SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 322, 23 February 1910, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

NAPIER SESSIONS. By TelegMpn.—Press' Association. a ... -, Napier, Last Night At the Mipreme Court to-dav, Fatriek' MeMahon. charged with theft from the Person at Hastings, was found not guilty and discharged. I„ consequent of this verdict, no evidence was offered against two other men chared w : ih receiving, and they were found not guilty and discharged. Hiram Ashcroft and Arthur Hanlen pleaded giut'v to charges of obtaining money i>v .means of forgerl telegrams in connection with betting transaction*, and senten-e was deferred. John Henry Farrcily, charged with forgery and selling «oods under security at Hastings, was reported to have absconded. Louis Morgan was found guilty of indecent assault, ■with a strong recommendation to mercy. He wa6 remanded for sentence.

CHRISTCHURCH SESSIONS. Ohristohurcn, Last Night. - At the Supreme Court to-dav, in an application by John Hanna for an injunction to restraining the Trotting Association from disqualifying him, JudVe Sim in his judgment said it was not the function of the Supreme Court to act as a Court of Appeal from the decisions of such bodies as the Association. The only ground for interference woald be that the decision was not arrived at properly, or that the Association acted contrary to principles natural to justice. H e concluded that Hanna had purposely avoided giving explanations to a committee before disqualification. He ihad no reason to think the Association had not acted hona-fide, and judgment was given for the defendant Association, with costs. In the case brought by the Canterbury College for compensation for lanls (taken on the Midland railway, the •fudge held that the College was -entitled to compensation, but the amount should be fixed by the Compensation Court. W. T. Davigc was given judgment against T. McQueen for £IOO comm.ssion on the sale of farms in the Waikato. In Napper and O'Grady, an appeal irom the decision of the Ashburton Magistrate in fining appellant for driving a motor at an excessive speed, the appeal was allowed, following the vccent decision of Mr. Justice Williams.