SUPREME COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 272, 14 May 1912, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

A DIVORCE COURT. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Monday. Memories of a sensational divorce case, heard in Sydney in 1901, were revived by the trial, which commenced in the Supreme Court to-day, when Alice Conningham sued for a divorce from her husband, Arthur Conningham, on the grounds of adultery. The case is being heard before Mr. Justice Chapman and a jury. Application to have the case heard in camera was declined, the judge stating that he might have to order that some of the evidence be not published.

Respondent asked that a cross-peti-tion be heard at the same time, but his Honor said the matter was not set down, and he could not try it. Petitioner, in her evidence, said she was married in Sydney in 1893. There were three children of the marriage. She lived with her ihusband Until 1000, when they separated for a time. About three years ago respondent went away. He had not really maintained her for twelve years. Petitioner also gave, the evidence which led her to suspect her husband's conduct. The case is proceeding.

A GRAVE INDICTMENT. Christchurch, Last Night. The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court opened to-day. His Honor, in addressing the grand jury, said that the calender was a lengthy one and uncongenial in many respects. There were four cases of what might be called an 1 ordinary class out of fifteen cases. These were the only ones not connected with sexual offences. Dealing with the charges against six young men of unlawfully carnally knowing a girl under the age of 16, His Honor said that there _ was no doubt this kind of immorality was becoming very frequent. His own experience throughout the Dominion and that of other judges was that the pursuit of young girls by men was becoming very frequent. Whether it was the allowing of young men and girls to go out together without control or whether the knowledge of the human body was not imparted, or whether there was no attempt at guidance, there was no doubt that this kind of immorality was very prevalent. The total absence of control hy parents of their children was in very marked evidence. George Foster Brown was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for theft from the person. Edward Michael Wood, alias Edward Taylor, for housebreaking and theft, was ordered to be returned to Burnham Industrial School.

William Cooper, on two charges of forgery and uttering, was committed to the Salvation Army Home. Alfred Robinson and Edward Watson appeared on charges of theft at Greymouth, and Oliver Robinson on charges of theft and receiving stolen property. The Robinsons were sentenced to six months' imprisonment each, and Watson to three months' imprisonment. James lßartley, for forgery and uttering a cheque for £23, received six months' imprisonment. Joseph Robinson, with several aliases, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for assault and- robberv.

DTTNEDIN SESSIONS. Dunedin. Last Night. The criminal sittings opened to-day. The list is slightly longer than usual. The grand jury found true bills in seven out of eight cases. The case in which no true bill was found was one where a youth named Moloney had been charged with committing ail indecent <*t. Thomas Johnston, charged with stealing three head of cattle at Oamarti, was acquitted. Stanley Charles Hilgendorf and Michael Regley, who pleaded' guillv respectively to charges of stealing a postal packet from the railway office at Omakahu and receiving £2O from > the packet, were admitted to probation for twelve months.

Peter Henry Greig pleaded guilty to two charges of stealing timber from Hogg and Co., and also to a charge ol receiving and sentence was deferred. James Alexander Greig pleaded not guilty to charges of theft of timber, the property of Hogg and Co., and of receiving, and after the jury had deliberated! for an hour was found guilty on the second count. Sentence was deferred.