SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2836, 29 July 1916, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

AN APPEAL CASE. An important point of law was involved in a case oil appeal which came hefore His Honour the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court yesterday. It wa-, nu appeal by Eugene prancis M'Carthy against a decision of Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., convicting him of the theft of a number of articles of cutlery in August last. The information against .M'Carthy alleged hr> committed theft of a c|uantif,y of cutlery, Ihe property of some person or persons unknown. At the hearing ownership of the goods was not proved, M'Carthy alleged he bought the goods from a man he met in nu hotel. Counsel for the appellant contended that as ownership of the goods had not been proved there was no proof that the goods were stolen. That it was essential in every information for theft to first positively prove the property mentioned in such information -was stolen, and thai as that; had not been proved, the conviction was bad.

Counsel cited several cases in support of his argument. Counsel for the respondent contended that the whole of the circumstances had to be taken into consideration, and if the Court could infer from those circumstances that the goods were stolen ; t was justified in coming to that conclusion, notwithstanding ownership of the goods was not proved or known. After considerable argument, His Honour reserved his decision.

• Mr. P. V\. Jackson appeared for appellant, and Mr. P. S.' K. Macassey, of : the Crown Law Office for the respondent.