SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 123, 11 February 1918, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

TWO YEARS' REFORMATIVE . TREATMENT OTHERS PUNISHED The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were brought to a close on Saturday, when His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking passed sentence on the following prisoners:— Arthur Walclemar Schaef, niio had been found guilty of concealing the sum of £1500 from his creditors after being declared a bankrupt. Mr. Pi.-W. Jackson called the evidence of Messrs. J. M. Geddis, journalist, John Smith, ex-Oity tiouncillpr, Miss E. Bremner, Dr. Hislop, •William A. Dutch, and J. E. Palmer, Town Clerk, to prove the good character of the prisoner. Mr. Jackson said Schaef had resided in Wellington for about 20 years, and he asked the Court to admit him to probation. ■ His Honour: There is no use talking 'about probation. Breaches under the Bankruptcy Act are not cases for probation. That had been decided in this Court. In this case there is a deliberate defiance of the law. The prisoner has undertaken to say, "I will not obey the law, and I will take the consequences." Tiiis flouting of the law makes it a crime of the worst kind. It had been said that fihhaef had declared he would rather go to gaol than pay. Apart from this, the evidence shows deliberate concealment of the money. Tho money was renioved out of sight of everyone but himself and bis wife. Mr. Jackson suggested that His Honour should take into consideration the fact that Schaef consicbred that a very greatinjustico had been dono to him. ... ." His Honour: His duty once be had been declared a bankrupt was to sur- , ; render all his property to the Assignee. Schaef declared', "I won't." What could bo made of an attitude like that? "Is the law to he flouted in this way?" Mr. Jackson pointed out that Schaef did not regard the £1500 as his to hand over. Nothing could convince Sehaef that he was not in tho right. He had that honest belief at the back of his head. He.wrb sorry His Honour could not entertain the idea of probation. His Honour: I cannot.' Mr. Jaokson then suggested that a. fine, a. substantial fine, might be imposed. His Honour: What.is the use of imposing a fine on a man who has no money of his own? Mr. Jackson stated that fines had been 1 inflicted under the Bankruptcy Act- . ■ His Honour: I will not inflict a fine. This is a case of deliberate defiance of the law, and if this is countenanced you might as well wipe out the Bankruptcy Act. ' . Mr. Jackson then suggested that Schaef couldhe ordered to come up for sentence whon called upon. His Honour: I should make the law ridiculous if I did. . Mr. Jackson: Considering tho agony of mind the man has gone through, that he is a ruined man,-, and has now been found guilty, surely a lino will meet the case? I do as a final plea Bsk that Your Honour make the penalty a fine. •■.•'• . His Honour: When the jury brought in the verdict last night he said, "I am not going to appeal to the law '.again." Does th,ifc mean ho will'iiso force on another occasion? His Honour, addressing the prisoner, said he was not able to accept any of the 'suggestions put forward by prisoner's counsel. It appeared to him that this was a case where a bankrupt had deliberately put out of the way of his creditors and the Assignee a sum of £1300, which amount would have' been more than sufficient to pay the liabilities. The prisoner had expressed the deter.mination that his.two principal creditors should not bo paid, and had deliberately defied the law. Tho penalty under the Bankruptcy Act for such an offence was .imprisonment for two years. His Honour said he would not sentence prisoner to two years' imprisonment, but "yon will be sentenced to two years' reformative treatment, and the Prisons Board can .consider the case from time to time...lf it should happen, that the £1500 should turn up in the meantime, no doubt tho Prisons Board will take, the -fact into considera- ■ Schaef: Can I address Your Honour? His Honour: No. ' .' Schaef when leaving the dock said something. about "two prostitutes and two' mirried men," but before he could say any more lie. was hurried off into ■the cell below. ' : THEFT OF A KEG OF WHISKY. . John Burt pleaded guilty to the theft of a keg of whisky, valued at £20, the property of the Harbour Board, and one box of candles, value 225. Mr. H. H. Cornish, who appeared for accused, said that the.'man was. hopelessly drunk, and the theft, which appeared to be a stupid act, was done m broad dayteht. Hβ was a good workman, but liquor had got him down. He' was drawn in the ballot and had been ordered into camp. His Honour remarked that tnerts from the wharf were becoming so frequent that the case could not be treated as an ordinary one. Tho uater«ider, was in a position of trust, and those who were honest should be protected. '■'■■'■ i" ■,'- -c Mr. Cornish said the man had a wite and child in Scotland, and he asked His Honour to give him a chance, as the act was the outcome of ,drunuen folly. . . , ... : , Prisoner was sentenced to twelve months' reformative treatment. INDECENT ASSAULT! William Henry Gardiner had teen convicted of indecent assault on a little girl. The jury recommended the itisoner to the clemency of tho Court, as the offence : was not an aggravated one. Mr. A. Dunn made an appeal for the recommendation of the jury to be considered by the Court. The man had been in-gaol for two months already. His Honour took all the circumstances into consideration, and sentenced the prisoner to four months' imprisonment. ; COLLINS ADMITTED TO PROBATION. Arthur Childs Dubourg Collins had been convicted of being a rogue and a vagabond in ■ that he was found <<y night on enclosed premises peeping through a bedroom window while certain young women were retiring to bed. Mr. P: W. Jackson, who appeared' for Collins, said the case was one for probation and not for imprisonment. Prisoner was. past middle lite and was in a poor state of health. His character had been good up to the piesent. ' His Honour snid ho thought 1.-om the first that the case was not one for imprisonment, and thought that justice would bo met if prisoner were placed on probation for a period or twelve months and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution, £6 16s. Bd., at the rate of £1 per month. The pnsonor said his fair namo had been taken away, and. they might just as well place him'against a wall and shoot mm. A JOKE CARRIED TOO FAR. John Patrick Regan pleaded guilty tn the theft of £45 in money. Mr. H. F. O'Leary suggested that this was a

case for probation. The prisoner v;as over 60 years of age, and up to the present his character had been beyond reproach. The incident started put of an intended joke which was carried too far. His Honour said be would admit tho prisoner to probation for a period of twelve months. -iWiHo .wyould also have to take out a prohibition order for eighteen months and would havo to pay the costs of the prosecution, amounting to 245. FOUR YEARS' • IMPRISONMENT. John Slines, convicted of indecent assault on males, was next put forward for sentence. Mr. H. F.'O'Leary called attention to the fact that the-boys were all 16 years of age. ,; - ; Slines was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. A WAIPUKUB.ATJ-OFFENDER. David Adamson, who pleaded guilty to tho theft at Waipukurau of £46 2s. 9d., was the last of the prisoners to be sentenced.' Before proceedings were taken against him, Adamson repaid £40 of the amount and has since repaid the.balance. Tho probation officer recommended that Adamson should be admitted to probation, and His Honour adopted this course, the order to be in force, until Adamson left for the front. Adamson was ordered to pay £3, the costs of the prosecution. CIVILJITTINGS FIXTURESAiRANGBD. The fixtures arranged in .-onnection with the civil sittings of the Supreme Court, which begin this week, are as follow:— ■ Wednesday, February 13.—Robertson and Co., Ltd., v. W. Honry Brewer, claim for £259 for repairs. Monday, February 18.—diaries John Ward v. "John Bull" Newspaper Proprietary, claim for £250 for alleged libel. Tuesday, February 19.—Upper Hutt Town Board, v. John Batemjn Har r court, claim or £336 for water; Goorge Henry Thompson v. Herbert Henry Cook,' claim for £133 for commission. Tuesday, February 26.—Heinrioh Hermann v. Griffiths and Co., accounts, etc. Other cases in respect lo which no fixtures have been mado are appended: Thomas Edward Beard and another v William Charles Deller and another, declaration, etc. Henry Norman Bell v. Ellis and Manton, declaration, etc. Edmund Louis Ronton v. Alfred Coy, claim for £190 for injuries. Percy Georgo Waller and others v. Hamilton Gilmor and others,' claim for £143 7s. 6d. damages. John Henry Ratclifie v. Davidson and Co., claim for £228 Bs. fid. for goods supplied. IN DIVORCE. Tuesday, February 12.—Frederick W. Lane v. Olcja Matilda Lane and Frank Townend, dissolution of marriage on the ground of alleged misconduct. Wednesday, February 13.—Henry Edward Card v. Lillian Jane Card snd Kobert Scott, dissolution of marriage on the ground of alleged misconduct and claim for £1000 damages. (Before a jury.) ■ . ... Thursday, Fobruary I.4.—Albert Georgo Bryant Campion v.Ella Ruth Campion, dissolution of marriage on the ground of alleged misconduct: (Before a jury.) ■ . . No fixture has beer, made in tlic following case: — Irene Annie Yelverton v. Barry S. H. Yelverton. dissolution on'the ground of alleged misconduct. (Before a Judge alone.} . Following is a list of the undefended divorce cases which will be heard on February 2fi:—WiliamHonrv Parsonage v. Constance Eliwlwth Parsonage (alleged desertion);-William Henry Meyrick v. Lena Moyrick and Percy Wood (alleged misconduct); Elizabeth M'Coll Loitcli v. Thomas George Latch (alleged 'desertion): Francis Barber v. Violet Barber' and Hector Vernon Bennett (alleged misconduct); Elizabetn Groundwnter Rodda v. Stephen James Rodda (alleged misconduct) ;■ Michael Gordon Teniploton v. Anrao Hollier (nullity on the ground of bigamy): Emily Ward v. Edward Cornelius Ward (alleged misconduct); Albert Vjncent White v. Violet Harriett Whiter and Fitaerald Clark (alleged misconduct); Elisabeth Wilson v. Charles Wilson (allowed misconduct); Otto Olson v. Ethel Rose Olson and Arthur Parnes Alleged misconduct); Winifred Mary Kempthorne Holmes v. Garnet Bowen Holmes (alleged misconduct)-; Mary Francis Atkinson v. Harry Temple Atkinson (alleged desertion); Lillian Luxton v. Charles Thomas Luxton (alleged misconduct).