SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 3 July 1907, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

SEW I'LY-MOli'l'll, TUESDAY, JULY 2 Belore His Honor Mr. Justice Billion. ALLKUED THEFT OP JIONEY. Tin' hearing of the charge preferred again-l Fred, Fonliiiiella was resumed, ibis mis the re-trial on a charge of theft of .til 10s from li, 11. Campbell, of El ilium. His Honor summed up ill favor of the misecution. 'I hey had a man here who had borne a. hbh character in the past, and he was '•hurled with a crime which, if proved against him, would ruin his character in ihe future. The first thing the jury would have to consider was this: Was there a rubbery? Did a robbery take place; Counsel lor the prisoner admitted there had been a robbery. Did Campbell know and remember the number ol the notes? On 1 lie morning of the robbery Campbell did not know the actual amount of his loss, or how it was made up. He thought at first that he had lost some cheques, and he was very excited. He put the cheques in the safe, as he had to go away. Hut later on he told Ihe constable that lie had lost forty notes. Campbell's evidence as to Hit occurrence of the robbery was eorroborrated by Russell, who saw the notes pul m the safe. Next morning they wen gone. If the jury was satisfied that the notes had been placed in the safe, am that they had gone next morning the robbery was proved. Was the safe locked up? And was the door of the bai locked, that night? His Honor comment ed on the "easy-going" sort of man tlia Mr Campbell was, according to the cvi deuce that the keys had been left ii the door at other times. But here tin element of the trousers came in. Tliesi were found downstairs in the oflice. 1 was not likely that Campbell left then there. Someone must liave taken then there, and they must have been takei there because the keys were in the poc ket. This seemed to prove that the ba and safe had been locked when the li consce went to bed. Mr Campbell dining the day came to the conclusion tha lie had lost forty single notes. Thi was a remarkable coincidence in the find ing of the forty single notes somewha concealed in the prisoner's possession ■there was another remarkable coinci dence, that Campbell said lie had los thirty shillings in silver from his trou sers pocket, and that amount in silvei made up almost as Campbell describee was found also in the prisoner's posses sion Who committed the robbery? Th thief left the gold, silver, and cheque m the safe. The leaving of the cheque was easily explained. The coin had beei left probably because the thief was ii a hurry. It was quite clear that anyon other than the prisoner could have com nutted the robbery, except that a stran ger would have been content with takin only the keys. The man who opened th bar that morning, as told by Helliei committed the robbery. That was hi Honor's opinion, in the light of that evi dence. Fontanels served Hellier with drink that morning. How did he ge into the bar? Either he found it opei or he opened it, as Hellier said, with th keys. Ills Honor considered that who ever opened the bar opened the safe Apart from the opportunity to coiiuni the robbery, were there other element that might fix upon the prisoner's as th thief? A deal of importance attache to w'hethcr or not the prisoner had any thing like £3O as stated when he cam to the colony. Even if ho had there wa the coiiwidence of the forty single note/ As to character, lie was entitled to liav Lhat thrown into the balance in his favo should the pros and cons be even! matched. But there was this to be salt Every man was an honest man until h sommitted his first offence, but once h committed a crime his character wa ?onc; he was no longer a man without i blemish on his character. The jury retired at 8.30. The jury returned at 7.1)0, and th foreman annouficed that they had failo to agree, and there was no chance of ai ngrcement even if they were locked u: for days. His Honor said lie had no power t M< "''i'* prisoner, but he would releas him, as before, in his own rccognisane of I*2oo, to come up for trial if eallei upon. The accused was then released, an the jury discharged. IN DIVORCE. ARTHUR JOHN TAYLOR v. ELIZABETH TAYLOR. Application for restitution of ennjuga rights. Mr Qui'Uain for petitioner; n appearance of respondent. The petitioner stated that the partis married on January 1, 1002, and (lie lived together at Kaimata and on th Lepper road, where the petitioner wa the manager of a creamery. In July o last year the respondent became unwel and her husband brought her to \c\ Plymouth to see a doctor. A sligli operation was advised, but she decline to undergo the treatment. Much agains his w'l. lu: allowed her to go to Audcl in to consult a specialist, an iinqualifie practitioner, lie saw her off, and gav her .CO for expenses. He sent £0 to he at Auckland. She wrote to petitione from time to time, informing him of he iupioving health until at last she sail she was fully restored. In Septembe he went to sec her, but she was not a the address from which the letters hai been written. Eventually he found he in service at Parnell. and she deelinei to ieturn home, stating she was going ti earn her own living for the future. Afte some persuasion she promised to re tun home at the end of the month, and h< came back to Taranaki. On his returi be lound a letter written by his wifi belore he had left Auckland, declining ti return. Another letter came just after wards, lo the same effect, hut move de cisive. lie then wrote to his wife, oi October 27, 'but he had not heard fron bis wife! since. He was not conscious lit ever having done anything to justify us wile in leaving him, or refusng t( live Willi lmu. Wniam Gcorg 0 Shoomark. a neighbor, -t.ited that he liad frequently visited the I'n.vlors, and he thought Taylor treated l"s wife kindly, Order for restitution of con|ugal rMil« " "" 21 'kvs Of service of the ordeT. ' BOON i-. JJOO.X AND CLOW. •I- w. Boon v. Ethel Maud Boon, respondent, and M. E. Clow, co-respondent. i, I ' l ', ,or ltlss °l»liou of marriage. lr Qullliam appeared for the petitioner. rallies WUS UU ill>l)e ' ,runco of the other the evidence of misconduct was given >y the petitioner. A letter, written bv cspondent. admitting the intimacy, was Hit lit. Having perused this, his Honor asked: 'Don t you think you can forgive her ■ Iter lhat letterV" The petitioner shook us bead. Ihe Judge said this was a very sad lise, and he recommended petitioner to hink the matter over again. Should 10 Willi!! to Hie conclusion other limn the urthering of the proceedings. W might n years to come be grateful for the opni'tunity aflorded of again poiideriii"" ver the matter in his mind. ° J he Judge's suggestion was agreed to lid the Court adjourned.