SHARE TRANSFER

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 61, Issue 4, 16 October 1940, Page 3

SHARE TRANSFER

ADMISSION IN COURT.

NO “TRICKERY” INTENDED

fPor Press Association)

CHRISTCHURCH, October 15

A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury in the ease against Donald Ottrey Austin Knight, a salesman, in the Supreme Court. Knight was charged with theft in failing to account for moneys received from the sale of shares in Lange’s Mobile Gas Producer, Ltd. The verdict was returned at the direction of Mr Justice Northcroft aftei Robert Stewart Lange bad admitted, when cross-examined, that Knight was entitled to sell shares transferred to him by Lange. The case for the defence was not called.

The charges against Knight were that he committed theft in failing to account for moneys received for shares on terms requiring him to account for them to Lange’s Mobile Gas Producer Ltd. They concerned £6O obtained from Arthur Shaw on December 15, £lO from James Mayo, of Ouruhia, on December 8, and £SO from Richard William Gill, of Blenheim, on December 13.

Questioned by Mr G. S. Thomas, counsel for Knight, about the transfer of 400 shares by him to Knight, Lange, managing-director of Lange’s Mobile Gas Producer, Ltd., Christchurch, said that on his part no ’’trickery” was intended.

His Honor: You knew the document was not genuine?

Lange: As far as 1 was concerned, it was genuine. It was so that he would be entitled to sell. His Honor: Entitled to sell? Lange: I didn’t really mean that.

His Honor: The transactions meant either that Knight was buying shares to be paid for in the future, and that he was entitled to soli, or it was a trick. You say it wasn’t a trick. Lange: That’s so.

His Honor then said he would not take the case any further, and counsel agreed that lie should address the jury.

“The case has taken an unusual turn,” said his Honor to the jury. “The witness had to acknowledge either that the transfer of 400 of his shares to Knight was a trick or a humbug to mislead prospective investors, or that it was a genuine transfer to Knight to be paid for later. The Crown set out to prove that Knight had no shares of his own to sell, only the company’s shares, which he had to account for. If, in addition, he was the owner of shares he could do what lie liked with the money he received, though morally and legally he would have to pay Lange lor the shares transferred to him. It appears that the Crown cannot take the case further and that dishonesty has not been proved. You can take it as a direction from me that there is no evidence to justify you in finding him guilty.”

Without retiring, the jury found Knight not guilty.