SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 March 1924, Page 1

SUPREME COURT.

CREY.M()I"fII, .Hint’ll H A i li:t- Supreme Court yesterday .1 imiii-ia for discharge Imm l»:inkluiiii'v mi Inhal! oi Henry Mt-Loau, piciui-c theatre manager. supported l,y .Mr \Y. .i. Joyce, was opposed by ■he Deputy Official Assignee. Arthur Naylor (Air 11. \Y. Kitehiiighnm) oil tin- ground Hint tlie bankrupt had ;;|;K i'll iilis.il lictiulis in ilio wny Jl the Deputy (iflioia! Asii»iii*<? in hiefforts to obtain information concerning bankrupt's asset.-. After In-urine the Official Assignee ami counsel llis Honour said that rn oilier lor discharge colilil not 1-c granted. lit- was unable to see why ihe bankrupt, rt-hised to answer the i|Uesiions put to him. Bankrupt had a case to answer and his Honour <onsidered that la- had not fulfilled his duty. The order was reinsert. An order for the discharge from finukinptry of .lolin Sherlock ims granted. A Al l XING APPEAL. An appeal was lodged hv A\. J. Moriis against a decision, given v - v Mr AY. .Meldrum. acting in his en parity as AYarden at Reeftnn, in wliicli an objection by the appellant against -granting a timber-splitting warrant over ten acres, was not allowed. Appellant held that a- the applicant ha-’ removed pegs on the ground after filing the application, the application could not fie granted . Legal argument was heard in fhe morning as to preliminary object! 3ip raised by Air kitchingham, who .-libmined that the procedure under the Alining Act had not been followed. Tfis Honor reserved decision on toe point and heard argument yesterday afternoon on the grounds for appeal. REPAIR fATIOX THEFT CHAR OF. C'HRISTCnrRC'fL Afiireli 13.

The Supreme Court was again occupied to-day in hearing a charge of fraud, lhe case being a removal from die Supreme ('ourt at AVelliugioii. The accused was Harry Patrick Hudgins, formerly employed a- a cleric hi the oflits? of the Accountant of the Wellington District Repatriation Board. He was charged that, between dune —milfliO. and duly -kb. 1 :)J2. being a servant of the New Zealand Government, he received from Arthur Joseph Ames, various ..urn- amounting to £-•> tor payment to the Government, and fiatidnlentlv converted the same to his own use. thereby committing their. The principal witness was Ames. At one stage Justice <>im r-mnrke.l to Aiu«: "Have you no regard for the truth at all f A'ou arc a pretty officer to occupy a resnousible |>osition in tiie AVellington City Council, when you come here and give evidence- in this

In summing up. His Honour commented adversely upon the evidence of Ames, .saying that the story told by him in the Lower Court differed from that which he had told in the present ease, both under examination and

cross examination. It was obvious, that his story Inn! boon “edited” by Hodgkins between the Lower Court and the present proceedings. The jury returned, after a retirement of twenty minutes, with a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. Ui> Honour instructed that the witness Ames be not paid his witness’expenses.