ACCUSED DISCHARGED.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLV, Issue 10384, 1 May 1925, Page 8

ACCUSED DISCHARGED.

A SUCCESSFUL APPEAL. GUESSING CONTEST SEQUEL. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, April 30. The Appeal Court has given its decision in the case Rex v. Blazina. At the trial in the lower Court his Honor Mr Justice Herdman held against the contention that there was no offence, as there had been no attempt on the part of accused to extort anything for herself. The Court held that the term " gam anything" from any person means "gain anything for the offender himself," but " extort anything" is different in meaning. A person may be guilty under Section 269 of the Crimes Act, 1908, although his only interest was to extort something for another without gain for himself. In that case all accused demanded was that the tea-set should be returned to the Manga wai Hall Committee, North Auckland, the donor of the prize. Such demand does not come within the section, and is not in the nature of blackmail. ' ! . There was no evidence on which the jury, if the question had been left to it, would have been justified in finding intent to extort anything from Nitz. The verdict ought to be set aside and the accused discharged.

[The case arose out of a guessing competition, in which a man named Ronald Nitz won a tea-set. Mrs Lena Blazina, wife of another competitor, wrote two anonymous letters, in which she threatened to accuse him of a crime unless he handed back the set. Approached by the police, Mrs Blazina admitted writing the letters, stating that she had been informed of the facts by her husband and a friend, and that she was unaware that she was doing wrong in threatening Nitz with a criminal action. Counsel for accused at the trial contended that the facts did not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 260 of, the Crimes Act, inasmuch as it was not proved that there was any intention on the part of accused to extort anything for herself.]