SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3165, 17 August 1917, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

CHARGE OF THEFT MILES FOUND GUILTY In tho Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking, the trial of Arthur Miles on a, charge of stealing £32 was resumed. Mr. V. R. Meredith appeared for the Orown, and Mi-. P. W. Jackson for the prisoner. It was alleged for tho prosecution that Miles took the '• money, which belonged to one Rangi Thompson, from the counter of the Caledonian Hotel. For the defence, it was suggested that the Crown had failed to prove conclusively that the prisoner was tho man who committed the theft ■ The jury retired for about threequarters of an hour, and returned a verdict of guilty. Sentence was deferred till Saturday. MAGISTRATE'S COURT SELLING TOBACCO AFTER HOURS. Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, 5.M., ! presided at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday. Convicted of using obscene language, James Cass was fined £5, in default ono month's imprisonment, and on a charge of being.found drunk was convicted and discharged. The Inspector of Shops (Mr. R. T. Bailey) proceeded against a number of retailers for seUing tobacco and cigarettes after 8 p.m., and obtained a conviction in every case. Neil Blair Austin, who was described as a persistent oflender, was fined £10 and costs, as was tno Chinese firm of W. Lee and Company, against whom there woro two previous convictions this year. A line of £5 was imposed on Sing on Tie, also on Wah. Kee Bros., and £2 on Kwong Hoy Chang, also on Wong Young' and Co. Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in the following civil actions: Wallace and Gibson v. Staff ■ Sergeant-Major Angus Archer, £1 18s. 3d., costs 75.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. Samuel AUen.. £2 12s. 6d., costs 125.; Spencer G. Radford v. Peter Taipua, £10 10s., costs £1 15s. 6d.; Cadbury Bros.. Ltd., v. Misa C. M. CampbeU, £4 [ Is. 4d., costs 10s. W. Launder proceeded against William Haines, son., for the recovery of £2 10s. alleged to bo owing on a costume. The plaintiff is a tailor, and the defendant, an'elderly man, took orders for materials and supplied customers, receiving 10 por oent on tit cash outlay. The costume In question was made for a customer to whom defendant had sold the material. For the defence, it was contended that the defendant had simply recommended plaintiff to try and get the order from the customer, who had purchased the material. The evidenco of the purchaser waa to the effect that the debt was hers, and sho .had paid plaintiff 10s. off the account. Judgment was elven for plaintiff for £2, .with costs. Mr. J. Scott appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. W. Neilson for defendant. William Small, .who proceeded against George Joseph Beasley and; Florence Beosley for possession of a tenement in Martin Souare, .was nonsuited, and was ordered to pay 21s. costc.