SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 133, 14 September 1910, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SESSIONS. The Supreme Court sessions opened at New Plymouth yesterday morning before His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards. GRAND JURY. l'hu following Grand Jury was em-' punched: JN. iv. AiJwDiai'iiiiU (foreman), William Pellew, Duncan McALum, Joseph Little, Benjamin Wells, Walter O. YV us ton, i-'iank E. Orbell, Waiter Bewley, narry v. .uatutews, Clarence S. lieimeif, Kobert N. Renaud, Alfred S. iiascli, Edward Dingle, Alexander L. Cooke, David Char tens, Hickman F. liu&seil, Jidward U. sue! ton, Alired 11. (Steeds, Frederick \» atson, Chriscopher Carter, and Edwin Percy Webster.

HIS HONOUR'S CHARGE. ; His Honor, addressing the Grand i marked that there was but one bill lor their consideration. The circumstances jn that case appeared so trivial that it seemed an absolute pity that the gentlemen oi the Grand Jury should have been brought from their business to consider so small a matter. Still, he hoped that the jury would not giiiuge the small amount oi time necessary. His Honor referred to the opinions sometimes expressed that Grand Juries wtire unnecessary, but he did not subscribe to that opinion. The Grand Juiy stood between those who administered the law and those wno became subject to it. It had not occurred yet, but the time might come when an endeavour would be made to put political pressure upon the discharge oi tne functions of tliose administering the crimiuial laws. Then, it ever, would be a time when the Grand Jury, taken indiscriminately from the whoie body oi the public, would stand between those adnnnisturmg the law and those subject to it. ! Tne Urand Jury was one of the bulwarks' ! oi liberty, a defence that had come ' down to Uitui through all time. It was in the highest degree undesirable that this defence should be taken away ana put under the control of any individual or individuals. The case the Grand Jury had to consider, His Honor continued, would give them mo trouble at all. An old mail named Dale was charged with having assaulted another old man, under great provocation, and caused bodily harm. It seemed plain that the old man, in a lit of temper, provoked by gross insults, had laid hold of a poker, and did some injury, although mot much. He might well have been dealt with in the lower court. Certainly, he added, if the Grand Jury found a true bill against him, no punishment that he would impose would exceed that which could Jiave been imposed in the lower court. PRISONERS FOR SENTENCE. The Grand Jury having retired, several prisoners, who had pleaded guilty in the lower court, came up for sentence. A MAORI LAD'S LAPSE. James Bailey, a Maori boy, came up for sentence on a charge of breaking and entering and theft at Waitara. Mr. Johnstone asked that accused should be admitted to probation. His Honor interrupted that he did not propose to send the boy to probation. Aduressing the accused, he said, "You are a very bad boy. You have begun; a life of crime. I don't.intend to send; you to gaol, but I intend- to let you go, to come up for sentence when called upon." His Honor pointed out that this was no idle threat, but should be a dis-1 tinct intimation of what would happen if the accused erred again. He was then l released, and ordered to come up for j sentence when called upon. THEFT FROM A DWELLING. Henry Bailey, . with several aliases, had pleaded guilty to theft from a dwelling-house at Waitara. Mr. Weston j appeared for the Crown. Trisoner put I in a statement for the consideration of the Court. His Honor referred to the prisoner's' list of eighteen convictions embracing rape at New Plymouth in 1891, vagrancy in 181)3 (which the prisoner denied), larceny at New Plymouth in 1894, larceny and mischief at New Plymouth in 1895, larceny at Hawera, breaking and entering at New Plymouth, and breaking and entering at Wanganui, all in that year, and a list of similar offences down to the present time. "You are a habitual criminal," he said to accused, "and a habitual criminal you must be declared." Bailey was then sentenced to 18 months 1 imprisonment with hard labour, and declared a habitual criminal. FORGERY AND UTTERING. John Campbell Withers, a young man, appeared for sentence, he having pleaded guilty to a charge of forging and uttering a cheque at Waverley on 6th June last, and of a similar olience at Stratford on May 11th. Mr. T. S. Weston appeared for the Crown, iiis Honor referring to the prisoner's record, showing convictions at Dannevirke in November, 1907, for theft; at Masterton in the same year, theft; I at Waverley on 12th August last, theft.! The prisoner would be sentenced to two yea/rs' hard labour on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. His Honor warned the accused that he had, qualified now as a habitual criminal, and lie would be declared a habitual criminal if upon liberation he committed further crime. PATRICK DALE RELEASED. Patrick Dale, an inmate of the Ola People's Home, was charged with assault, causing bodily harm to a mau named Allen at the Home. The Grand Jury returned at 11.35 a.m., with a true bill on the second count of common assault, under great provocation. Dale, being formally charged, pleaded guilty under great provocation. Mr. T. S. Weston, for the Crown, asked His Honor to deal leniently withi the accused, who had undoubtedly had very great provocation. Mr. G. Grey, appearing for the accused, said the provocation had been very great indeed, and of a very irritating nature, directed against the accused's religion and his nationality. His Honor asked if the old -man was still in the Old People's Home, and received a reply in the affirmative. His Honor said he did not intend to send such an old man to prison, especially as he was suffering from heart disease. The assault, however, was quite unjustifiable. No insult should have induced the accused to use a poker. If he had used his fists, or even his feet, it would not have mattered. He re-1 cognised that the provocation was extreme. That being the case, he was goin<* to be more lenient than perhaps he ought to be. He would order accused to come up for sentence when called upon. If he misbehaved ihimself again lie would be called and sentenced on this present charge. "You may go now, His Honor concluded, "and control your Ufittci ia future/

THE CIVIL CASES. It was announced by counsel that the case oi Arthur x>eil and others v. J. J.j Hills, a claim for £094 3s 7d for damages for breaches of covenant and rent' in arrears, etc., and a cnunier-ciaim for £l5O due under a mortgage wmi interest; and the case oi Dexter and Crozier, Ltd., v. Flank Lehrlie, a claim for £525 due on the purchase of a motor car, with a counter-claim for refund oi a deposit of £26, had been settled out of court. The ease of George F. Hutchinson v. Leonard G/ Grace and Thomas H. Gillman, a dispute over a patent vacuum pump, was adjourned to Wellington, on the application of the parties. The matter of James Dunlop v. Harry Eyre Kenny and the Mereinere Co-opera-tive Dairy Factory Company, Ltd., was also adjourned to Wellington. A LAND TRANSACTION. Willie Greenwood v. Wil.iam Schmidt and William iieisliaw, ciaini lor damages for alleged breach oi warranty in regard to a saie of land. Mr. R. Spence (Messrs. Spence and Stanford) appeared for the piaintili, and Mr. J. H. Quilliam (Messrs. Govett and Quilliam) for the defendants. The statement of claim set out that on or about the 25th oi January, 1910, the piaintili' purchased from the defendants all their estate or interest under occupation license with right of purchase in section 2, block V., Minii, b.D., containing 1022 acres, for the sum of £OOO. In the course of the negotiations for the sale of the goodwill of the said property, the deiendants, by their agents, Gilmour and Clarke, affirmed to tile piaintili that there were 122 acres oi the .property in grass. The defendants themselves, immediately prior to the parties entering into the agreement, in the course of conversations, frequently repeated the affirmation. The plaintiff was thereby induced to purchase the goodwill of the property, relying on tlie affirmation of the agents and of the defendants themselves, and of the truth of the same. The said affirmation was not true, ior there were not 122 acres of the property in grass but only 4'J acres in glass, a deiiciency of 73 acres. The said affirmation was a warranty col.ateral to and part of the contract of sale and inducmg the piaintili' to purchase and by reason oi the breach thereof the piaintili' had suffered damage. And for an alternative cause of action the piaintili' said the affirmation was false to the knowledge of the defendants and was a fraudulent misrepresentation. The plaintiff claimed damages as follow: Cost of felling and grassing the said deficiency of 73 acres at £2 an acre, £140; loss by death of 60 sheep at 10s each in consequence of shortage of 73 acres of available grazing country, £3O; rent paid for land, leased to help, to enable the plaintiff' to carry his stock over the winter of 1909, £10; loss of 73 acres oi grassed 1 country at 10s an acre per annum from! Ist June, 19U9, to Ist June, 1911, being 1 the earliest time at which the said 73 acres can be available for grazing, £73; j total, £-259. |

J.ne statement of defence was:— Defendants admitted that the plaintiff purchased from them all their estate or interest in section 2, block 5, Mimi, Survey District, for £OOO, as alleged in the statement of claim. They denied that on or about April 19, 1907, or at any other time, they by their agents, Messrs. Gilmour and Clarke, affirmed to the plaintiff that there were 122 acres of i the said land in grass, as alleged in the statement of claim. They denied that on or about April 24, 1909, or at any other time, they repeated to the plaintiff any such affirmation. They denied that the plaintiff was induced to purchase the said land in reliance on any affirmation or representation made to the {plaintiff by the defendants, or by any agent on their behalf. They denied that there were only 49 acres of the said land in grass. They denied that any affirmation made by them was false to their knowledge, or that they by fraudulent misrepresentation induced the plaintiff to purchase the property. The plaintiff did not suffer the alleged or any damage. Defendants admitted that in April, 1909, feey informed the plaintiff that they believed that about 100 acres of the land were in grass, but that they had never been measured. They made the statement in ■the last preceding paragraph on reasonable grounds, and honestly belieyed it to be true, and without fraud. The plaintiff personally inspected the laua before entering into any agreement to purchase it. For some months prior to January 21, 1910, the plaintiff was in possession of and resided upon the land, and knew the extent of the area inj grass. On January 21, 1910, all the interest in the land was transferred to the plaintiff by memorandum of transfer, under the provisions of the Land transfer Act, 1908. Mr. Spence adduced lengthy evidence, given by the plaintiff Greenwood; H. M. Bannister, chief clerk in the Crown Lands Office at New Plymouth; T. E. Astwood, a farmer at Okau; B. H. Horner, a licensed assistant surveyor; and a written statement by Mr. J. C. Nicholson, solicitor, was put in by consent of both parties. For the defence, Mr. Quilliam led evidence from the defendants, Belshaw and Smith, and 11. T. Twiss, Crown Lands ranger. This concluded the evidence. His Honor will hear argument in the matter this morning.