v. Agues Haslem; Robert James Roulston v. Mabel Roulston; Nicholas Burns v. Margaret Elien Burns; Herbert Carlton Woddbridge v: Martha AVoodbridge; Elsie Saunders v. Albert Artliur Featlibfstoit Saunders; Lonora Llizabotli Mansori v. Artliur Barf oh Mattson; Agnes .Earnsliaw v. Henry Earrisliaw; Catherino Ami Crawford, ir... Thomas Crawford; Laura Boatrico Baker v. Edward Alfred Baker; Nellie Evaiis v. Wiiliam Alfred Evans; Alice Louisa Barber v. Richard Walter . Barber; Albert Peck v.. Daisy..Ann.Valentine Peck and another; Mabel Hellen Hillmer v. Adolpli Rudolph Frank Hillmer; Margaret Rebecca Diamond v. Francis Charles Diamond; Violet Marshall v. George Horace Marshall.

RESERVED JUDGMENT The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) delivered his reserved judgment yesterday in the case, heard on November 3,- in which the Ha-wke's Bay River Board claimed from William John Carrick, of Fernliill, near Hastings, farmer, the stirii of £18 95., being the cost of clearing tho stop-bank on defendant's property and repairing it. The Court was asked to decide: (1) Were the stop-bank and willow plantations river protective works? (2) whether ths said works were invested in the board for the purposes of the Act by reason of the fact that they had been, and were, under the view cognisance and management of tho board; (3; whether the land transfer title of defendant or his vendor piecludes such vestings. . , It was contended for plaintiff that defendant's land was formerly part of the Flaxmere Estate, of which William RUssoll was owner. Tile latter many years ago planted the willows, or most of them, and in 1899 he put up a stopbank for the purpose of keeping the river in a defined channel. Defendant had cut down'many of the willows and allowed some of the trunks to fall m such a maimer as to damage the stopbank; also that lie had permitted- his cattle to stray on the stop-bank, which caused it to'be broken down and injured. The defendant- took no notice of the board's request to repair the stop-bank, and- the board's servants entered upon the defendant's land, cleared the stop-bank, and didcertam fencing work, the cost of which the board sought to recover. His Honour, in giving judgment, said that tho works referred to aro really protective works within tho meaning of Boards Act, 1908, and legally vested in the.beard. The board iißs a'n exclusive right to onter on .the stop-batik and out down the willows, f Hio freehold of the soil is still the defendant's, and so long as he dttmago the stop-bank or willows, either by himself or Ins cftttlo, he has a right to uso 'tho land, but he must not do anything that tends to injure tho stopbank or the willows. If the board took earth from plaintiff's land for the purposo of repairing the stop-bank, the defondant would have a claim under the Public Works Act, and if tho. board erected fresh works on the land he would be ontitled to claim compensation for new injury to'his freehold'. At the hearing Mr. C. P. Skerrott, K.C., with him Mr. Sproulc, of Napier, appeared for the plaintiff, aud Mr. H. B. Lusk, of Napier, for the defendant.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19161114.2.73

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2928, 14 November 1916, Page 11

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,996

SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2928, 14 November 1916, Page 11

SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2928, 14 November 1916, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert