SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16485, 26 February 1914, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

PRISONERS FOR SENTENCE. Two prisoners who had pleaded guilty to. indictable offences in the lower Courts were brought up for sentence before Mr Justice Denniston yesterday. MAKING A FALSE DECLARATION. Lionel Walter Doreen, who had escaped from Burnham and made a,false declaration as to his name and age before getting married, was not represented by counsel. He handed up a written statement. In reply to his Honor the prisoner said that he would be twenty-one in July. His _ Honor replied that'he preferred te believe the record handed in by Mr Wright for the Crown, which gave his age as eighteen on January 21 last. "Did the girl you married know that you were married under a false namer"'' asked his Honor. "No," said the prisoner. "Then what are the consequences?" asked his Honor. Mr Wright suggested that it was a ground for nullity of marriage. His Honor said that not been fortunate in starting life, unci it was in his favour that he seemed 1o have behaved well except for running away, which did not show any sptcml natural depravity. Nothing would be gained by sending him to gaol, he would be ordered to come up i.r sentence when called on. A MORAL WEAKLING. Frank Morton, who had pleaded guilty to indecent acts, was brought up for sentence. Accused made a statement to the effect that there had been trouble in the home, where his father was trying to blacken his mother's character, and he had committed the acts so that he could come to Court and expose his father. His Honor said that the prisoner had been convicted of the most disgusting acts of indecency that he had heard of for a long time. If he had wanted to get before the Court as he statr.d he could easily have broken a window, not that he counselled such a course, but it would have been a great improvement on the present offence, ihe prisoner was a most difficult case, one ot sex mania in fact, and in any wol'-conduct-ed country should bo locked up permanently, or until he had shown a definite improvement. He thought that he had gone beyond the stage when moral treatment would reach him, and v ould be a menace to any place of confinement. In reply to his Honor, Mr Vnynton. gaoler, said that no more could be done with the man in gaol than with any other prisoner. His Honor, in ordering a aedical examination of the prisoner paid that the authorities should confine him in some proper mental institution. IN BANCO. His Honor Mr Justice Denniston Bat in Banco at the Supreme Court yesterday. CLARKE v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. In Clarke and another v. the Attor-ney-General and another, an originating summons. Mr Vincent appeared for the plaintiffs (the trustees), who,' he said, would submit to the decree of tho Court. Mr Wright appeared for the Attorney-General, and Mr Meares for Charles; Henry Pritchard, "the next of kin. ."•■•■ ■ • . ~.'• ■■) . •; - • ■■•'- -■• •- ■ Mr Meares said that the case was an originating summons for interpretation of the will of Charles Beasley Abel. Tho clause in dispute read, " as to the balance of moneys held by my trustees I give to my trustees to distribute among local charitable or benevolent institutions the balance of moneys after making payment of moneys as previously directed." It was submitted on behalf rt of the next of kin, that-the Residuary bequest, having regard to the word "or" before benevolent was void for uncertainty, and should be distributed among the-next of kin.-.'„., Y In reply to his Honor Mr Wright said that the amount involved was 1 only £6OO. .V.-y

Mr Meares quoted authorities on the 1 difference between charitable and benevolent institutions. . .■ &• ! Mr Wright submitted that a general gift to . charity was not deferred' on account of the uncertainty of its objects, and a charitable gift lie conceded, combined with an uncertain and vague gift not charitable was void; but in the case of a charitable gift, combined with a non-charitable gift that 1 was capable of being, ascertained and executed, both gifts were ..valid. He submitted that the gift was wholly charitable.

Decision was reserved. THISTLE CO. v. JENKINS.

The Thistle Manufacturing and Trading Co.. v. W. J. Jenkins, was a case on appeal against the decision of tho Magistrate. Mr Cuningham appeared for the appellant, and Mr Wright for the respondent. Mr Cuningham said that tho point for determination .was,the. validity of a promissory note for £35 drawn by an infant., Gillison, the infant, gave a note as..part of the purchase money of a right to manufacture a sauce. The note had been given to Badham, and endorsed by Jenlrins. Gillison had dishonoured it, but being an infant could not be held under, the law to be liable for a promissory note. Mr Cuningham quoted authorities.' '■ • In reply to his Honor, Mr Wright said that he did not contend against the law- quoted by Mr,-Cunningham, and could not succeed on the promisory note as such, but he thought that the Magistrate's decision could be upheld on the ground that it was a decision on the original promise. He suggested that a new trial should be ordered. His Honor said that the most ho could do was to send the case bade for re-trial. Costs £2 2s were allowed. .'-AN APPEAL CASE.

A. M. Loasby and Percy C. Loasby (Mr Cassidy) v. James S. Mam (Mr Gresson).was an appeal in two. cases from the decision of Justices of tho Peace in convicting them of a: breach of the game laws in taking ducks. : '

Mr Cassidy, for the appellants, said that the appeal depended on the right of justices to- use the evidence given in one case against a distinct defendant in another case. • There had been fire informations, the first two of which had been dismissed.against Hunter and Overton.. After hearing the third case, that of Davison, the Bench announced that they would not eive a decision until they had heard the remaining cases. At the end of the cases the Bench gave a joint judgment, without, however, having previously aniiounccd their intention, to convict in the third case. In Davison's case the defendant had given evidence and had called a witness, and the evidence was much stronger than the case for tho prosecution. This evidence was .not called iii the cases against A. M. and P. C. Loasby, but had affected the decision in those cases.

His Honor said that the prosecution could still have called Davison.' Mr Cassidy replied that this could not have been done, as Davison was still a defendant, and no decision had been given. If tho Bench had convicted him -they might then have called him, but not otherwise.

His Honpr said that if he agreed with Mi Cassidy's point he could send tho case for retrial. Mr Gresson said that the charge in each case was that the defendant had taken native game in a close season. It had been found that they were in possession of game, and as the onus of proving their innocence was on the defendants the convictions' were quite proper. The evidence for the prosecution was the same in each case. Tho three men were in a group, and

.evidence., against one was evidence against* all. .'■' -... ;. . j '■*[ His Honor pointed out that f£)fihe Bench had decided to convict Davison, Mr Cassidy would have "had no ovbjection. How then could objection; •bff taken to the conviction of A.'MJ'anc P. C. Loasby? , *' iv " &■) Judgment was reserved. ; ; ; .

AUCKLAND CRIMINAL | £ sessions. :.•, :;■ . \ [PEB Pbeßß ASSOCIATION.] '! AUCKLAND, February J 25. At the Supreme "Court Richard Carpenter, who liad pleaded,guilty toyfcjro charges of burglary, a$ a series of fourteen.,. at' papier,' ceived a sentence of-two .. years' .\ unSrisohment with hard labour and ..will e brought up at Napier to.be 'dealt with on the burglaries obmmittecf there. '' k "•■ •• •'• ij v * When a young man named John Halston; who had pleaded guilty to "art unnatural offence,- came up for'Sentence, the. gaol surgeon..reported,,him, to be a sexual degenerate and insane. His Honor decided to remand the prisoner.rand. communieate-«-witlh-s tha Minister of Justice as to how h« should deal with the case, which > h« described as an abominable one. ThWmas Edwards - was ! found guilty of' theft from a Doarding-house and will be sentenced to-morrow.-.. PALMERSTON SESSIONS. [ [Pee Press Assocution.] PALMERSTON NORTH, February',2s. Howard Webley, at tW..Supreme Court to-day, was found of com verting money received fronr the Jsalt of a horse owned by Thomas';jLaurie tc his own use. i . Prisoner was .admitted to probation for twelve months on condition that he refunded £2oj,'the value of- the horse and paid £8 2s, cost of prosecution. *' '';'•