ABETTING CHARGE DISMISSED

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27667, 25 May 1955, Page 8

ABETTING CHARGE DISMISSED

CASE FOR ASHBURTON BUILDER The charge against Archibald Henry Bradford, a builder, of abetting and counselling Allan Arthur Butler in making a false declaration to obtain a suspensory loan from the State Advances Corporation was dismissed by Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., in the Ashburton Magistrate’s Court yesterday; Butler was convicted and fined £2O tor making the false declaration, when the case opened on Monday. “There is no evidence to support the charge that Bradford abetted and counselled Butler to make a false declaration, or even,to show he knew that the declaration was going to be made," said Mr Lee. “There is no doubt that the accused’s conduct in this case has been reprehensible in the extreme, but the Court is not here to judge his commercial morality." Evidence for the prosecution, conducted by Detective-Sergeant A. B. Tate, of Christchurch, was taken/on Monday. In his submissions yesterday on behalf of Bradford Mr R. A. Young said that there was no charge to answer. He submitted that there was no evidence before the Court to show that the defendant abetted or counselled Butler to make the declaration. It could not be said that Bradford aided and abetted Butler when tne figure given to the State Advances was merely a repetition of one first quoted to do with the house in Dorie, which was never built, in 1951—two years before the alleged offence, he said. In the strictly legal sense, Mr Young submitted, there was never any contract between Butler and Bradford, but between Butler and the limited liability company which Bradford represented. The invoice that had been produced in evidence was not part of the declaration. The only evidence against Bradford was that of Butler, who was an accomplice, Mr Young said, and on a charge of this nature there was statutory provision that no one should be convicted on the unsupported evidence of an accomplice. There was no common purpose, as there was no gain for Bradford in,the matter. If the State Advances had granted a suspensory loan on the false declaration, the only benefit was to Butler. Detective-Sergeant Tate said that Bradfords conduct throughout had been consistent with his having assisted Butler, even though their physical contact had been rare. The documents produced in the case had included a contract that showed a price that was not a true price, for the house, and Butler had paid Bradford £5OO for which he had received two receipts. There were also the two different showing two different prices, and the gain to Bradford had nothing to do with the charge as long as the other ingredients were proved. The Magistrate dismissed the charge.