GENERAL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIV, Issue 95, 28 March 1916, Page 7

GENERAL.

The following is a comparison of the revenue from the privileges at the Opuuake Races this year compared with that of last year (in parentheses). Totalisator £16,(166 (£13,232), privileges £9O (£92), main gates £163 18s 6cl .(£143 19s); law* gates £223 10s (£l6l 15s;)I The amount paid the Government for totalisator taxes is £Bll 15s 3d. The Appeal Court at "Wellington on Monday, reserved judgment in the case of The King v. Olive Theresa Haynes and Thomas William Haynes. This was a Napier case, in which the woman was indicted for making a false declaration of her loss under a. fire insurance policy, and the male prisoner with abetting‘the commission of the offence. They were found guilty, and the Court was now asked to decide whether the verdict was corerct, >it being alleged that the declaration j did not refer to the Justices of the Peace Act nor to the list of chattels alleged to have been destroyed.—P.A. The Court of Appeal, sitting in Wellington, heard argument yesterday in Crown ease, reserved, The King v. Elizabeth Russell. The prisoner was indicted at Napier for unlawfully abandoning a child under the age of two years. The common ground was that the child was left in perfect safety in the Napier Hospital, where it would be in every way well cared for. The judge refused to withdraw the case from the jury, and directed the jury, if they found that the prisoner left the child in the custody of the authorities of the hospital, intending to cast a burden of maintenance permanently upon the Charitable Aid Board, should find the prisoner guilty. r lhe jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the question for determination is whether in the circumstances the direction of the judge was correct, and the prisoner was properly convicted. Air Dolan, of Napier, appeared for (prisoner, and the Solicitor-General for the Crown. Mr Dolan submitted that there having been no damage to life, no offence was committed. The Solicitor-General contended that the offence was committed if the child was abandoned, whether the child’s life was endangered or not. The Court reserved its decision.—P.A.