AFTER EIGHTEEN MONTHS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 142, 17 June 1926, Page 10

AFTER EIGHTEEN MONTHS.

SALAMAN LOSES HIS APPEAL. WILL SERVE MONTH'S SENTENCE. An echo of the case against Abraham Walley Mohamed Salaman, which created a great deal of interest in November, 1924, was heard in the Supreme Court this morning when he appealed against the judgment of the magistrate who sentenced him to one month's imprisonment for attempted false pretence. Mr. Osburne Lilly appeared for the appellent and Mr. McKay for the respondent, Herbert Chesson.

Mr. Lilly stated that in the Lower Court two informations were laid against Salaman. One was obtaining money on false pretence and the second count was attempting to obtain money by false pretence. The magistrate found the accused guilty of the major offence, inflicting a fine, then dismissed the charge and imposed a sentence of one month on the minor count. He was concerned with the question whether the magistrate had the power to alter the records. His Honor: You say that if a man is discharged on a major charge he cannot be sent to gaol on the minor count? Mr. Lilly: That is so, sir. There being vtwo informations and being found guilty on one he could not be convicted on the other. His Honor: The greater includes the less. The criminal code holds this. Mr. Lilly submitted that there was a difference. The facts actually proved the major offence and the doing of the deed made that beyond the question of the attempt. His Honor said he did not ccc that it did make a difference. It led up to the other events, and if a man was charged with an attempt and the prosecution proved that the attempt was successful it could not be said that the offence had not been proved. Mr. Lilly: Doesn't it make a difference, sir, that having been found guilty he was discharged? His Honor: The two informations were like an indictment with two counts, and as with a jury, so with a magistrate, the prisoner can be acquitted on one count and found guilty on the second. It is a constant practice, and when a jury finds a man not guilty on the first count and guilty on the eeeond he can receive sentence, and that is what the magistrate did. There is no doubt that the magistrate inadvertantly made a blunder, but it does not operate against the prisoner but for him. The error was rectified and held by the Court of Appeal to be within the power of the magistrate. The accused will get back his fine. His Honor dismissed the appeal with costs, and that means that Salaman will now have to serve the sentence imposed over 18 months ago, but which has been held up while various appeals have been made.