SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 133, 22 February 1918, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

APPEAL DISMISSED

ANTI-SHOUTING REGULATIONS

Iu tho Supremo Court yesterday morning the Chief Justice (Sir itobert Stout) delivered his reserved, judgment in a, general appeal against a decision of Mr. «. H. Jl'Uartby, S;M., in a caße arising out of the ami-shouting regulations. The appellant was James O'Hanlon, head barman of the lioyal Oak Hotel.

Mr. P. s. K. Macassey, of the Crown Law* Otilco, appeared for the Crown, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K. 0., and with him Mr. M. Myers for the appellant. In this case the prosecution alleged that on November 3 last two constables visited the bar of the Royal Oak Hotel and observed two men there, one of whom "shouted" for the other. Nothing was said to the barman at the time by the constables, who took their departure and returned the following Monday morning, when they identified the defendant as the barman who had sold tho drinks in question. The case for the appellant hinged largely on the allegation that the police had made a mistako in identification. In his judgmont His Honour remarked that no new evidence had been adduced to strengthen the case of the defence. Considering all the circumstances it was impossible for a mistake to have occurred in the identification of the appellant O'Hanlon. No sensible person who saw the two men (O'Hanlon and the other barman) could have made any mistako about their identification. On the other hand, it was more easy to conceive that there was a mistake na to the time, on the part of the barman. The burden of proof cast on the appellant had not been discharged, and the Court found that it could not override the Magistrate's decision. Tie appeal was accordingly dismissed with £7 7s.'costs. THE CHURCirTPORTION A DISPUTED ESTATE. Further argument was heard iu the Supreme Court yesterday before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) iu the matter of an originating summons taken under the Family Protection Act to determine the will of Andrew Casey. 1 of Hamilton, settler. The point' at issue vcas whether the deceased had bequeathed too much of his estate to the Eoman Oathollo Church in comparison with tho amounts willed to his widow and children. Under his will, the deceased, after making provision for an annuity to his wifo and certain legacies to his children, left the residue of his estate to the Eoman Catholic Church. The deceased left £1000 to his eldest Bon, forgave a debt of £1500 to his second son, and to ,tho rest of his children (ten in all) he made bequcstß ranging from £200 to £300 in each case. The value of the estate was £25,933. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., appeared for the Catholic Church, Sir John Fiudlay, and with him Mr. J. Hoggard, for the widow and ten children, and Mr. D. P. Hay for the Public Trustee, ns executor under the will. The two eldest sonß did not contest the will. Mr. Skerrett intimated that tho Church had agreed to increase tho widow's annuity from £3 to £4 per .week, and also to an order being made granting her in cash tbe sum of £800. The various parlies to the action were agreed to this provision. The question argued before the Court was whether tho ten children should receive increased allowances under the will. His Honour said ho would tako time to consider his decision.