DEFENCE WITHDRAWN

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 32, 1 November 1929, Page 8

DEFENCE WITHDRAWN

ISSUE OF A LICENSE EILERS AND THOMAS FINED Owing to the fact that Lancelot Louis John Eilers and Clifford James' Thomas, who were being tried in the Supreme Court on charges of forging and attempting to utter a motor driver's license, decided to reverse their pleas and withdraw their defence, the case ended suddenly yesterday morning. The Chief Justice (Hon. M. Myers) on the bench. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey prosecuted. Mr. H. H. Cornish represented Eilers and Mr. H. J. V, James appeared for Thomas. When the case was resumed, Mr. Cornish said that he and Mr. James had careTtjlly considered the situation. On Wednesday he had outlined the defence that the license was not a false document, that a legal defence would lie. His Honour had indicated his view, and, added counsel, he could see that, in His Honour ■ opinion, the defence was not a valid defence at law. The facts outlined by the Crown Prosecutor were never intended to be’denied by Eilers, who had defended the case, firstly in order that he might not lose his position with the City Council, and secondly that the stigma of a common forger might not rest upon Elm. In view of all the circumstances, counsel felt that the Court would recognise that, although what was done was represensible, the offence was a technical one. He bad accordingly advised Eilere. who had decided to withdraw his defence, and plead guilty. Eilers sincerely regretted the stunidity and the folly of the offence. Mr. James also intimated that his client would withdraw his defence and plead guilty. There could be no doubt,, said His Honour, that both men did very stupid things, and he was quite sure that both realised it. The Crown Prosecutor had very properly said that the case was not a serious one of its type. It was not, although, from another point of view, it might be. His Honour was sure that it had never occurred to Eilers that he was committing forgery. He issued a license on September 9. and, at Thomas's request, had ante-dated it, September 7. No one was defrauded, but the object for which Thomas asked for the license to be ante-dated was to take it to the police, to whom it would appear that it had been issued prior to his having been accosted by a constable. His Honour added that he did not intend to admit the men to probation, because anyone seeing the record twenty years hence might be led to assume that it was an ordinary case of forgery, and one of a serious nature. The same thing might apply if they were ordered to come up for sentence if called upon. He proposed to fine each man £2, and to order them to pay the costs of the prosecution. £lO 6s.

“Seeing that Eilers is a man of exceptionally good character,” added His Honour, “and that he has been led into this more or less technical offence —it is a matter of good nature, after all—l should thing the Corporation would be amply justified in not visiting, his offence with the punishment, of dismissal.”