SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2264, 8 October 1891, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Tim arc—Tuesday, Oct. 6th.

[Before His Honor Mr Justice Dennistoun.] The session of the Supreme Court was opened at 11 a.nx. on Tuesday, before His Honour Mr Justice Dennistoun. , ' THE GRAND JURY. The following took their seats as grand jurors : —Messrs W. Evans (foreman), C. N. Orbeli, W. J. Huggins, W. Penrose junr., R, H. Ferguson, R. F. Foster, G. Tennent, F. Cullmann, B. Holdgate, J. Orr, A. W. Busor, J. Hill, J. Campbell, R. Campbell, A. Steadman, E. Brown, D. J. Caldwell, J. Drysdale, J. Foley, H. Cookson, F. J. Dignan, E. Clissold. His Honour briefly charged the Grand Jury, who, returned a true bill on the single case placed before them, and at 10.40 were discharged. FORGERY. Wm. Binley was placed in the dock and charged, on three separate indictments, with forging the name of John Grant as an endorsement to three promissory notes, and uttering the notes well knowing the the endorsements to be forged, on December 20th, 1890, March 30th and August 18th, 1891. . Accused pleaded guilty to each charge. Mr Raymond, who appeared for accused, proposed to call witnesses as to character, but on the assurance of .the Crown Prosecutor that there was nothing against his character, His Honour said it was unnecessary. Mr Raymond said accused had lived at Temuka all his life, had always borne an excellent character, and had hot only his own three motherless children dependent upon him, but also his aged father and mother. He would point out that though there were three separate documents they were all one series, the second and third being only to continue the effect of thefirst, and he would ask his Honour to consider whether it was not a case for the application of the Probation Act. His Honour said that for certain reasons he would be glad to avoid passing sentence upon a prisoner bearing a good character, and who was the support of several people. But he did not think forgery was a crime in which he could apply the Probation Act, except under exceedingly exceptional circumstances, and there was no such exceptional circumstances in this case. Forgery was a serious crime in a commercial community, as it went to the root of all commercial transactions. The accused was full of age and the crime had been deliberate and repeated. If the Probation Act were to be applied, or a minor sentence to be inflicted in such a case, it would be a public intimation that a man of good character might, on emergency, commit a forgery with a reasonable ground for assuming that he would not be punished for it. That, it seemed to him, would be an application of the Probation Act which would make it mischievous instead of useful. Notwithstanding the fact that the penalty would probably fall more severely on others than upon accused himself, he must pass a sentence of six months’ imprisonment, with hard labor, in each case, the sentences to be concurrent. The common jury were then discharged, and the criminal session closed at 11.35 a.m. BREACH OF PROMISE. The case in which Amelia Robertson sued Thomas Eastern Empire Jefcoate, for £3OO for a breach of promise of marriage resulted in a fiasco. The girl had compromised the matter by accepting £25 and leaving the district. Mr White, who appeared on her behalf, said she had done this without the knowledge of her next friend, who would have to pay all costs. Jas, Henderson, blacksmith, stated that is was at the girl’s own wish that the action was commenced. She was not yet 18. He knew nothing of the settlement till Friday night, after the girl had gone away. He also gave evidence of defendant’s position. He was a large farmer, with 600 acres of crop this year; but he did not know whether it was his own farm or not. Ultimately payment was given for £25, and costs on the lowest scale, iuyqrcb, Richard Earl y. Sarah Ellen Earl and' Henry Offer, Mr Raymond for petitioner; respondent and co-respondent were not represented. Petitioner showed that he was married at Tlmaru in September 1876 (wife’s maiden name Foster). They lived together till March last and fla,d six children, now from 14 down to 6 years of age; On the 17th March respondent left Tiraaru with one Offer, a cook or steward on the brig Rib Logo, and he had not seen her since. He intercepted a letter to '

his daughter, in his wife’s handwriting, and from it learned that she was in Sydney living with Ofter as his wife. After some further evidence was taken a rule nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. APPEALS. The appeal of Stephen Pannenter against a conviction for supplying drunken men with liquor was called on, Mr White for appellant, Mr C. Perry for respondent , Constable Hallet (the informant in the lower court). Mr Perry took a preliminary objection that the case was not before the court at all. An order for a writ to remove the appeal from*the District Court to the Supreme Conrt had been obtained by appellant, but that step had not ; been followed up by obtaining the writ for removal. After a good deal of argument His Honour upheld Mr Perry’s objection, and said that as the appeal was not properly before the court he could not do any tiling with it. In the case of R. H. Pekrpoint v. C. B. Sherratt, in which the appeal was against the decision of the Resident Magistrates Court in the bull case at Geraldine, Mif White appeared for the appellant and Mr Raymond for the defendant. The chief grounds of the appeal were that there w»s no mention in either information or conviction that the offence was committed in contravention of a by-law.; that there was no evidence of the incorporation of the town district, or that it had been proclaimed; that the by-law was bad, as it had not been advertised in a local paper; that the conviction was signed by only one of the presiding justices. Mr Raymond argued that every thing had been done correctly, and the court reserved its decision.