SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 May 1918, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. (Ticfore his Honor the Chief Justice, Kir .Robert Stout) The sittings of the .Supreme Court at New Plymouth were continued yesterday before his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). SENTENCES ON MAORIS. Noho Te Whiti and the 17 other Natives who were convicted on Wednesday On various charges arising out of the Eahotu riot, appeared for . sentence. Mr. P. P. Kitzhcrbert, who appeared for the prisoners, pleaded /or leniency. 110 said they expressed sincere contrition for the disLUi'btiuce made and for putting the country to the expense of the investigation. The convictions which stood against some of the Natives were not for foious offences, and those a_g:unst the two older men were for oifences committed in their youlhtful days, when they wen probably as excitable as the young men of the present day. The majority of the men were lirst oll'enders. ?,nd he asked that his Honor extend the provisions of the Probation Act to them and so avoid sending + .!iem to gaol It was remarkable that the Parihaka Natives had not been convicted of any serious offences;. The worst they had done was to disturb law and ordjr, and be submitted that to conduct himself properly in public was the last thing a Native would be likely to learn. The fact that so little injury suul ibeen caused to those who participated in the row was an evidence that the Native? had acted with the utmost self-control. Through the amount of publicity the matter bad received, and the fact that tlie prisoners 'had spent a couple of nights in gaol, they had bnd a lesson which would ensure that such a disturbance would not occur again so far as they were eonI earned, especially if his Honor took steps to s->.> that the cause of the whole: trouble was placed out of the reach of the Natives. Ife was in full" accord with bis Honor's views regarding Hie effect of drink on the Natives, s',id hoped something would be done to prevent them beina -applied. The Chief Justice, in delivering sen-

ienee. said that, it would Imve a very had effect if such disturbances of the peace and attacks upon officers of tlie law wcr« allowed. Officers of the law had n dutv to perform, and they must hj» protected. Te Whiti was responsible for the whole trouble. T-Tn had ai'ted unlike a chief. He had broken his word When he said he would fro ouietlv if lef- lrp. he was released, and ■iV'r did what no true raneitira would

''" —lirnlto I'.ij word and refused to go. The Chief Justice said he had met Te Whiti's fr.fiber and Tohu and other big chiefo, and ho was sure none of them would have done such a tiling. Tho dictm-bnhco was tho outcome of Te '•Yhiti's attitude towards the police. T1, Pr n vcre some of the Xiith-es whom hj" did not. intend to send to g.io! nheut half of them. There were others a"H ; nst whom tli»re were urevious con-vW-'nii*. and who were therefore not -iifitVd to nrehation. Tie referred to m,„ t, v ,i r'.in,- inon among the prisoners, and said tliev should have known h«tter then to lie implicated in such a disturbance. SENTENCES. Tho Chief Justice then announced the following sentences: — Te Whiti, IS months' imprisonment and a fine of £2O, to be pa:id on release, in default a further six montli«" imprisonment. Rangi Porikapn. Pini Leatlierbv, Tara Harwood. .foe Tamakaha, Pakiroa and Tiiahinekoro, six months' imprisonment and a fine of £lO each, to be paid within six months. Turoa Kahukura, Okeroa, Porikapa. sen., and Tamakaha, four months' imprisonment, and a line of £7 each, to be paid on release. Eruiti. Hangi Kimate. Kira Raumati, Wi Patene, Watson, Turu Turn Wharepouri. and T\ape Hoka Moen.hu, nrehation for two years, during which thev must not, enter a hotel or drink intoxicating liquor, if thev did, they -would have to come up for sentence. Fines of £r> (to he paid within six months! were iiwnoscd in each case, except that of Wi Patene, who. in consideration of his physical defect, was required to pav onlv £2 2s.

That lie had dealt leniently with, the prisoners could be judged by the fact thin To Wlrti was'liable to 12 years' imprisonment, and the others to nine vears each. He bad been far more lenient to them than he had to Europeans in connection with some rioting that took place in Wellington some years ago. The court was crowded, amongst those present 'being a large number of Xatives. and the announcement of the sentences appeared to be received with philosophy.

CIVIL OARER. INTERPRETATION' OF A WILL. K. G. J. Elwin and J. J. Elwin (executors) v. !). 'M. -Avery and C. li. Rtoror, applied for an interpretation of the will of the late Jams* .[. Elwiu- .Mr. J. C. Nicholson appeared for the executors, and intimated ho would submit to the order of the Court. iMr. A. 11. Johnstone appeared on behalf of 0. If. Avery, C. B. Storer being unrepresented. Mr, Johnstone submitted the onlv question raised was as to what time the survivorship related, whether the denth of the testator or the death of the fife lemnt. The clT.hu on behalf of Storer was for one-half of a sixth share j under the will at the death of the testator, that that amount was vested and went to the next-of-kin of Storer as he had pre-deceased the testator. His Honor decided that survivorship related to those living at tlie time of the life tenant's death, and that therefore 0. M. Avery was entitled to the full one-sixth share. Costs amounting to £S Rs, with disbursements, were allowed out of the estate. PROMISSORY NOTE John Macnicoll Gumming (Mr. A- TI. Johnstone) claimed from Reginald' de Charmes Beauchamp (Mr. J. H. Quilliam) £2Ol on a promissory note. lieginald de 0. Beauchamp, farmer, residing at Tnglewood. said fcc was in business there in 1913. He also did some stock dealing, partly through Matthews, Oamlin, and Co., stock agents ami auctioneers, and Newton Kins. Mr. Cuinmiw was accountant for Matthews,

(i.iuilin. lie did all the office work, and received practically all the payments made-by witness. Stock bought i-Mattliews, (lainliii, and. Co. was sometimes paid for 'by cheque, and sometimes by promissory note. lie enlisted in i'.J.lo, and wont into tamp on (M-oiier 12, at nine days' notice. Air. liiulgo was appointed attorney, and in Xoveml>i:iwitness came to inedewo' ! ami a meeting was bold to settle .;, affairs. 'A list of creditors was produced at the meeting, but plaintiff's, name did not appear. PlainiilT had-admitted at the meeting that all the liabilities- of witness v.\;n' shown. Before- leavim* Xew Zealand iho received from Matthews, i!aml!n a sum of £25 or £3O. Witness left Xew Zealand on January S,. 1010. The first he hoard of a claim against him by plaintiff was whi/e ho was in Walton-on Thames Hospital. HTo replied by i-alble: "P.n. ■belonsw Matthews and Gamin." JI» returned to Xew Zealamf in January, 1913. He had never aiven tlie plaintiff a promissory note for £-200. neither had he borrowed »noney from bim, nor given diim work that required payment of £2OO. tie did not (•we plaintifi' any money. The promissory note bore bis signature, but he denied all knowledge of it

To Mr. Johnstone: Ho was on friendly terms with plaintiff prior to going away, lie did not rememiber as-king plaintiff to act as his attorney. He had given promissory notes to Matthews. Gamlin, but could not say if he had given one for the amount of the one produced. In July, 191"), he purchased a property in inglewood from Mr. West, consisting of a house and 18 acres, for £1550. All witness' business was dene through Matthews and Gamlin, and plaintiff handled it for them. An exchange was arranged 'between witness and Smith for a farm, and Smith took the property bought from West in part payment. He divided the fa mi and sold to two different purchasers. He could not say w%t the profit had been on the sales. He did not agree to give dimming onefourtli of the profits of the sales- He did not say that the promissory note was a deliberate fraud upon him. He could not say whether he signed it on December '24, 1915. An account was put in showing witness' indebtedness to Matthew's, Oamlin in September, 1915, to he £BOO, and he admitted giving two promissory notes in liquidation of the debt. He mitmt have incurred the indebtedness of 'the promissory note (£200) between Mat time and the time he went into camp in October.

Re-examined by Mr. Qnil'iam, witness said Mattbews and Oanilin charged him the usual commission for work done, for him.

Abel B. Gamlin, of Matthews. Gamlin, and Co., Inglewood. said lie waS a member of the firm in 1015. He had land transactions with defendant, and charged the usual commission. Mr. dimming was accountant for the firm. lie was not aware of him doing any work for other people during office hours, and did not know what he did in his spare time. Tie was acquainted with Beauehamp's financial position, and knew Budge was appointed attorney. He first hoard of the promisbxory note to Camming in -Tune, lltlfi, a few diavs before it became, due. Ciimming left witness' employment about March, ItHfl. Witness's business was*-bomrht hv Mr. King about April, mC>. At tfli'is stage the hearing was adjourned in order to secure the production of the statement of defendant's accounts made out at the meeting in November, 1915. DIVORCE. CLARRY v. CLARRY. George Henry Clarry ('Mr. A. H. Johnston") applied for a divorce from Vera Kathleen Clarry. Petitioner, in his evidence, said lie was married in June, 1911. For a few days he and his wife lived dn his lather's house. His wife then left him, and said sßio would not live with him- They had no quarrel, and she gave no reason for leaving him. He had provided a home, but she would not come to it. fie did not know where she had gone, nor where she was. He had heard that °he was at Waverley, whero her parents lived.

His Honor remarked that tho marriage certificate showed that the wife was only K) years of age at the time of the marriage. *

Continuing, petitioner said he went to the war about three years ago. He had tried to find his wife by inquiry, but she would not recognise her name.

Walter Garry, father of petitioner, gave evidence, and George W. Dent, Church of England clergyman, who performed the marriage ceremony, gave evidence as to respondent being duly served in t!he office of Mr. Thompson, .solicitor, at Orevtown. The Ohicf Justice said it was one of tho«e unfortunate eases in which the parties had been too young to be married. He granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months.