SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 72, 4 July 1910, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SESSLONS.

CHARGES OF SHEEP STEALING.

VERDICT OP NOT GUILTY,

I !The hearing of the charges of slieep stealing against Albert Rickup Wood and Stanley Appleby, both of Tututawa, near Stratford, was continued on Saturday morning. In summing-up, his Honor said he was sure a great deal of the evidence adduced in the case was such that great many of the jury could appreciate more fully than he or others who knew little of sheep could do. Probably many of them were farmers or had been farmers. The last count in the indictment presumed that Appleby had stolen the sheep. The preceding counts assumed that the two men had stolen the sheep conjointly. It was essential to consider whether Appleby knowingly stole aonother man's sheep or whether he did not, in' 1 some sort of accident, sweep uj and carry away these sheep. The jury also had to consider when an intention was formed to steal the sheep and keep them, and, if Appleby stole the sheep, whether he stole them as an act of his own. This did not solve the whole question, but it was a very important factor in the solution. Was there an antecedently formed plan to steal the sheep when Wood's mob was put in Bayly's yard? Was a plan made to steal Bayly's sheep when Wood's sheep were in Bayly's paddock. Thirdly, if there was no plan then, was there a, plan, to which Appleby was a party, formed when Wood was in the yards? Or was a plan to keep the sheep made at a later stage, when Wood ear-marked the shedp? It was essential to canvass the question whether a dishonest plan was formed, and when such a plan was formed. There was no suggestion and no evidence to support such a suggestion, that Wood's sheep were put into Bayly's yard as part of a formed plan to raid Bayly's sheep. There was evidence to show why those sheep were thus yarded, reasonable evidence that the sheep were yarded to allow another! mob to pass. What motive was there] for Appleby, a servant and not a partner, to steal those sheep? With regard to the evidence concerning thv gates, his Honor pointed out that it was not until the middle of the month that a criminal prosecution began to formulate, and that these people began to remember what had happened. It was often the case that people tried to remember certain things some weeks after the event, and had a certain recollection, but not quite reliable, because beliefs shaped themselves into certainties. His Honor, pointed out that Barron's evidence regarding the sheep in the flock being distinguishable was, hardly enough to convict a man forming a dishonest design, because it made no allowance for the different abilities of different men to detect sheep. With regard to the rgmark made by Boddam,! "None of your funny business, etc./'« that was quite natural, for it had to bo | remembered that it wa* fc detective's duty to .investigate crime, and it was only natural for Boddam io st'tfp the conversation between Bayly atfd Wood' if he thought there was an idea & the matter being settled between the two' men. The jury also had to considCJ" what was done in the ear-marking to! determine a dishonest act. If a man wanted dishonestly to get rid of Bayly's' ear-mark it would be an, easy matter when the mark was near the tip of the ear. If the mark had been in its proper place, near the middle of the ear, it would have been suspicious for a man to take off more than a quarter of the ear to get rid of the ear-mark. Had Wood done a suspicious act? It must be taken into consideration in Wood's favour that in some cases Wood's earmark had been put 'on sparing Bayly's!' altogether, and in other cases Bayly's j ear-mark had been only slightly touched,; leaving it still recognisable. If the jury had doubt as to whether there was dishonesty in either the appropriation of the sheep or the ear-marking it had to I give effect to its doubt in the usual' way. His Honor also referred to the' evidence on the qualities of the two lots, of sheep. As to the raised fence, hej though the jury could fairly eliminate that question, unless the jury could seesome evidence in the matte* that hej could not see. The jury had to consider j three points, viz., that Wood had tour examinations of his sheep, and that he must have been satisfied that the sfleep were not his, and that he decided to

take them, that when with all that in, his mind he determined to ear-mark them, and how far the conversations after the event, when Bayly and Bod-| dam visited the property, supported ( these two points. The jury could not convict a man on suspicion only, even strong suspicion, hut only if convinced of guilt from the general weight of evidence. If that was not proved there was an end of the matter. If Wood was satisfied when he ear-marked the sheep that he was appropriating another man's sheep then he was guilty of the offence. His Honor occupied an

hour in his address. The jury retired at 11.5 a.m. ,! At 12.20 p.m. the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty against Appleby,! but stated that they wished to further consider the case a : gainst Wood. Appleby was then discharged, and the jury retired again. A few minutes after 3 p.m. the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty in Wood's case, and he was then discharged.

DIVORCE. BEATTIE y. BEATTIE. Mary Ann Beattie petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Adamj Beattie, of Hawera. Mr. Hutchen ap-l peared for petitioner, but there was noj appearance for respondent I i Petitioner stated that she was mar-1 ried to respondent at Hawera on January 11, 1005. There were no children. I At the time of her marriage her hus-| band held a lease of the Otakeho Hotel. Three months after marriage her husband took to drink and became a confirmed drunkard. As far as he would allow her she looked after the business. "She had to.do the whole of the housework as well, fa August 907, the house was burned down. When the hotel was re-built the license was trans-, ferred to her, and she conducted the, business herself up to June, 1908, when sn-e sold her interest Before she> went] out of the business she paid off all tne creditors, and had since been ,n a situ-1 ation. There were no children of the marriage. . ,' Confirmatory evidence was given, and, his Honor granted a decree nisi, to ho made absolve in three months, with costs on the lowest scale.

©UNCAN v. DUNCAN AND EADES. There was no appearance of respondent or co-respondent in the divorce case of John Samuel Duncan v. Sophia Maud Duncan and Henry C. Eades respondent), the ground of the application being adultery. Mr. Spence appeared for the petitioner. Petitioner, a young man, deposed that he was a railway ganger, now stationed near Waipuku. He was married to respondent, who was then Sophia Maud Ehlers, at Westport on September 26, 1901. They lived at Westport, then at Pigeon Bush, and later at Hukamii. His wife met Eades at Hukanui. She complained about Hukanui, and they separated, his wife going to live at Waganui. There was no ill-feeling between them, but she gave as her reason for going away bad health and the prevalence of bush fires. They were quite friendly when they separated. Later applied for a transfer to the Wanganui district, and was shifted to Marton. He asked his wife to live with him, but she would not. She was living with her brother at Wanganui, with 'Eades as a boarder. Witness continued to maintain her. Then his wife went to Eltham, and eventually he himself was shifted Ito Waipuku. His wife still lived at Eltham, with Eades as a boarder. They corresponded regularly and he sent her money regularly. He went to the Eltham house once or twice, at the end of the month. At length his suspicions were aroused, and he determined to go to Eltham to find out the truth of the matter. On February 21 last, he went there by himself, and listening at a window heard what caused him to deeire a further investigation. Accordingly, on the evening of March 7 he went there with Charles Arps. Witness, who was in his stockinged feet, listened at the window again, and then, with Arps beside him, he broke the window and raised the blind. There was a lighted lamp in the room, and witness and Arps saw respondent in bed with Eades. Later, respondent reproached witness with having caused a scandal, adding that she would have told him the truth sooner or later. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, the petitioner to have custody of the four children Of. the marriage. j BANKRUPTCY. I Mr. T. S. Weston moved for the public examination of Thomas Clare (|W&> tara). Mr. A. H. Johnstone legresented bankrupt. His Honor conferred;; upon the Registrar power to hold the. examination. Orders for the discharge of One t«Elowing ' bartkrupts were granted, there being no opposition. Edward Antuooy Laurent .(Mr. Gray, instructed by Wr. Wake), Frederick W. White (Mr. T. E. Wilson), Helen Brown (Mr. R. ■ Spence), William Chas. Noble iMr. Hutohen), Elien Flynn (Mr. Spence). Mr. C. Wright, instructed by Mr. O'Dea, of Hawera, moved for the discharge of Albert Edward Madgwick. His Honor, after perusing the report of the Deputy Official Assignee at Hawera, and questioning the bankrupt, said that it was unsatisfactory that the wages claims had not been paid. An able-bodied man ought not to get an unconditional discharge while these claims were unpaid. Mr. Quilliam stated that he had just beett instructed that the District Official, Assignee was very ill, too ill to makej the supplementary report he wished toi m&ke. I The matter' was ordered to stand over until the next sessions of the court, for a supplementary report from the District Official Assignee. Mf' A. H. Johnstone, instructed by, Hi'.- (i. Grey, applied for an order tor tU' discharge from bankruptcy of Wilmm Russell Mackay. ..a? • H'Js Honor considered the, ftistricfc Official Assignee's report showed mat-1 ters were' Anything but satisfactory, arid there were 1 jstill many matters for the Assignee to iwind up. The bankrupt had offered 7s fid in the £ at one time, but had done nothing since. v Mr. Johnstone: Well, the creditors! have done something. The bankrupt has had to stand the expense and odium of a public examination and a public trial * in this court. He was not likely to be in the same frame of mind after this as he was before. i c ■ His Honor: Possibly not. } Mr. Johnstone suggested that banksupt should be given a conditional dis-1 charge. The Deputy Official Assignee at Stratford (Mr. Coleman) considered the application was premature. He had not had the opportunity of calling a meeting of creditors to ascertain if they were in opposition to a conditional discharge. His Honor agreed that the motion was premature. It, would be better to call a meeting of creditors. The motion was deferred until the next sessions of the court. CIVIL OASES.

/ When the case of J. W. Wikon and M. C. Lawson, trading as J. W. Wilson and Co. (Mr. Grey) v. John Skinner and E. I. K. Skinner (Mr. Quilliam), a. ilaim for £125 commission on sale by way of, exchange, was called on, Mr. Johnstone,, who appeared for Mr. Grey, stated that the case had been settled out of court.

The Deputy-Registrar announced that a confession had been filed in the caise of William Guy Clemoes (Mr. G. H. Ryan) v. William D. G. Clemoes (Mr. Barton), a claim for possession of land and £lO mesne profits. The cases of W. Greenwood (Mr. v Spence) v. W. Schmidt and W. Bellsliaw (Mr. Quilliam), a claim for £259 damages for breach of warranty of land; and G. F. Hutchinson (Mr. Halliwell) v. Leonard G. Grace and Thomas H. Gillman (Mr. Barton), a claim for injunction, accounts, delivering up of vacuum pump, and damages for infringement of letters patent, were both adjourned until the next sessions of the court. This concluded the business.