AN UNUSUAL CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLIV, Issue 10106, 7 May 1924, Page 8

AN UNUSUAL CASE.

NO LEGAL PRECEDENT. CREAM SUPPLIERS CHARGED. (Per Press Association.) PALMERSTON INORTH, May 6. The local sessions of the Supreme Court opened this morning.'True bills

were returned in five cases, m whicii Henry Simpson was charged with Arthur Melvin Taylor, John Jens Sorens Thomasen, Otta Kreegher, Richard Gairgan and Alfred Wright, with conspiring to defraud in connection with the"supply of cream to the ChelDairy Company. . The first case was heard against Simpson and Thomasen, who were charged that during October last they conspired to defraud the Cheltennam Dairy Company of £B9 18s by means 01 false cream tests. . Simpson pleaded guilty, and Thomasen not guilty. Simpson left the dock, and the trial against the second accused was proceeded with. . Addressing the jury, the Crown prosecutor said that while there was no question that the company had been defrauded of a certain sum, the amount set out in the charge was merely speculative, and the probable loss to the company by accused t> alleged conduct. The way the alleged fraudulent conspiracy was found out was somewhat unusual. When Simpson was absent from work at the. factory, owing to illness, the tests went down, but when he returned a few weeks later the tests immediately went up again, and the suspicions of the «o m P l an . v were aroused. Defendant, with others involved, was given an opportunity o, explaining. They attended a meeting of directors and counsel claimed that the offence was practically admit cNo witnesses were called for the defC An extraordinary legal situation arose when the jury returned with a verdict and in the case of Thomasen of not guilty of conspiracy, but guilty of defrauding the company, through Simpson's neglect. + „„„ n The verdict caused some consternation his Honour confessing that lie could not understand it. He pointed out that the question was . wbethei accused Thomasen had conspired with Simpson, with intent, to • The foreman: The ]ury finds that there was no" agreement between the tW His m Honour: In that case I shall take the finding u one of notpurity. Does the jury understand that Simp son has already peaded guilty to having conspired with Thomasen? The foreman: The jury dealt with the case from Thomasen's point of view and found that he had no part in d The°CmwTp'rosecutor suggested that the jurv should be asked to reconsider it. verdict, but this was fallowed His Honour said the best way would be to discharge Thomasen, and as other charges were pending.aganist him that he should be detained toll

to-morrow. ~ ~ , The Crown Prosecutor said that Simpson should be allowed to withdraw his plea and- be discharged His Honour: But he will have been arraigned on a criminal charge and discharged without trial or plea. As ft required two to form a conspiracy, Simpson, according to the jury, was not guilty. „, , . rx n „ n „ r In addressing Simpson, his Honour laid- "You have pleaded guilty to conspiracy. You may have thought you were guilty, but the jury has found that there was no conspiracy. The Crown Prosecutor searched vainly for a parallel case. Both prisoners were discharged, though Simpson was detained on other similar charges in respect to several >cher farmers.