SUPREME COURT. 'THE ESCORT. IN BANCO.

Evening Star, Issue 3860, 8 July 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

'THE ESCORT.

IN BANCO.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Wednesday, July 7. (Before Mr Justice Johnston.) | $ In Regina v. Griffiths, for fraudulent concealment of property, the jury returned a ▼erdiot of guilty on the lesser counts with a recommendation to mercy, on account of the prisoner’s previous good character. In passing sentence his Honor said. In the exercise of my discretion, I am met by two considerations, namely, that you certainly don’t appear to be so smart a man of business as many fraudulent bankrupts I am afraid are; moreover, you have enjoyed a good character among your neighbors for a good many years; and the jury justify me in taking the most lenient view I can of the case. Under all these circumstances, I am going to pass upon you a sentences which would be by no mean" an adequate punishment for this offence had it been committed by a man of superior intellgence, by a man better acquainted with business affairs, and not possessing so good a character as you do. I hope lam not trifling with the law if I say that, taking all these things into consideration, 1 feel justified, with the assistance of the jury, in sentencing you to be imprisoned for six calendar months, with hard labor.

Thubsday, Jolt 8. (Before Mr Justice Johnston.)

Rt Waste Land Boabd v, Looan,— Case on appeal. Mr Barton, with him Mr Stout, appeared for the Board; Mr Maoassey for Logan; Mr Barton asked for a rule nisi that the case be struck off the list, as Logan had not lodged with the Registrar bonds and securities for costs within the thirty days required by the Act, but not until February 13, The Registrar stated that the bond was left with bini' on February 9, and he approved of the securities attached. It appeared, however, that it lay in his office for .four days, not being executed till February 13, the endorsement bearing that date.

Mr Macassey read on affidavit by Mr Harris to the effect that the bond was lodged within the thirty days, namely, oh February 10. Mr Stout urged, in addition to the point raised,that there were really no securities to the bond, inasmuch as Logan himself was the only security. Security was not meant to be the bond of the party himself, but a surety for him.

His Honor said it was a matter for the Registrar to decide—he must form an opinion whether a man giving his bond without securities is one worth powder aud shot; -if he imagines not, then the Registrar would require securities. It was a question of prudence on the part of that officer of the Court. 1

Mr Stout contended that it would be impos • sible for a Registrar to decide as to whether a man in any position was safe, on his own bond, Such a man might sell out of ■ all his property in a day and leave the country. His Honor said he would not bo able to come to fa decision until the Registrar furnished him with a full report as to the consecutive dates in reference to the lodging and executing of the bond.

The Registrar stated that, after inquiry, he found that the bond was left while he was away from his office for two or three days through illness. His Honor decided against the point raised, being of opinion that the statute had been sufficiently complied with, Logan having done all he could.

Mr Barton then took up the second point: that there was no security to the bond. A lengthy argument ensued between his Honor and counsel, and much reference to dictionaries as to the distinction between “security” knd “ surety.” Counsel then asked in the alternative that the Court make an order that issues be settled for the trial of issues of fact. His Honor thought there was no occasion to grant such a rule, as the other side was coining .to that itself.

Mr Macassoy then responded to the arguments of counsel on the other side.

His Honor decided that the rule nisi to strike the case off tke list must,be refused, and therefore that the main case go on. With reference to the point raised by counsel for the Board astothebondhavingnoseourity attached, Lc considered that whether the bond was of the party himself, or had attached to it one or more subscribers, was a mere matter of arrangement with and at the discretion of the Registrar, and with it the Court Lad no right to interfere. Ag to the alternative' rule applied for, his Honor said he wouid decide as the case went on, for he imagined the other side also wished for the trial of issues.

Tilly and another (appellants) v. Mont and others (respondents).—Case on appeal from Resident Magistrate’s Court, Dunedin. His Honor delivered judgment in this case this morning. In the other Court, respondents, passengers by the ship Invercargill, from Greenock to Dunedin, had sued appellants, captain and second officer of the Invercargill, for LSO damages, under the following circumstances:—On embarking at Greenock, plaintiffs brought a bundle of luggage with them, which was placed on deck and under the eye of one of the plaintiffs. Before the shore Steamer left the ship, however, this bundle was seised by some of the crew of the Invercargill and thrown on to the steamer, which then went off. Plaintiffs requested the captain of the ship to send after and recover the bundle, but hedeclmed to do so, and, although plaintiffs went after it. it was never recovered. The Resident Magistrate, on hearing the case, gave judgment for plaintiffs for Ll6 10s. Defendants had plesmed that there was no evidence of negligence on their part; that the captain whs not personally liable; that the officer Was not liable; and that it was the passengers' duty to look after their own luggage. His Honor said this case was argued before Mm with considerable ingenuity and at some length, but, although there might have been some slight misconception in the other Court on some of the points, he was of opinion that the appeal must be dismissed, and the judgment of the Court below be affirmed The luggage had clearly been delivered on board the ship, and the act of the officer and the act or non-feasance of the captain amounted to an interference with the custody of it. The first question was whether the captain of a ship is responsible for such acts of noimeasance; next, is the inferior officer responsible; then, are the two jointly liable • and lastly, do the plaintiffs properly sue together ? All these questions were answered in the affirmative, and the judgment of the Court below would therefore stand. The appeal was dismissed with costs. [Left sitting,]