UNUSUAL TURN.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20622, 11 August 1932, Page 15

UNUSUAL TURN.

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL . CASE. WITNESS MENTIONS MAKING OF BANKOTES. (PItESS AS3OCUTION TZLEOaiM.) AUCKLAND, August 10. The evidence in a Supremo Court case took an unusual turn during the cross-examination of a witness to-day. Phillip Solomons, agod 4r>, a printer, was charged with aiding and counselling two men named Morton and Gousmett, to commit the crime of false pretences by cashing valueless cheques. Morton and Gousmett, who are now in prison for other offences., were called as Crown witnesses. Morton, in evidence yesterday, made reference to a man named Parker, aud said that he and Gousmett went to Parker to borrow a sack. He refused to say why they wanted the sack, but said a portion of the money he received I by cashing one cheque- was given to Parker. Gousmett, in evidence to-day, was a«ked why he went to Parker's place and replied; "You should ask Solomons." Counsel for the defence: 1 want you to tell us. Witness: Do I have to answer? His Honour: Yes, you inu.st. Witness: It was just to see if something that was being made was finished. HSs Honour: What was it? Witness protested that it had nothing to do with the case. His Honour: What was it? Witness: Banknotes. His Honour: The banknotes were being made by whom? Witness: By Parker and Solomons. His Honour'asked if witness was referring to the time when a lot of counterfeit notes were circulated in Auckland. _ Witness replied that he was referring to new notes. Jury's Question. After some further questioning, the foreman of the jury asked if the evidence of Parker could be taken. The Crown Solicitor: I don't know Parker at all. Ho has not been examined for the purposes of the police case in this matter. Maybe the police would regard him as a hostile witness. • His Honour to the foreman. I don't know whether he is available or not. It is impossible for me to say. However, ho is not to be called, and you have to decide the case on the evidence given. Counsel for Solomons submitted that outside Morton and Gousmett there was no evidence against accused. Both witnesses were admitted criminals, and were accomplices not only in this but in other cases. After a retirement of three and a half hours the jury returned a verdict of guilty against Solomons. Sentence was postponed.