SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 226, 12 June 1918, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

ALLEGED IMPROPER USE OF GAS

AN APPEAL CASE

In tho Supreme Court yesterday afternoon His Honour Mr. Justice- Hosking Jiciird argument in the appeal case of Alfred Morris Taylor, uns inspector, Wellington, ngniiist D. M'Gavin, plumber, Wellington. T'ljis Hits an appeal from ii .decision .by Mr. D., G. A. Cooper, S.M. 11l the Lower Court M'Gavin wne charged with having improperly used {fas belonging to (ho Wellington Gas Company, Ltd., at 3 Broadway Terrace, Wellington. The defendant pleaded not guilty, imrt the information was dismissed. Against that decision tho gas inspector appealed on tho ground that it was erroneous in point of law. .

Mr. T. Neavo nppeared for tlio appellant, and Mr. P.. W. Jackson for tho respondent.

Mr. Neavo said tho information in tho Lower Court was laid under Section 1G of tho Wellington Gas Company Act. The inspector, charged tho defendant with improperly using gas belonging to tho Wellington Gaa Company, and tho allegation was mado that M'Gavin had disconnected a pipe leading to tho meter and had filed it direct to the pipe leading to his house. Thus the-gas, instead of Koing through the meter imd bring paid for, went direct to tho liousq find was not recorded on tho meter. Evidence was Riven, and that .evidence was not disputed, and the question was whether that evidence constituted 1 a case against the defendant. The Magistratedismissed the information on the ground thnt there wns not. sufficient ovidonco to establish a case. Mr. Neave contended that the evideuce having been accepted it was a question ■ at law what inference should be dnuvn, and it was not a question of a prima iacio case. His Honour remarked that the Magistrate hud accepted the-evidence as being given in good faith and in tho belief that it was true. but. it was not sufficient to convince him and justify him in recording a 'conviction. Mr. Neave suggested that the matter bo remitted to the Magistrate for a more explicit statement.

Mr. Jasksoh said Hint although the case was heard-by the Magistrate tiro years ag.> he had ,a distinct recollection of what took ylaoe. The Magistrate found that the evidence was not sufficient, and did not establish a prinm facie, caso or warrant him in recording: a conviction. The. 'Magistrate held that the- evidence was guesswork and lie could not convict on that. . The- evidence , was insufficient to support the information. Counsel contended that the 'Magistrate had decided the case on the evidence and on (lie law, and ho did not think it should be remitted t<i 'the Magistrate.

His Honour said he could not remit the case because-' lio could ■ hardly ask tlie Magistrate.to recall to his memory what hail been-in his mind when ho decided the case. IJo touched on other ■points, and said it was not worth while sending , the, caso back after fly lapee of'time, and he- therefore dismissed the appeal with costs, J!5 55., to be paid by the appellant.-

HAMILTON SUPREME COURT

By Telegraph.-.Press Association. Hamilton, June 11. The Supreme Court. opened (o-duy. Jlr. Justice Cooper congratulated the Waikato district on its frc6dom' from crime. Thero wero only three criminal enses, Charles Hansen ami Lancelot Corbett, charged with thot't arising from the shooting of steers while acoiised were on a pig-shooting expedition, were admitted to probation for three years, Much, evidence, was given of good character. II is Honour said the oil'once was almost inexplicable, and was evidently done i.u a spmit of mischief, Charles l>Mv:ii.ng, n youilh agcxl 17, for breaking ..and mtering lit Hamilton, was admitted to probation for three years. '•■ Accused, a luu-d worker, spent, his money and then commenced sleeping out. Ifo had little to Pflt, and succumbed lo bmplalion.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

I UNDEFENDED CASH;-!; : Judgment for plaintiff by default was given by Mr. \V. G. Biddell, 5..M., in the following undefended civil case? at the Magistrate's Court yesterday :—W. (.1. llrown v. W. J. Maddison, .£1 Ss., costs 75.; IT, VV. Preston Co. v. V. W. Howard, .£7 105.,-costs £1 -Is. liil.; Sidney George Nnl.han v. Robert 'I'liest, £2 10s., costs £1 03. Cd,; Her'D. L'liee v. KHome, ,£3 Ms. 5d., costs 10s.'; T. Barraelough v. 'R. Home, £C I'is., costs £1 3s. Gd.; J. S. Elliott v. G. E. Boberfaon, .62 Bs., costs IDs.; Sharland and Co., Ltd., v. Mr?. 11. Adams (in respect of separato estate), £2 (k Bd., costs 10s.'; Ennitable Building and Investment Co., Iμ., v. .T. Miecliewski, Bs., costs £i fis.; Lawrence and Hansen Electrical Co., Ltd.. v. W.- Wells.. ,£SO, costs £3 13s. On a judgment summons, T. T. Willaeon was ordered to pay Te Am I'liriiishing Co. £'Z 7s. Cd. by instalments of £1 ss. per'inonth, the■ firat payment to bo made on July 11. Oscar Hewett and Co. proceeded against Ellen Davies for the' recovery of iCll , 10s., or possession <£ » -.owing machine. An order was niado that the niachino should bo returned by June 18, otherwise judgment to be given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with easts £1 18s. 6d.